ARTICLE I. Touching the Creede.

The KINGS Confession. I Am such a Catho­licke Christian, as beleeueth the three Creedes, That of the Apostles, that of the Councel of Nice and that of Atha­nasius, the two latter being Para­phrases to the former: And I beleeue them in [Page 134]that sense, as the Auncient Fathers and Coun­cels that made them did vnderstand them. To which three Creedes all the Ministers of Eng­land do subscribe at their Ordination. And I al­so acknowledge for Orthodoxe all those other formes of Creedes, that eyther were deuised by Councels or particular. Fathers, against such Heresies as most raigned in their times.

To this Article Coeffeteau findeth nothing to re­ply, and holding his peace thereupon, hee iustifieth vs by his silence.

ARTICLE II. Touching the Fathers in generall.

AS for the Fathers, I reuerence them as much and more then the Iesuits doe,The KINGS Confession.and as much as themselues e­uer craued. For what euer the Fa­thers for the first fiue hundred yeares did with an vna [...]ime consent agree upon, to be beleeued as a necessary point of saluation, I eyther will beleeue it also, or at least will be humbly silent, not taking vpon me to condemne the same.

Here againe Coeffeteau is silent, and knoweth not what to reprehend. The Reader may please to call [Page 135]to minde that the points in which his Maiesty of England doth abstaine to condemne the Fathers, albeit his beleefe is not bound to follow them, are eyther points not necessary to saluation, or opini­ons in which as well our Church as the Church of Rome doth condemne them. The Auncients for the most part held that the fall of the Diuels came to passe by reason of their cohabitation with wo­men. This is altogether false and a point little im­portant to our saluation: They held also for the most part, that the soules shall all be purged by the fire of the last iudgement, in the expectation of which day, the soules as well of the good as of the bad, are shut vp in certaine receptacles. And in this point they are neyther followed by vs nor by our Aduersaries.

ARTICLE III. Touching the Authority of the Fathers in particular.

The KINGS Confession. BVt for euery priuate Fathers opi­nion, it bindes not my conscience more then Bellarmines; euery on of the Fathers vsually contra­dicting others, I will therefore in that case fol­low S. Lib. 2. cont. Cresconi­um cap. 32. Augustines rule in iudging of their opinions, as I finde them agree with the Scrip­tures: [Page 136]what I finde agreeable thereunto I will gladly embrace: what is otherwise I will (with their reuerence) reiect.

Doctor Coeffeteau dooth yet approue of all this for good, seeing he saith nothing to the contrary. He acknowledgeth then that the Fathers often disagree among themselues, and that they doe not alwayes accord with the word of God, neyther must we settle our selues alwayes vpon what some one Father hath taught.Causa 12. Quaest. 1. Canon Dile­ctissimi. Deni (que) quidam Graecorum sapi­entissimus, haec ita sciens esse colam, debeatur ait Amicorum comia esse omnia In omnibus au­tem sunt sine du bio & Coniuges. And indeed his Maiesty of England saith this with iust reason: for not we alone, but also the Church of Rome doth not al­low the opinion of Pope Clement the first, who would that mens goods and their wiues should be common among Christians. Neyther doth the Church of Rome approue the opinion of Ignatius who in the Epistle to the Philippians, saith, that to fast on the Saterday or on the Sunday, it is to be a murtherer of Iesus Christ: nor the doctrine of Iu­stin Martyr, who saith in his Dialogue against Try­phon, That God in the beginning gaue the Sunne to be adored. Nor the opinion of Athanagoras in his A­pologie, that [...]. That se­cond marriage is but a handsome Kinde exercise of Adulterie. Also the Church of Rome doth not be­leeue with Origen, that the Diuels shall be saued: Nor with Clemens Alexandrinus in the sixth booke of his Stromata, that the Greeks were saued by their Philosophy. Nor with Arnobius in his second booke, that God is not the Creator of soules: And [Page 137]that the soules of the wicked are reduced to no­thing. Nor with Ireneus, Lib. 2. cap. 63.64 that the soules separated from the body haue feete and handes. Iustin was a Chiliast; Tertullian a Montanist; S. Cyprian an A­nabaptist. Saint Hilary in his tenth booke of the Trinity, mayntaineth in diuers places,Virtus corporis, sine sensu paenae, vim paenae in se desaeuientis ex­cepit. Christus cum ci­bū & potum ac­cepit, non neces­sitati corporis sed consuetudmi tri­buet. Secundam duce­re, secundum praeceptumo A­postoli licitum est, ecundum autem veritatis rationem verè fornicatio est. He saith the same about the end of his booke, De fide & Symholo. that Iesus Christ in his death suffered no paine. And that he did not eate because his body had neede of suste­nance, but onely by custome. Chrysostome allead­ged in the Canon, Hac Ratione, in the Cause 31. Question 1. he saith that S. Paul commaunding se­cond mariages, hath spoken against truth and rea­son, and that is truely fornication. Saint Austin in his fift booke of his Hypognosticks, and in his Epi­stles 93. and 106. held that the Eucharist is necessary for young children newly borne, that they may be saued. And in his booke De Dogmatis. Eccles. cap. 11. He saith, that the Angels are Corporeal and in his booke of the Christian combat, cap. 32. he sayth that our bodies after the Resurrection shalbe no longer flesh nor blood, but an heauenly body. Gregory of Nyssa, in his first Sermon of the resurrection, tea­cheth a prodigious errour; namely, that the soule of Iesus Christ was already in the graue, euen then whiles he celebrated the Eucharist, and that his bo­dy was already dead. Lactantius in his fourth booke and fourteenth Chapter dooth formally denie the Diuinity of Iesus Christ: and in his seuenth booke and one and twenty chapter, he saith that the soules of men, as well good as bad, In vna communi (que) cu­stodia detinentur, are detained in one common pri­son. [Page 138]Saint Gregory Nazianzen in his Sermon of Baptisme, willeth, that vnlesse it be in case of vrgent necessity, the Baptisme of young children be defer­red vntill such time as they may be capable to aun­swere, and to yeeld account of their faith. Himselfe in his Epitaph vpon Basill, doth preferre him before Enoch, Contemninus. n. Phegor & om­nem ignominiam eius; scientes quod qui in car­ne sunt, non pos­sunt placere Deo and compareth him to Abraham. Saint Ie­rome in his first booke against Iouinian, often calleth marriage an vnchast state of life, and an ignominy, and that the fruite of it is death; and that a woman that doth marry the second time, ought not to par­ticipate of the Almes, no nor of the body of the Lord. The Church of Rome doth no longer be­leeue the Purgatorie of Gregory the first, which hee placeth sometimes in Bathes, sometimes in the winde, sometime in the water. Nor the opinion of Honorius Bishop of Rome, who was a Monothe­lite: the Epistles whereof are inserted in the fift and sixt generall Councels. For all these good ser­uants of God were subiect to mistaking, and had their faults and vices like warts in a faire face; to the end that in reading them a man should haue al­wayes in his hand the Compasse of the holy Scrip­ture, and the rule of the word of God. And that a man should beleeue that which they haue well said, not because they haue said it, but because it is found in the word of God: if they erre in any thing, Antiquity cannot authorize an errour. There can be no prescription against the truth. And a time there was when these Fathers were no Fathers; and before they wrote, the Christians were ruled by the word of God.

As touching that which the King of great Bri­taine saith, that they doe contradict one another: the verification of it is easie. For euery man kno­weth the contentions betweene Chrysostome and E­piphanius; the Disputes betweene Cyrill and The­odoret; the sharpe Epistles, and full of gall of Saint Ierome to Saint Austin. And S. Austin speaketh farre otherwise of Free-wil, of Predestination, and of the gift of Perseuerance, then all the Greeke Fathers of his age. He that will haue a cleare mirrour of this their discord, let him compare the Commentaries of S. Austin vpon the Psalmes, with those of Saint Ierome, and he shall scarcely finde them to agree in two verses together.

It is then with very iust reason that Coeffeteau doth graunt this to the King of great Britaine, and doth acknowledge the faults and contradictions of the auncients, whom notwithstanding we ought to loue and honour as great lights in their times, and worthy seruants of God, who hauing combat­ted Heresies in their life time, doe yet beat downe Popery after their deaths.

For we maintaine, against whosoeuer he be, that in the foure first ages (and yet wee might discend much lower) there shall not be found out any one man who hath had a Religion not so much as ap­proaching to that of the Romish Church now-a-dayes. And in this challenge I will lay downe my Ministers cloake, ready to be frocked and cladde in a Monks-coule, if I shall finde a man that will satis­fie me in this point.

And to the end to expresse my selfe more clear­ly, I say, that betweene vs and our aduersaries, there be two kindes of Controuersies: for some there be vpon which they are wont to produce some pas­sages for proofes. But eyther they be quotations altogether false, or maimed and curtalled, or of no vse to proue the point in question, or else places ta­ken contrary to the authours meaning. Yet being a thing ordinary with these Messieus to put the an­cient Fathers vpon the racke to make them speake in fauour of an vntruth. Such is the question of transubstantiation, of praying for the dead, or Pur­gatory, and of the Sacrifice of the Masse. But there are other Controuersies no lesse important, and more in number: In which they are cleane desti­tute of all authority of the auncient Church; and vpon which being interrogated, they answere be­sides the matter. For changing the question, they endeauour to proue that which is not demaunded of them. See here some examples:

• 1. They cannot shew that any auncient Church did celebrate the eucharist without communicants as it is done ordinarily in the Church of Rome, yea and sometimes also without any assistants.
• 2. They cannot shew that any ancient Church hath excluded that people from the communion of the cuppe or chalice.
• 3. Or that in any ancient Church, the publike ser­uice was done in a language not vnderstood of the people.
• 4 Or that any ancient Church hath hindered the [Page 141]people from reading the holy Scripture. As it is no way permitted in those Countries where the Pope is absolutely obeyed, without speciall priuilege.
• 5. Or that in any ancient Church they haue made Images of God, and representations of the Trinity in stone or in picture.
• 6. Also they cannot proue vnto vs that in any an­cient Church the people hath beene instructed to pray without vnderstanding that which they say, speaking in a tongue not vnderstood of himselfe that prayeth.
• 7. Or that any ancient Church did yeeld worship or religious seruice to the Images of creatures, kis­sing them, decking them with robes, kneeling be­fore them, and presenting them gifts and offe­rings, &c.
• 8. Or that the ancient Church hath beleeued, that the Virgin Mary is crowned Queene of the hea­uens, and Lady of the world, as this is painted throughout all their Churches.
• 9. Or that the ancient Church hath giuen to the Saints diuers charges, as to one the commaund e­uer such a country; to another the cure ouer such a maladie, to a third to be Patron ouer such a trade and mysterie.
• 10. Or that the ancient Church hath beleeued that the Pope can giue and take away Kingdomes. And dispense with subiects for the oath of their allea­geance. Can canonize Saints, and dispense with Vowes and promises solemnly made to God, &c.
• 11. Or that in the ancient Church the Pope by his [Page 142]pardons did distribute supererogatory satisfactions of the Saints, for the remission of paine and punish­ment of other mens sinnes.
• 12. Or that the Pope did then place his pardons in one Church and not in another; In one Towne and not in another, and that sometimes for an hun­dred, and two hundred thousand yeares of pardon.
• 13. Or that the auncient Church hath beleeued the Limbe of little children.
• 14. Or that the auncient Church hath adored the host, which the Priest holdeth vp, with the wor­ship of Latria, which is done to God alone. And to this end the Priest hath caused the Eleuation of the Host to be vsed at the Masse.
• 15. Or that the auncient Church hath held the bookes of Machabees for Canonicall.
• 16. Or that the auncient Church hath beleeued that the Bishop of Rome cannot erre in faith.
• 17. Or that the auncient Church hath beleeued, that Iesus Christ by his death and sufferinges did clearely discharge vs of the paine and punishment of the sinnes that went before baptisme. But as touching the paine of the sinnes committed after baptisme, he hath onely changed it from eternall to temporall, and that it lyeth in vs to satisfie the iu­stice of God for the same, which is indeede the most important point of all Christian religion.

For he that would descend to smaller things and demaund of Coeffeteau, if in any of the auncients there be mention made of Iubilees, of Agnus Dei, or holy Graines, consecrated Medals, of Cordelier-Friars, [Page 143]or Iacobins, or Iesuites, and an infinite sort of religions and new deuotions I beleeue he would finde himselfe terribly puzled. In all this as in those other seauenteene points before handled, they re­ceiue not the Fathers for Iudges. Those auncient Doctors were not yet arriued to any so high point of learning: But these messieurs our masters supply and support their ignorance in these matters. In o­ther controuersies they admit and receiue the Fa­thers for Iudges, but with this caution and condi­tion that themselues may be Iudges of the Fathers. They allow the auncients to be interpreters of the Scriptures; But themselues will be the interpreters of the auncients, to the end to make them speake thinges contrary to the Scriptures.

ARTICLE IIII. Touching the authority of the holy Scriptures.

The KINGS Confession. I Thinke also that no man doubteth but that I settle my faith and be­leefe vpon the holy Scriptures, ac­cording to the duty of a Christian.

Hereat Coeffeteau holdeth his peace, and by his si­lence approueth the confession of the King of En­gland. For he doth not allow of the blasphemies which his companions disgorge against the sacred bookes of the word of God. He hath not dared to [Page 132]say with Bellarmine, Bellar. lib. 4. de verbo non scrip­to cap. 12. §. Re­spondeo Scriptu­rae finem propriū & praecipuum nō esse vt esset Re­gula Fidei. Dico secundo Scriptu­ram esseregulam Fidei nō totalem sed partialem. that the Scripture is but a peece of a Rule, and not the whole entire Rule of faith. And that it was not properly made to bee the Rule of our faith. It may be also that he doth not approue of Bellarmines saying, who in his fourth Chapter of the fourth Booke of the word not written saith,Quarto. Ne­cesse nosse extare aliquos libros ve­rè diuines, quod certè ex sacris Scripturis hahe­ri nullo modo possunt, &c. that a man cannot know by the testimony of the Scripture, that there be any bookes of diuine inspi­ration (albeit the Scripture doth say it) and his rea­son is, Because we reade aswell in the Alcoran of Maho­met, that the Alcoran was sent from heauen. It may be also that Coeffeteau hath not dared in this place to vse the tearmes of Doctor Charron in his booke called La troisiesme veritè, where he saith that the Scripture is a Forrest to forrage in, where Atheists lie in ambushments, and that by reading it a man becommeth an Atheist. Thou beleeuest, saith he, be­cause thou readest so, thou art not then a Christian.

It is cleare then that his Maiesty of England doth yeeld a thousand times more respect to the holy Scriptures then the Church of Rome, or the Coun­cel of Trent, which ordaineth in the fourth Session, that Traditions be receiued with like affection of pie­ty and reuerence, with the holy Scripture, equalling mens Traditions with Gods diuine ordinances. For the Pope hath letters of credit. And we must presuppose that besides the new-Testament Iesus Christ hath made a Codicill or little booke which the Pope hath in his priuate custody, whence hee draweth the ordinances that are not contained in the Scripture.

Yet this is but little. For Bellarmine goeth far­ther and saith that, Sunt quaedam Traditiones maiores quod ad obligationem, quàm quaedam Scripturae. That there are some traditions greater in respect of obliga­tion, then some partes of Scripture. That is to say, to which we are more bound to adhere. Hauing good hope that in the end we shall see God to become Disciple to the Bishop of Rome.

ART. V. Touching the Canonicall and Apocryphall bookes of Scripture.

The KINGS Confession. In exposit Sym­boli. BVt euen for the Apocrypha; I hold them in the same account that the Auncients did. They are still prin­ted and bound with our Bibles, and publikely read in our Churches. I reue­rence them as the writings of holy and good men: but since they are not found in the Canon, we account them to be secundae lectionis, or ordinis (which is Bellarmines owne distin­ction) and therefore not sufficient whereupon alone to ground any article of faith, except it be confirmed by some other place of Canonicall Scripture; Concluding this point with Ruffi­nus [Page 146] (who is no Nouelist, I hope) that the Apo­cryphall bookes were by the Fathers permitted to be read; not for confirmation of Doctrine, but only for instruction of the people.

Here Coeffeteau begins to put himselfe into the field,In exposit. Symb. we expected him long agoe. He bringeth on­ly two testimonies of the auncients, and they are both false, howbeit not through his fault, for the falsification was made by others before him; The first testimony is of S. Austen in his second booke of Christian Doctrine cap. 8. where he maketh an e­numeration of the Canonical bookes almost agree­ably to the Councell of Trent. To this testimony hee adioyneth the third Councell of Carthage, which also putteth Iudith, Tobie, the booke of Wise­dome, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, among the Canonicall bookes. He saith that it is not iust nor fit to alleage the opinions of particulars, where question is of the publike faith testified & auouch­ed by this Councell.

In saying so little as this he spendeth three leaues,Answere. and yet he contradicteth himselfe, and condemneth himselfe of iniustice by alleaging S. Austin who is but one particular. If he say, that S. Austin doth but report that which was the common beleefe? I ans­were that those particular witnesses whom he reie­cteth doe report the same also. Againe,Tenebit hunc modum in Scri­pturis Canonicis, vt eas quae ab om nibus recipiuntu, Ecclesijs Catho­licis, praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt. it is false that S. Austen doth relate the common beleefe, for a little before he had said, that there are some books among the Canonicall, which were not receiued [Page 147]for such, of al the Churches. Moreouer, Coeffeteau hereby contradicteth the Church of Rome, who doth not hold the Councels of Carthage for gene­rall Councels, nor their Canons for the publike beleefe of the vniuersall Church.

• 1. To cleare this matter then, the Reader shall obserue first, that these bookes, to wit, Tobie, Iudith, the booke of Wisdome, Ecclesiasticus, the Machabees, they are not found in the Hebrew tongue, and con­sequently they are not in the originall of the old Testament, wherein there are but two and twenty bookes.
• 2. Secondly, we ought also to know that the Church of the old Testament neuer acknowledged these bookes, nor receiued into the Church,
  See Eusebius, lib. 8. of his Storie, cap. 10
  as wit­nesseth Iosephus in his first booke against Appion.
• 3. Thirdly, it is also very considerable that Iesus Christ, nor his Apostles, who alleaged vpon euery purpose Texts and passages out of the old Testa­ment, neuer named any of those bookes, nor neuer drew quotation out of any of them.
• 4. Fourthly, the chiefe and principall is, that in these bookes there be many faults, aswell in the Doctrine as in the Storie, whereof
  In my booke intituled the waters of Si­loé, cap. 6.
  we haue else­where produced many proofes. But let vs heare the testimony of the auncients.

S. Hierome in his preface vpon the bookes of Sa­lomon, speaketh of Ecclesiasticus and of the wisdome of Salomon; Sicut ergo Iu­dith & Tobie & Machabaeorum, libros legit quidē Ecclesia, sed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas nō re­cipit, Sic & haec duo volumina le­gat ad aedificati­onem pl [...]bis, non ad authoritatem Christianorum dogmatum con­firmandam. As then the Church doth reade indeede, the bookes of Iudith, of Tobie, and the Machabees, but doth not receiue them among the Canonicall Scriptures, [Page 148]so let it also reade these two volumes for the edification of the people, but not to confirme the faith of the Church. He saith the same in his Prologus Galcatus, and marke by the way, that he saith that it is the beleefe of the Church.

Sciendum tamen est quod & alij libri sunt qui non Canonici sed Ec­clesiastici a ma­ioribus appellati sunt. vt est Sa­piētia Solomonis Ecclesiasticus, li­bellus Tobiae Iu­dith & macabaeo rum [...]libri. —quae omnia legi qui­dem in Ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad authoritatem ex his fidei con­firmandam. Praeter istos sunt ad [...]uc alij eius dem veteris in­strumenti libri non Cononici, qui Catechume­nis tantum le­guntur Sapien­tia Solomonis &c.Amongst the workes of S. Cyprian, there is a Treatise (which seemeth rather to be the worke of Ruffinus) touching the exposition of the Creede. There he reckoneth vp the bookes of the old and the new Testament. Then he addeth: * These are then the bookes which the Fathers haue included in the Cannon or Rule, and from which are drawne the proofs of our faith. Notwithstanding we must know that there are other bookes which the auncients haue not called Ca­nonicall, but Ecclesiasticall bookes, as is the wisdome of Salomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobie, Iudith, and the bookes of the Machabees▪ Then he addeth. All which they would should be reade in the Church, but that they should not be produced to confirme the authority of the faith.

S. Athanasius in his booke intituled Synopsis, na­meth al the bookes of the old Testament according to the Hebrew Bible. Then he addeth: Besides these, there are yet other bookes of the old Testament not Ca­nonicall, which are not read but to the Catechumeni or Nouices, newly taught and catechized, such are the wisdome of Salomon, the wisdome of Iesus, the Sonne of Syrach, Iudith, Tobit, &c.

Melito Bishop of Sardi, as witnesseth Eusebius in his fourth booke of his Hystorie and the fiue and twentith Chapter; Origen in Eusebius sixt booke [Page 149]and foure and twentieth chapter: S. Hilary in his Preface vpon the Psalter: S. Gregory Nazianzen in his verses of the holy Scripture: Eusebius, lib. 3. of his story, cap. 10. Epiphanius in his booke of mea­sures: Damascene himselfe, though long after, in his fourth booke of the Orthodoxe faith, cap. 18. And diuers other Fathers make an enumeration of the bookes of the olde Testament: and yet do they not put in neyther Iudith nor Tobite, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor the booke of VVisedome▪ nor the Maccabees; But rather all with one consent and accord say, that there are but two and twenty bookes in the olde Testament, as many as there bee letters in the Hebrew Alphabet.

And yet further to conuince Coeffeteau, let vs heare the very iudgement of him whom they most honour of all the Popes: And this is Gregorie the first, in his twenty sixe booke of morals vpon Iob, cap. 29. where being desirous to alleadge the booke of Maccabees in the fact of Eleazar, he excuseth him­selfe in these wordes: Of which thing we speake not out of reason, Qua de re non inordinatè agi­mus si ex libris & si non Cano­nicis, sed ad Ec­clesiae aedificatio­nem scriptis testi­monia proferi­mus. if we produce the testimonies of bookes not Canonicall, but written for the edification of the Church. This ought to suffice to represent what was the heleefe of particular men, who being as­sembled together are equiualent to a generallity. Howbeit for the more store and the better supply, let vs heare the Councels.

The Councell of Laodicea, which was almost a­bout the same time, with the first Nicene Coun­cell, setteth ouer the last Canon, this inscription [...]. [Page 150]That is to say, How many bookes there be of the olde Testament that men ought to reade. Then it reckoneth vp the number of them as farre as two and twentie, Genesis, Exodus, Leuiticus, Numbers, Deuteronomie, Ioshua, Iudges, Ruth, Hester, the Kings or Samuel, two bookes; of Kings two bookes; Paralipomena or the Chronicles, Esdras, Psalmes, Prouerbs, Ecclesiastes, Can­ticles, Iob, the twelue Prophets, Esay, Ieremy Baruch, or the Lamentations and Epistles, Ezechiel, Daniel. But of Tobie or Iudith, or the Maccabees, &c. there is no newes. Aboue all it is a thing to be be noted, that this Councell of Laodicea is confirmed by the sixt generall Councell: [...]. at the end of which Coun­cell, the Fathers assembled together in the Palace, made one hundred and three Canons, in the se­cond of which it is said, We doe confirme and ratifie the sacred Canons, made by our holy Fathers at Laodicea of Phrygia. And this was now in the yeare of Iesus Christ, 684.

I adde the fourth Councell of Carthage, which in the Tomes of the Latin Councels, which are horribly mangled and falsified, hath beene very ill handled. For we haue not these Councels in La­tine, but by the meanes of the Church of Rome, who hath deliuered them vnto vs, such as she would her selfe. But she hath not had that power ouer the Greek Coppies, where there is no speech at all of the Maccabees. Reade the Greeke Canons of the Councels, printed at Paris in the yeare 1540. with a Praeface of Iohn du Tillet, and the Canons of [Page 151] Balsamon, and you shall finde that which I say to be true But Coeffeteau being content to write, as Hun­ters breake their Fast, that is, tumultuarily and in hast, hath not had this curiosity.

It remaineth to examine the place of S. Austin, of which euery one that hath a quicke smell, will acknowledge the corruption and falsification: First of all, because it is not credible that this holy Perso­nage would oppose himselfe single to the whole Church of his time, and to all the Doctors that went before him, and namely to the Councell of Carthage, whereat himselfe had beene a present as­sistant. Secondly, because it is not credible that S. Austin would contradict himselfe: for in the sixe and thirty Chapter of the eighteenth booke of the Citie of God, he speaketh thus: The supputation of these times (since the building vp of the Temple) is not found in the holy Scriptures, which are called Canoni­call, but in other bookes, among which are the Macca­bees. Is it possible to say in more plain and expresse termes, that the Maccabees are not holy Scriptures nor Canonicall bookes? But heere wee admire a pretty pleasant folly and stupidity of a taile hand­somely fastened and sowed on by some Monke: for after all this, they make S. Austin to adde, Which bookes not the Iewes, but the Church boldeth for Cano­nicall O grosse Imposture! After that hee had sim­ply set downe that the Maccabees are not holy nor Canonicall Scriptures, would hee say that the Church receiueth them for Canonicall? By the same fraude, this other place of S. Austin which Co­effeteau [Page 152]alleadgeth, hath beene falsified. Let vs adde hereunto that S. Austin, cap. 23. of his second booke against Gaudentius, answereth thus vnto Gauden­tius, who serued himselfe with the example of Ra­zis, who killed himselfe, whereof mention is made in the second booke of the Maccabees. The Iewes do not hold this booke in the same rancke with the law, the Prophets, and the Psalmes to which Iesus Christ beareth witnesse, is they that beare record of him. But this booke is receiued by the Church, not vnprofitably, if men read it soberly: principally because of the sufferings of certaine Martyrs. Who feeth not that he doth wea­ken the authority of these bookes, in that Iesus Christ doth giue no testimony vnto them? And if these bookes haue not beene reckoned for holy Scripture, amongst the faithfull of the olde Testa­ment, I maruell when they became holy Scrip­ture?

It is also a poynt very considerable, that in this place of S. Austin produced by Coeffeteau, Ecclesi­asticus is put among the Canonicall bookes; in which booke it is said, cap. 46. Samuel prophesied af­ter his death, and declared vnto King Saul his death, lifting vp his voyce out of earth. An opinion which S. Austin doth condemne in his booke of Questions on the old Testament, in the 27 Questi­on, saying,Porrò autem hoc esi praestigium Satanae quo vt plurimos fallat etiam bonos se in potestate habere confingit. that it is a great indignity to beleeue it, and maintaineth that it was an illusion of Satan, who to deceiue many, faineth to haue good men in his power. And in his booke of the care that men ought to haue of the dead: after hauing spo­ken [Page 153]doubtfully, he saith, that menHuic libro ex Hebraeorum Ca­none, quia [...]n eo non est, contradi­c [...]tur. controule the booke of Ecclesiasticus, because it is not in the Canon of the Hebrews. And in his booke of the eight Questions to Dulichius, Quaest. 6. he canuasseth this Question by way of Probleme, leaning notwith­standing to the opinion, that it was a meere fan­tasme or vaine apparition. See hereupon the Ca­non Nec mirum in the Cause 26. Quest 6. where al­so S Austin is alleadged; maintayning that this was done by enchantment: Whence I conclude,Caietan. in fin-Commenta [...]orū ad Historiam vet. Test. Ne turberis, No uities si alicubi reperis libros istos inter Cano­nicos supputari, vel in Sacris Con cilijs vel in Sa­cris Doctoribus, Non. n [...]sunt Ca­nonici, id est, re­galares ad pro­bandum ea quae sunt fidei, possunt tamen Canonici dici ad aedifica­tionem fidelium. that S. Austin should contradict himselfe, if after ha­uing refuted the opinion of Ecclesiasticus, he should afterwards put him in the role of the Canonicall bookes.

These falshoods hauing not beene acknowledg­ed by Cardinall Caietan droue him to finde out an­other euasion. Be not astonished or troubled, O thou who art but a Nouice in Diuinity, if somtimes thou find eyther in the Councels or in the Doctors, these bookes to be counted among the Canonicall. For they are not Ca­nonicall to proue the points of faith; Notwithstanding they may be called Canonicall for the edification of the faithfull.

ARTICLE VI. Touching the memory of Saints and of their Feasts and holy dayes.

AS for the Saints departed; I ho­nour their memory, The KINGS Confession. and in honour of them doe wee in our Church ob­serue the dayes of so many of them, as the Scripture doth Canonize for Saints; but I am loath to beleeue all the tales of the Le­gended Saints.

‘Here Coeffeteau beginneth to skirmish without neede.Fol 13. He complayneth for that the King spea­keth onely of solemnizing the memory of those Saints of whom mention is made in the Scrip­ture. He saith that the Church of Smyrna did ce­lebrate the feast of the Martyrdome of Polycarp. That Basil did recommend the Feasts of S. Iulitta, and of the forty Martyrs. That Gregory Nazian­zene did solemnize with the other Christians the Feast of S. Cyprian and S. Gregory of Nissa that of the Martyr Theodore: That Cyprian commanded that they should marke out the dayes of the Pas­sion of the Martyrs, to the end that they migh­celebrate their memories. That S. Austins twenti­eth booke against Faustus Manicheus, cap. 21. saith that the Christian people did celebrate the me­mories of the Martyrs: And yet that S. Polycarpe, S. Iulitta, &c. are no Saints, of whom there is any [Page 155]mention in the Scripture. Hee addeth notwith­standing that the Church of England is in that, lesse irreligious then the Caluinists of Fraunce, who haue cut off all sorts of holy-daies of Saints, aswell Apostles as others. As touching the Le­gends, We are, saith hee, no more credulous of them then you. He saith he doth not receiue mi­racles, vnlesse they be approued by the publique testimony of the Church: and that euen in the first ages they suggested and foysted in, false actes of Martyrs.’

These passages which he alleadgeth are in part false, partly they are of no vse to proue the Questi­on. Let vs begin with the falshood.

First in alleadging out of Eusebius the example of the Church of Smyrna, who buried the bones of Polycarpe with honour, and celebrated his memory Anniuersarily euery yeare, there is no mention made of his Feast or Holy-day, but onely of a day dedicated to the commemoration of his Martyr­dome;Ignorantes nos Christūnunquam relinquere, qui pro totius seruan dorum mundi salute passus est, nec alium quen­quam colere pos­se. Nam hunc quidem tanquā filium Dei ado­ramus, Martyres verò tanquam discipulos & im­mitatores Domi­ni diligimus. which thing was done without any precise necessity of making it holy-day.

Secondly, he doth malitiously dissemble the ex­cellent words which goe before, where the Church of Smyrnaspeaketh in this manner: They are igno­rant that we neuer leaue Christ, who died for the salua­tion of them of the world, who are to be saued, and that we can yeelde seruice to none other but to him: For him we adore as the sonne of God, but we loue the Martyrs as his Disciples and imitators. Wordes which shew to what end, and in what manner the Smyrnians ho­noured the memory of Polycarpe.

So is it also falfe that S. Basill recommendeth the Feasts of S. Iulitta and the forty Martyrs, for in those two Homilies there is no speech at all of Feasts.

But the falfest peece that hee produceth is the Oration of Gregory Nyssene in praise of the Martyr Theodore, which was ridiculously framed by some Greeke Monke, in the time that the Scythians, o­therwise called the Huns and Tartars ouer-ran Ga­latia, Cappadocia, and Armenia; which In Rhodes began in the yeare 520 as both Cedrenus and Zona­ras teach.Cedrenus in A­nastasio, Ann. 23. [...]. For about the ende of this Oration the Authour entreateth this Martyr to defend his Countrey against he incursions of the Scythians: of which there was neuer word spoken in the time of Gregory Nyssene: for they fell out about one hundred and twenty yeares after. The whole story also of this Martyr is euedently fabulous. The Authour saith that he was of Iobs Country, and consequently an Arabian, whereas Theodorus is a Greeke name. Within a little while after, contradi­cting himselfe, he saith that he suffered at Amasia, a Cittie of Cappadocia, and that the place of his death was also his Countrey. He saith that he was a Souldier in the Romane bandes: But at that time (to wit, vnder Dioclesian and Maximinian) the Ro­manes did not entertaine the Arabians in seruice. Moreouer the Story of his Martyrdome is plainely fabulous. Being interrogated and examined by his Paynim Iudges, with all gentlenesse and mildenes, he answered at the first day with iniurious spee­ches, comparing the Godddesse whom they serued [Page 156]to an hare, or to a sow. All this notwithstanding the Iudges sent him away, and gaue him time to be­thinke himselfe aduisedly; he in stead of retracting any thing, set fire on the great Temple of the mo­ther of the Gods: and being called for, againe by the Iudges, confessed the fact: thereupon the Iudges flatter him euen so far, as to promise to this simple souldier (which was a ridiculous thing) to make him Bishoppe. But this Theodore burst out a laughing for a long time together, mocking for that the Emperours tooke vpon them the title and purple of Bishops. The Angels singe melodious­ly with him in prison, and lighten all the Towne ouer with Torches. But he that knoweth how vn­der Dioclesian they burnt whole Christian Townes without any forme of processe; and that this mon­ster made a butchery, a slaughter and channell-house of the whole Empire, will acknowledge the falshood of this Story, which hath beene forged by some worshipper of Images and Reliques about the time of the second Councell of Nice.

I put not in among his falsifications, that Coeffe­teau hath put in the margent the eighteenth Orati­on of Nazianzene for the fifteenth: hee that bor­roweth his Allegations, and writeth vpon trust, is easily deceiued.

Now to his falshoods let vs adde the vnprofita­blenesse of his impertinent quotations, which sure­ly doe not touch the Question: For if the Church of Smyrna did celebrate the feast of Polycarpe, or the Church of Caesaria that of S. Iulitta: what is [Page 158]that to England, who did no more then, then now­adayes it doth celebrate those Feasts, no more then doe the Churches of Spaine or of Fraunce? And why should England be more bound there­vnto now at this day?

Secondly, to what purpose is it, to speake of the Feasts of the auncient Christians, and of the solem­nity of the Martyrs; to establish the Feasts of the Church of Rome, which are cleane different, and haue no community with them. See here the dif­ferences.

• 1 This commemoration of the Martyrs in the auncient Church, was done in the Church-yards and vpon the Tombes: Vpon which the Christi­ans did often celebrate
  Thence com­meth the cu­stome of the Church of Rome to haue bones hid vn­der the Altar. Nonne vides ad memorias Mar­tyrum, Cristianū a Christiano cogi ad ebrietatem?
  the Eucharist, and then fell to banquet vpon the same Tombes, where of­tentimes the Christians committed many a­buses and excesses, euen so farre as to drinke drunke, and to bury their reason vpon those Sepul­chres, as witnesseth the Authour of the booke of Double Martyrdome, attributed to S. Cyprian; and S. Austin in his first booke of the manners of the Ca­tholicke Church, cap. 34. And against
  Qui in memo­rijs Martyrum inebriantur, &c.
  Faustus Ma­nicheus, in his twentieth booke, chap. 1. where name­ly he saith, that he was constrained to tolerate this custome. The Church of Rome hath left this a­buse of the auncient Feasts.
• 2 The commemoration of the Martyrs was done in times past, in euery Church according to the ordinance and appointment of the Bishoppes and Pastors of the place, without attending the [Page 159]commandement or aduise of the Bishop of Rome thereupon,
  In the booke of the holy Ce­remonies, lib. 1. Sect. 6.
  who at that time did not Canonize Saints. For now-adayes to be held a Saint, a man must haue the Pope to bee fauourable vnto him, and his cause must be pleaded in the Consistorie: If it be iudged that he ought to be acknowledged for a Saint, then his Holinesse doth ordaine a Feast or Holy-day to this new Saint.
• 3 Then this solemnity carried with it an An­niuersary commemoration, but did not bring with it any necessity of keeping Holy-day; whereas now-adayes there be many Saints Feasts which they keepe Holy-day with more scruple, and are celebrated with more solemnity, then the Sunday it selfe.
• 4 Againe, then these dayes of commemorati­on of Martyrs were few in number, in stead that now there is scarcely any day in the Calender which doth not carry the name of some Saint. And there is such a number of Feasts to be kept holy, that many poore people crie out, they are famished. They make them deuout whether they will or noe, for they be kept and hindered by this superstition from working to get bread for their children, ha­uing their handes bound with a scrupulous sloth­fulnesse, and a forced idlenesse.
• Epist. 174. No­uam inducendo Celebritatem quam ritus Ec­clesiae nescit, non probat rat [...]o non comme [...]dat an­tiqua Traditio, &c.
  5 Then also men were ignorant of so many new-made holy-dayes, as the feast of the concepti­on of the Virgine Mary, which S. Bernard saith to haue beene instituted against reason, and the aunci­ent Tradition: the Feast of the Assumption: the [Page 160]Feast of S Peters Chaire: the Gods feast, otherwise called Corpus Christi day; to giue him content­ment. For seeing that euery Saint had his Feast, it was iust and reasonable that God should haue his also.
• 6 Then they sung no Masses in honour of the Saint, whose Feast they celebrated. And these Masses carry now a dayes the name of the Saint. There is the Masse of S. Geneuiefue: the Masse of S. Roth: the Masse of S. Anthony, &c. Amongst which Masses, we see in the same rancke, the Masse of the Holy Ghost, to testifie that the rest are not of that stampe.
• 7 Then they did not diuersifie the furniture and preparation for their Masses, in singing great or lesser Masses according, to the greatnesse of the Feast. Men were ignorant also of the distinction of high and low Masses; Drie Masses, and running Masses. Masses in white or in greene. There is no­thing so pie-bald and new-fangled. The Apostles vnderstood nothing in a manner in all this.
• 8 Also in those times, men knew not what it was to ground Feasts vpon an Allusion of Silla­bles. As now adayes the Feast of the Mat-makers which they call Nattices, is the day of the Natiuity of our Lady: the Feast of Fel-mongers is, Magdalen tyde, La Magdalaine, because they make L'amas de Laine an heape of wooll: the Feast of Cooke-rosters is the Assumption of our Lady, because assum is La­tine for rosted: The Feast of the Tylers or Slatters is Ascension day, because they ascende and climbe the [Page 161]tops of houses.
  Because Alga alludeth to Al­geo, which is to quake with colde.
  So in the Physicke Alga aduersus querquerum, as Apuleius speaketh; You must giue Sea­weede or Sea-ore to one that is in a shiuering colde fit of the Ague: Or to giue to a man that is hard bound a bunch of Keyes because there is nothing more o­pening. Oh what a good time haue my Masters the Prelates had, and how haue they dallied with Reli­gion at their idle howers?
• 9 But I would willingly know, how it com­meth to passe, that those auncient Patriarkes; such excellent personages, Abraham, Moses, Dauid, Daniel; to whom there will not any be found compa­rable, of all that haue liued within these fifteene hundred yeares; how they notwithstanding all this, haue no Feasts in the Church of Rome: that no man prayeth in particular to Moses, nor Samuel, &c. that no Temple beareth their name: that it would indeede seeme a thing ridiculous to say S. Moses, or S. Daniel, or S. Iosaphat, seeing that for a man but to beare the name of Isaac, or Daniel, or A­braham, is enough to make a man to be suspected, as a marke of Heresie.

If a man demaund whence commeth this great multitude of Feasts? I say that auarice hath hat­ched them, and that ambition hath bred them vp: for the more Festiuall holy-dayes that there be, the more often men goe to the offering, and the par­dons are more frequent: when artisans and tradse­men shut vp their shoppes, then the Priests open theirs. The Prelates also are herein much honored, for it is a great honour to these great Masters, that [Page 162]at their commaundement the trafficke ceaseth, the shops are shut vp: the Sessions of the Iustices and of the Priuy Councell are by them broken vp. And therefore when they are among themselues, they gaude and mocke at the simplicity of the people. For indeede they liue vpon their blindenes.

Let them then set vp the auncient simplicity a­gaine; let them restore to the Churches the liberty of gouerning themselues heerein according to the exigence of the time and place, and we will not condemne their Feasts. For indeede we doe not condemne this celebration of the memory of Mar­tyrs and of Saints. We like well the custome of the English Churches, who haue certaine dayes af­fected and applyed to the commemoration of the Apostles: for they are done without imposing ne­cessity of keeping strict Holy-dayes, and without opinion of merite, without commandement of the Pope, and without condemning the French Chur­ches, who hitherto haue feared to assigne any Feasts to any man, because that liuing in a Coun­trey where superstitions doe swarme, their people would easily be drawne into abuse, and attainted with that running and ouer-spreading contagion which is to attribute that to the creature, which belongeth to the Creator: Meane while we let not to celebrate in our Churches the memory of the Saints and Martyrs, but without any set day. And we hold this rule for inuariable, that God hauing said in his law, in expresse termes: Sixe dayes shalt thou labour, he opposeth himselfe against God, who [Page 163]saith, Thou shalt not worke sixe dayes, but thou shalt keepe holy those Feasts on the weeke dayes which I com­maund thee. Now if in the old Testament there be found any solemnities or Feasts, besides the Sab­both day, they are very few in number, and orday­ned by God himselfe, who as he can giue the rules, so also can he giue the exceptions: Or if there be any feast found, that was instituted by men: you shall neuer be able to prooue, that it was held vn­lawfull to trauell vpon that day.

There should yet remaine to speake somewhat of Legends; but I see that Coeffeteau is ashamed of them, and would cast the blame vpon some parti­culars. Legends neuerthelesse, which haue beene for a long time, & yet are both in Italy and Spaine the subiect of Sermons; yea very Fraunce is not exempt. And those very miracles of which Coef­feteau is ashamed, are those which we see painted on the walles, and in the hangings of the Church: As at Paris in the Cloyster of S. Geruase, an Asse worshippeth and adoreth the Hoste: neere thereto adioyning, the Bees build a Chappell of waxe, for an Hoste which they found in the fieldes. In the Temple of S. Paul, behinde the Quire, on the left hand, after the miracles of S. Roche painted, promise is made vnto the people, that they shall be healed of the swelling of the plague, by adoring his preti­ous body: at S. Benedict or S. Benets Cloyster wee see the said Saint tumbling himselfe starke naked amongst thornes, and stopping the dogges with the signe of the Crosse. In the forefront of the [Page 164]Church, called Des Billettes, an Hoste being pricked and stabbed by a Iew, bleedeth with great droppes, and being cast into a seething Caldron, became a man in his visible greatnesse, that is to say, Iesus Christ boyling in a Caldron. An infinite compa­ny of such things are so publick, that Coeffeteau can­not condemne them, without opposing himselfe to the whole Church of Rome; Fictions that were built vp by the fauour of the night, whiles they put the holy Scripture, the onely light of our soules vnder a bushell. And indeede very lately there haue beene composed two great Tomes of the Chronicles of S. Frauncis, which challenge all the Legends, and giue place to none of them for lies. Insomuch that S. Dominicke, Coeffeteaus Patron, will henceforward be nothing in comparison of S. Frauncis.

ARTICLE VII. Touching the Virgin Mary.

The KINGS Confession. AND first for the blessed Virgin Mary, I yeelde her that which the Angell Gabriel pronounced of her, and that which in her Canticle she prophesied of her selfe: that is, That she Luc. 1.28. is blessed amongst women, and, Ibid. ver. 48. That all gene­rations shall call her blessed. I reuerence her as [Page 165]the Mother of Christ, whom of our Sauiour tooke his flesh, and so the mother of God, since the Diuinity and Humanity of Christ are in­seperable. And I freely confesse, that she is in glory, both aboue Angels and men, her owne Sonne (that is both God and man) onely excep­ted. But I dare not mocke her, and blaspheme against God, calling her not onely Diua but Dea, and praying her to commaund and con­troule her Sonne, who is her God and her Saui­our. Nor yet can J thinke, that she hath no o­ther thing to doe in heauen, then to heare euery idle mans suite, and bufie her selfe in their er­rands; whiles requesting, whiles commanding her sonne, whiles comming downe to kisse and make loue with Priests, and whiles disputing and brawling with Diuels. In heauen she is in eternall glory and ioy, neuer to be interrupted with any worldly businesse: and there I leaue her with her blessed Sonne, our Sauiour and hers in eternall felicity.

Here Coeffeteau playeth the sugitiue, and that little which he murmureth in flying, are partely falsehoods, partely disguisings of the beliefe of his Church. He graunteth to the King that she ought not to be called Goddesse, and reiecteth with him, [Page 166]a thousand ridiculous things, and the false honours which superstition hath inuented. Now I cannot diuine, what Religion it is that giueth to the holy Virgin ridiculous or excessiue honours, saue onely the Romane Religion. It is onely the Romane re­ligion that calleth her Queene of heauen, the gate of Paradise,Regina coeli p [...]r­ta paradisi Do­mina mundi. hauing rule and dominion ouer the world, they are the Titles which are giuen to her in the prayer that Sixtus the fourth, hath willed to be said before the Image of our Ladie of Loretto, with graunt of eleauen thousand yeares pardon: I my selfe haue seene in the great Miss [...]lles of Paris before the late Popes new plastered them ouer, these Sapphicke verses barborously elegant.

It is also in the Church of Rome, that through­out all the Churches, the Virgin Mary is painted, lifted vp and assumed into heauen in body, and so­lemnly crowned Queene of heauen, and of all the world, without being able to produce any witnes of worth for the same. Seeing there is none that euer came backe from heauen that had said that he had seene it to be so; And God saith nothing of it in his word, neither doth the Auncient Church speake of it.

It is the Church of Rome also which maketh the Virgin Mary much more inclined to procure our good, then Iesus Christ; euen so farre, as that shee [Page 167]must appease the wrath and indignation of her sonne against vs, as they sing vpon the Feast of Al­hallowes, or Al-Saints.

And so Pope Innocent the third speaketh in the Hymne of Christ and the Virgin, to which hee ad­deth great indulgences.

This Church of Rome who in her houres, Rosa­ries, and Letaines calleth the Holy Virgin, Mother of mercie, Gate of Heauen, our Saluation, She that hath bruised the head of the Serpent, as also Genesis 3.15. this propertie of bruising the Serpents head, which is there giuen to the seede of the Woman, in the vulgar translation is attributed to the Woman by a wicked falsification.

In a word, for the toppe of all abuses, there are in the Church of Rome two Psalters of our Ladie, one of which is called Saint Bonauenture Psalter, which is nothing else but the one hundred and fifty Psalmes of Dauid, in which they haue taken away the name of God▪ and in it's roome haue put the name of Mary, which hauing beene printed an in­fiuite number of times in Latine, hath since beene [Page 168]translated into French and printed at Paris,At Paris by Claudius Chappe­let in S. Iames his street at the signe of the Vni­corne. 1601. Printed at Paris by Nicolas du Fosse in S. Iames his streete at the golden pot 1601. with priuilede and approbation, of the Sorbonne. The other Psalter is digested into fifteene Demaunds, with like approbation of the Doctrines: In which the Virgin Mary is called, the first cause of our sal­uatiō, the finder out of grace, that turneth away the indignation of Iesus Christ by vncouering her paps vnto him, The Rose by whose smell the dead are raised vp, who by the faire Lillies of her face, made the King of Heauen in loue with her, who at the last day shall moderate the sentence of the Iudge, euen so far haue they proceeded, as to place her before Iesus Christ in these wordes. Glory be to you, O Virgin, and to Iesus Christ, &c. It would doe well to report the wole booke.

Moreouer euery one knoweth how in Italy they speake with much more respect of La madoma, then of God; whom they call by a terme full of mis-re­gard, Messer Domene Dio, Lect. 80. Confu­gimus primo ad beatissiman vir ginem coelorum reginam: cui Rex regum pa­ter celestis dimi­dium regni sui dedit. Quod sig­nificatum est in Ester regina: Sic pater coelestis cum habeat in­stitiam & mise­ricordiam, iusti­tia sibi retenta, misericordiam matri virgini concessit. Of whom also Gabriel Biel a famous Doctor saith in his exposition of the Ca­non of the Masse, That God hath diuided his King­dome at halfes, with the Virgin Mary, hauing reserued Iustice to himselfe, and left mercy vnto her.

Now these things are not drawne out of any obscure authours, but out of their owne Missalles Letonies, and publicke prayers, out of the writings of their Popes, and Psalters publickly allowed; to the end that Coeffeteau may know, that in condem­ning these things, hee warreth against the whole Church of Rome, and commeth no longer with a cold dissimulation to disguise his owne priuate be­leefe.

Which shall serue for an answere to that place of Cyril w^ch he alleadgeth, where the virgin Mary is called the singular ornamēt of the world. A lampe that neuer goeth out, the Crown of Virginitie, &c. For in all this, there is not any one of these titles wicked (such as are those which we haue before represen­ted) no nor the title which Coeffeteau giueth her, cal­ling her the Spouse of the Father, which is a title, which the Scripture giueth to the whole Church, & not to the Virgin Mary. It is not for vs in things of so high nature out of iollity to forge new terms, w^ch are to the weake occasion of error or of stumbling.

The passage which hee alleadgeth out of Saint Cyprian is altogether disguised and clipped, and is nothing to the purpose. Saint Cyprian speaketh to the faithfull who assayled with contagion, had seene their Fathers, their bretheren, their children, die before them, and enter into Paradise before them, He saith then vnto them, our Fathers, Magnus illic nos charorum nume­rus expectat, pa­rentum fratrum filiorum freques no [...] & copiosa turba desiderat, iam de sua im­mortaletate se­cura & adhuc de nostra sollici­ta. Mothers bretheren, and Children waite for vs in great number, and a great troupe doth desire vs, being assured of their owne, immortality, but in care of our Father. To what purpose is this to defend the seruiceand titles which they yeeld to the Virgin Mary. To what purpose is the generall mention of the Saints deceased, seeing that he speaketh onely of them who haue knowne vs in this life And though he should speake of all the Saints, what doth this make against vs, who haue neuer denyed but that the Saints doe desire our saluation, and pray for the Church in Generall al­though they doe not know the necessities, nor the prayers of particular persons.

This falsehood of Coeeffeteaus is followed with a­nother of the interpreter of Ireneus, who speaketh thus. Euen as Eue was seduced to turne away from God, Sicut illa sedu­cta est vt effuge ret Deum, sic haec sua sa est obedire Deo, vti virginis Euae virgo Ma­ria fieret aduo­cata. so Mary was counsailed to obey God, to the end that the Virgin Mary might become aduocate for the Virgin Eue. The very reading doth make the place to be suspected, so litle comelinesse hath it and lesse sence. It was in the Greeke, [...] vt fieret consolatrix, that is to say, to the end that Ma­ry might be the comforter of Eue. For God hauing condemned Eue, gaue her this seed of the Woman, which is the Virgine Mary for a consolation. The word [...] which in S. Iohn ca. 14.26 signifieth a comforter, is also vs ed by Saint Iohn, 1. Iohn. 2.1. to fignifie an aduocate. [...] we haue an aduocate with the Father. The same Ambiguitie de­ceiued Tertullian Cap. 9. of his Booke against Praxe­as, where he thus rendreth the wordes of Iesus Christ, Ioh. 14.16. I will pray vnto the Father and hee shall giue you another aduocate. The same fault is found in the booke of Nouation of the Trinity cap. 28.29.

After these, come other two false peeces, namely the Liturgies of S. Basil and of Chrysostome, which all the learned acknowledge to be forged, yea so grossely, that euen in the Liturgie attributed to S. Chrysostome, there is mention made of the Emperor Alexius, who was borne some seuen hundred years after Chrysostome. Moreouer there is prayer made for Nicholas Pope of Rome, which was neuer the custome of the auncient Greeke Church.

Nay further, the fashood is double; for not one­ly the parcels alleadged are false in themselues, but also it is falsly said by Coeffeteau, that in the Li [...]urgie of Basil, the Virgin is inuocated, It is one thing to pray vnto her, another to make a commemoration of her.

We will close vp these false passages with a true one, out of S. Epiphanius, in his 79. Heresie, which is the Heresie of the Collyridians. Surely the Virgin was a Virgin worthy to be honoured, but yet she was not giuen vs to be adored: for euen she her selfe adored him who was borne of her according to the flesh, but came downe from heauen out of the bosome of the Father. And therefore the Gospell doth arme vs against this a­buse, telling vs, that the Lord himselfe said vnto her, What haue I to doe with thee, woman; mine howre is not yet come: To the end that no man should presume more, then he óught vpon the Virgin Mary, nor should attribute to her too much excellency, he calleth her wo­man; as it were prophecying of the things that should come to passe in the world, by reason of Schismes and Heresies, for fe [...]re least some out of too much admirati­on of her, should fall into the dotages of this Heresie. Now hee speaketh of an Herefie which offered a cake to the Virgin Mary, but yet did not yeelde her the fourth part of the honour which the Church of Rome doth vnto her. Most singular is that aboue the rest which he addeth: Let MARY be had in ho­nour, but let the Father and the Sonne be adored: Let no man adore MARY; I say not a woman, but neyther man himselfe. It is to God that this mystery is duc. The [Page 172]Angels themselues are not capable of such an honour. And it is worth the noting, that he girdeth at this Title of the Queene of Heauen; and I beseech the Reader to obserue it: Let Ieremy (saith he) represse those odde house-wiues, that they trouble the world no more, and that they may no longer haue this word in their mouthes, We honour the Queene of heauen. And so S. Ambrose in his third booke of the Holy Ghost And for feare (saith he) least some man would deriue this same to the Virgin MARY,Lib. 3. cap. 12. Mary was indeede the Temple of God, but she was not God: And therefore we must adore him alone, who wrought in this Tem­ple.

Let Coeffeteau then cease to pay vs in this false coyne, and let him not shew vs like a cousening Lapidary his counterfeit Iewels in the darke: was he not affraid to lay open his false dealing in this Theatour? Or did he thinke that he had to do with a King that was blinde and without reading?

The best is, that al this seruice of the Virgin, which they call now adayes Hyperdulia, and which ma­keth vp a good part of the Romane Religion, hath no foundation in the word of God. Onely our Aduersaries bring in men speaking to this point; but they put their speeches before hand in their mouthes, and make them say that which they ne­uer beleeued. How commeth it to passe that Saint Iohn, who serued the Virgin Mary as a sonne after the death of Iesus Christ, and the rest of the Apo­stles, who loued and honoured her, had yet neuer recourse to her intercession: they might haue said [Page 173]in themselues, we haue in heauen a Lady Aduocate one that is so neere vnto vs, and, who now is Queene of heauen: and yet neuerthelesse if we be­leeue this people, they were so ill aduised as not to make profite thereof; they did not value nor make vse vnto themselues of this aduantage, neyther haue they councelled vs to addresse our selues vnto her: but what boldenes is this in wormes of the earth, to attribute vnto a creature the Empire of heauen, and of the world, without being instructed what was the will of God therein? As if the breefe flyes or Hornets had taken vpon them to establish some man in the Popedome. Let the word of God then bee heard therevpon; which is the thing that we will doe in the Article which followeth.

ARTICLE VIII. Touching prayers to Saints, and the seruice that is due vnto them.

The KINGS Confession. TS for prayer to Saints; Christ (I am sure) hath commaunded vs to Come all to him that are loaden with sinne, and he will relieue vs: and S. Paul hath forbidden vs to worshippe Angels, or to vse any such voluntary worship, Math. 11 28. Col 28.28. that hath a shew of humility in that it spareth not the flesh. But what warrant we haue to [Page 174]haue recourse vnto these D [...]j Penates or Tutelares, these Courtiers of God, I know not, I remit that to these philosophicall neotericke Di­uines. It satisfieth me to pray to God through Christ, as I am commaunded, which I am sure must be the safest way, and I am sure the Safest way is the best way in points of saluation.

Hereupon Coeffeteau confounding the Kings whole discouery, he beginneth by a complaint that his Maiesty calleth Tutelary and familiar Gods those lesser Saints, to whom many of the people do vow themselues in particular, and of whom they set the Images vpon their Cupboords or ouer their Chimneyes. But his Maiesty doth not intend to call the Saints familiars nor Tutelarie Gods: ney­ther doth he say that in the Church of Rome they call them so, onely he meaneth, that the Church of Rome hath substituted them in place of the Tutela­rie and domesticall gods, and that hee doth enter­taine them after the same fashion. For the Pay­nims had their tutelarie gods ouer euery town, and ouer euery Countrey. Iuno was Lady-gardian of Carthage: Venus of Cyprus and of Paphos: Pallace of the Countrey of Attica: Mars and Quirinus of Rome, &c. so the Church of Rome hath Saints that are Patrons of Cities and Countries: Saint Marke of Venice: S. Geneuiefue of Paris: S. Iames of Spain: S. Dennis of France, &c. and as the Paynims did di­stribute charges amongst their gods; so in the [Page 175]Church of Rome euery Saint hath his charge a­part. The hunters did inuocate Diana, now adaies they haue recourse to S. Eustace, S. Nicholas, who now is called vpon by the Pilots and Sea-faring men, hath taken the place of Castor and Pollux. The good Goddesse Lucina who was assisting to wo­men that trauelled in childe-birth, hath now giuen place to S. Margaret: for so her Legend saith that the Dragon hauing swallowed her downe she made the signe of the Crosse in his belly, where­with he burst asunder, and she came forth through the breach, which was a kinde of lying in. S. Christo­pher with his huge body, hath succeeded Hercules: for so they make him also to carry a clubbe. There wanted yet a Queene of heauen in the place of Iu­no, and this holy and glorious Virgin hath beene dishonoured with so prophane a title: yea the very habites and furniture of the gods haue beene trans­ported to the Saints. The Genij or Penates house­hold gods had a dogge by their side, and so hath S. Roche: The Image of Iames carried a Key, so doth that of S. Peter: Iupiter a man had hornes on his head, such doe they giue to Moses. Isis carried a Timbrell, and S. Gennasius a Violin. Those circles which you see about the head of the Saints in pi­cture, are those Arches and shaddowes wherewith they couered their gods to fence them from the dust. In like manner are the Officers distributed in Paradise in a goodly order, and with diuersity of furniture and prouision. For his Holines and the Church of Rome haue taken order for it. We are [Page 176]ashamed to produce these things, whiles they are not ashamed to doe them: and we blush at that of which they haue no shame at all. If we would pro­long this Discourse, we would easily shew that a good part of these Patrons and Tutelary Saints, are Saints which neuer were, they liue without ha­uing euer beene borne, and are entred into the Church, without euer entring into the world, the painters are wonted to make characters & pictures in a manner speaking, as when they paint Iustice with a paire of ballances: Time like an olde man winged: The Fryer like a lame god, because the wood doth susteyne him: so the auncients did fi­gure the faith of a beleeuing man by a woman swollowed vp of Sathan, but who did get forth a­gaine victoriously, and trample the Diuell vnder her feet. And of this Image they haue made their Saint Margaret: so the Christian was painted as passing ouer a violent land-flood, but hauing Iesus Christ with him,Praesertim cum sit manifestum in omnem Italiam, Galliam, Hispa­niam, & Afri­cam nullum in­stituisse Ecclesias nisi eos quos A­postolus Petrus aut successores eius constituerūt. Legant autem si in his prouincijs alius Apostolus inuenitur aut legitur docuisse, &c. who did burden him indeede, but yet did conduct him. This Image hath produced a new Saint, whom they call S. Christopher. Of the launce which pierced the body of our Lord, they haue made S. Longis because that Lonchi in the vulgar pronunciation of the Greeke tongue signifi­eth a Launce. Men runne with incredible zeale to S. Iames of Compostella in Spaine, where they say that hee preached, and that his bones remaine there: and yet in the meane time it is well knowne that S. Iames was neuer in Spaine: Pope Innocent in the twelfth distinction, in the Canon Quis nesciat [Page 177]doth stoutly and stiffely maintaine, that there was neuer any Apostle in Spaine; and that neyther in Fraunce nor in Affrica, nor in Spaine any planted Church, saue they whom S. Peter and his successors sent thither. The Story also of his life recyted by Iohn Beleth and Iacobus de Voragine great persona­ges, saith, that he came into Spaine before he was put to death by Herod, Act. 12. It must needes bee then that he came into Spaine almost about the time that Iesus Christ suffered: for S. Iames surui­ued Christ, but a while after his death: His body being put on Ship-boord, went of it selfe without Pilot or any guidance into Spaine. Queene Lupa raigning then in Spaine: Now it is well knowne, that at that time there was neyther King nor Queene in Spaine; and that it was wholly subiect to the Romane Empire. The same is to be said of S. Denis the Areopagite, whom men say to haue plan­ted the Gospell in Fraunce; and hauing suffered Martyrdome vnder the Emperour Domitian as saith Methodius, he carried his head betweene his hands from Mont-Martre, as farre as S. Denis, where he lyeth interred. The reuiuing of learning and good letters hath discouered the falshood of such inuentions. For the most auncient Christi­an Historian that euer was in Fraunce,Sub Aurelio Antonini filio persecutio quinta agitata, ac tunc primum inter Gallias martyria visa, serius trans alpes religione transgressa. is Sulpitius Seuerus, who in the second booke of his story she­weth, that there were no Martyrdomes in Fraunce vnder Domitian nor a long time after; and that the first Martyrdomes which were seene in Fraunce, were vnder Marcus Aurelius the sonne of Anthony, [Page 178]that is to say, in the yeare of our Lord 162. three­score and fiue yeares after the death of Domitian: whosoeuer shall calculate the times, shall find that Denis the Ariopagite was then Iudge in Ariopa­gus, at the time when S. Paul conuerted him: whence it is to be presumed, that he was at least thirty or fiue and thirty yeare olde: which time if you extend as farre as to the raigne of Marcus Au­relius, he should haue liued some hundred and fiftie yeares: and also should die by torment before that he was broken by olde age. We could produce others in this point, but this sufficeth to iustifie the King of great Britaine, who though he should haue called the Saints that neuer were Tutelary gods, yet should there not bee iust cause to reprehend him.

After this Caeffeteau comes to the authorities of the Fathers: surely this matter should well deserue some commaundement from God: One Ordi­nance of God had cut off al difficulty, and had been more of value then a thousand testimonies of men. But Coeffeteau could finde none, for indeede there is none: Being not able then to draw out of the Di­uine spring, he seekes heere and there for the Ce­sternes of men. Our aduersaries tell vs that they receiue the Fathers for interpreters of the Scrip­ture: but the passages are drawne out of phrases of the Fathers, in which they doe not interprete the scripture: but what will become of the matter if these quotations be to no purpose, if indeede they be false? And that is it which we are to shew.

Basill in his oration of the 40. Martyrs, saith in­deed that some in their necessity had recourse vn­to them, but he doth nor commaund to doe it as Bellarmine will haue it inWhere he p [...] ­teth confugiat for confugit and oret for orat. falsifying this place,Aliud est quod docemus aliud quod sustinemus— donec e­mendemus tola­rare compelli­mur. a man must not maruaile if a people newly crept out of Paganisme did retaine something of their owne Custome and oftentimes, the Bishops, caryed away with the terrent of popular zeale, were constrained to tollerate these abuses. Saint Austine in his twen­tieth booke against Faustus the Manichee, Chap. 21 confesseth that many dranke drunke ouer the Se­pulchres of the dead, but withall he addeth it is one thing that we teach, another that we tollerate, it is one thing that which we are commaunded to teach, another thing we are commaunded to correct, and which we are constrained to beare withall, vntill that it bee amended. And in the first booke of the manners of the Ca­tholicke Church, Chap. 24. I know many (saith hee) who doe adore the Sepulchres and pictures, I know many who drinke most excessiuely ouer the dead. The good Bishops saw these maladies in their flockes, which being desirous to amend, they haue beene often hindred by the sedition of the people, as appeareth by the Counsell of Carthage, where the Bishops of Affrica being desirous to abolish the abuse which was committed at the sepulchres of the Martyrs, they feare to be hindred by the tumult of the rude people. [...] If (say they) men be hindred to doe this by the vprore of the people, at least wise let the multitude be admonished not to assemble in these places. Coeffeteau then had alleadged this to purpose if he had the ge­nerall [Page 180]custome of the Church of those times, or some prayer to Saints, made in the publicke seruice instead of producing the misguided deuotion of some particular men.

In the second place he aleadgeth the oration of Gregory Nyssen in the praise of the Martyr Theo­dore which we haue heretofore evicted of false­hood.

After this he produceth the oration of Grogory, Nazianzen vpon Saint Basill. And here againe his vnfaithfull dealing appeareth, for hee dessembleth the wordes, going before which serue for a soluti­on, where Saint Gregory sheweth, that that which he saide to Saint Basill being deceased, is onely by opinion and by coniecture. These are his wordes And now Basill is in the heauens, [...] offering as I thinke sacrifices for vs, and praying for the people, hee spea­keth as being assured thereof, we know also, that the custome of Orators, who speake in praise of a­ny man, is to make Rhetoricall appellation to the dead, and to speake to the absent, as to men present. The Bookes of the Paynims are full of these exam­ples. See how Plinie speaketh to Ciciro; long be­fore deceased in his seauenth booke and thirtyeth Chapter.

Salue primus omnium parens patriae appellate.To Gregory, Coeffeteau addeth the Catechisme of Cyrill, which are fal [...]ely attributed vnto him. Ges­ner in his Bibliotheca, witnesseth that this booke is found in written hand vnder the name of one Iohn of Ierusalem. Gretzer a Germiane Iesuit, in his booke for Pilgrimages, page. 354. witnesseth the [Page 181]same. Harding in his Treatise of Accidents without subiect, Section the 6. saith that in his time this booke was not fou [...]d but manuscript and knowne to a fewe. And the foolery which is found in the 24. Catechise, when he saith, that the wood of the Crosse doth increase and multiply in such fort that the earth is full thereof, sheweth that this booke was written many ages since, doubtlesse by this Iohn of Ierusalem an aduocate for Images who li­ued in the yeare 767.See the Ecclesi­asticall Stories of Ʋigner in the yeare 767.

Afterwards commeth a place of Saint Austine, It is iniurie to pray for a Martyr, by whose prayers wee on the other side ought to be recommended. This place is found indeed in his 17. Sermon De verbis Aposto­li; but not in the 80. Tract vpon Iohn, as Coeffeteau alleadgeth it, who spake by other mens report, Now this place is not to the purpose, for hee saith onely that the Saints pray for vs, which thing wee haue neuer denyed: we doe out of Godly conside­rations presume, that albeit they know not the ne­cessity of particular men, yet they pray for the Church in generall. But that wee should for this cause inuocate them, or yeeld them any religious seruice, Saint Austine doth not avouch,

Lastly Coeffeteau addeth Saint Ambrose, who in his booke of Widdowes, exhorteth Widdowes to pray to the Angells and Martyrs, whom he calleth beholders of our liues and actions. Here a man may see the humour of our Aduersaries, which is to passe by the vertues of the Fathers, and to set forth nothing but their vices and blemishes, like Flyes [Page 182]who cast themselues vpon gaules and botches of bodies, rather then vpon the sound parts, The Rea­der then shall be aduertised that Saint Ambrose was chosen Bishop before he was baptised. Hauing thus cast himselfe, at the first iumpe, into a charge, to the which hee was no way prepared, no man ought to maruaile, if in his beginnings he said som­things, for which he afterwards corrected himselfe. The booke of Widdowes, is one of his first works, wherein you may see more eloquence then diuini­ty, and we will no other proofe hereof then that place which saith, that the Martyrs if there remained any sinnes vnto them, they purged them by their bloud. what is there lesse agreeing with the Gospell, then to thinke that any Martyrs haue beene without sinne, and that which is worse that a man may wash away and blot out his sinnes by his owne blood. For the holy scripture doth giue vs no other labor for our sinnes then the blood of Iesus Christ. Apoc: 1.5. To Iesus who hath loued vs, and hath wasted away our sinnes by his blood. And in the 7. Chapter, The Saints do wash their garments in the blood of the lambe, and to the end that no man should deuise any other clensing.Jdeo ad Regem per tribunos aut Cometos itur, qui­a homo vtique est Rex & nescit quibus debeat Remp. credere. Ad Deum autē promerendum saffragatore non opus estsed men­te deuota. Saint Iohn. 1. Epist. 1. saith, that the blood of Iesus Christ doth clense vs from ALL sinne, yea Saint Ambrose himselfe hath not perseuered in this error. But vpon the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Romanes, he disputeth against those who said, that they did as those who goe to the King by his offices and hee calleth it, a miserable excuse, and addeth, Therefore men goe to a King by his Collonells and No­bles, [Page 183]because the King is a man, and knoweth not to whom to commit the Common-weale. But to be receiued into grace and fauour with God, we need no spokesman, but onely a deuout Spirit. Himselfe in the oration vpon the death of Theodosius. Et tamen tu so­lus Domine inuo­candus es, tu rogandus. Thou ONELY O Lord oughtest to be inuocated and prayed vnto.

Let this be noted in generall vpon all the pas­sages, that the King of great Britaine, demaunded authorities from the first fower ages, But all these allegations are but about the end of the fourth age, we must then helpe Coeffeteaus memorie, and bring him a little higher,

In the first age we haue the Apostles, who did not only not inuocate the Virgin Mary, nor any other of the Saints deceased, But who doe expresly for­bid vs, to inuocate any other then God alone.

1 S. Paul, Rom. 10. How shall they cal vpon him, in whom they haue not beleeued. He is of opinion then that a man cannot call vpon any, but him in whom he beleeueth. Now we beleeue in God onely. The Creede doth teach vs to beleeue in the Father, and in the sonne, and in the holy Chost, but not to be­leeue in any creature. And Iesus Christ, Ioh. 14.1. You beleeue in God, beleeue also in me. If any man will here bring forth vnto vs two sortes of Religious worship; he must be pleased to proue them vnto vs by the word of God.

2 The same Apostle, Rom. 14.23. sayth, that whatsoeuer is done without faith is sinne. And cap. 10. he saith, that faith commeth by hearing the word of God. Prayer therefore to Saints being not founded [Page 184]vpon the word of God, it is without faith, and con­sequently is sinne.

3 S. Peter, Act. 1. calleth God searcher of the hearts, agreeable to that which Salomon saith, 2. Chr. 6.30 that God ONLY knoweth the hearts of men. If then the Saints know not our hearts, what an a­buse is it to call vpon them? Must a man cry high? And how shall they know whether thou be an hy­pocrite or no? If it be so that they see all things in the face of God, as some say, then should they haue an infinite knowledge, and by consequent should be infinite, and should know the day of iudgement,marc. 13. which is vnknowne to them. And their spirit in one onely moment, should apprehend and behold infinite diuersity of things, which is a thing incom­patible with the nature of the creature, whose life and being, and consequently whose actions are fleeting by acontinuall succession of parts: That is to say, that as the parts of their duration succeede one another: so their thoughts and action succes­siuely follow one another. They doe not then ap­prehend infinite things in one moment. Thus is their imaginary looking-glasse broken, wherin no­thing doth appeare but the temerity of these men, who affirme things that they cannot know; who speake of heauen, and yet haue their nose in the ground, describing what is done there; as if they came but lately from thence. I further adde, that this is greatly to trouble the felicity of the Saints, to make them spectators of mens affaires. An ho­ly woman that inioyeth the glory of heauen, would [Page 187]she no feele an extreame greefe, if she beheld from heauen one of her children tormented in Hell, an­other broken vpon the wheele at the Greue in Pa­ris, another giuen to Art-magicke, or bowing his knee before an Image, or adoring a God made and set vp by men?

4 The Apostle S. Paul, 1. Tim 2. There is one God, and one Mediator betweene God and men, the man Christ Iesus. In the Greeke it is [...]: Vni­cus Deus, vnicus mediator, Seeing that these things are thus coupled together, it is certain that as there is but one God, so is there but one Mediator. It is a coy nicenesse to say, that he is the only Mediator of Redemption, but not of Intercession. But this distinction is not found in the Gospell, and indeede it doth contradict it selfe, for Iesus Christ is not the mediator of intercession, but so farre forth as he is our Redeemer: whence it followeth, that in Iesus Christ to be mediator of redemption and mediator of intercession, is one and the same thing. And that which is more, the same Apostle, Rom. 8. doth teach vs, that euen as touching the intercession, he is our onely mediator: For he saith, Christ is he who died, nay rather who is risen againe, who also is set at the right hand of God, & who maketh request for vs. Now he died onely for vs, he rose onely for our sakes, and onely is set downe at the right hand of God: and he alone then also it is, which maketh request for vs; for the course of the wordes and the drift of the place doth necessarily so require it. And that which is more, by this Distinction they condemne the [Page 170]Church of Rome, who maketh Saints also to bee mediatours of Redemption, as Bellarmine teacheth in the fourth Chapter of his first booke of Indul­gences: and indeede the Church of Rome doth holde that their sufferings doe turne to our aduan­tage: and the Priest in the Masse, doth euery day craue saluation of God, not onely for their prayers, but also for their merites, as if by their good workes they had merited saluation,Quorum preci­bus meritis (que) ro­gamus, &c. and the grace of God for vs: Let a man read all the Letanies and pub­licke prayers of the Church of Rome, and he shall finde that they say, Petre Ora pro nobis, S. Nicholae Ora pro nobis. But to Iesus Christ they neuer say Ora pro nobis, but Miserere nobis, for they strip him of his office of intercessor, leauing him onely the charge of Iudge.

5 Let vs adde the example of the Angell, Apoc. 22. who would not be adored by S. Iohn, saith vnto him, Take heede thou do it not, I am thy fellow seruant, worship God. Now S. Iohn did not thinke this An­gell was God, for chap. 12.9. S. Iohn saith expresly that it was one of the seuen Angels, who had the seuen vials. Hee knew then before hand that it was an Angell: if the Angell had approued any in­feriour degree of adoration he would haue said to S. Iohn, thou dost adore me with a worship, which is too high for me. But he doth not receiue any at all but putteth himselfe in the same rancke with S. Iohn, and acknowledgeth himselfe to be his fellow seruant.

6 Some man will say, I am vnworthy to pray [Page 187]vnto God, and it is good to goe vnto the King by his officers. I answere, that there is not any greater vnworthines, then for a man to bee the enemy of God: and yet Iesus Christ died to saue his ene­mies: By this same bounty and goodnes then hee will yet more support thine vnworthines, when thou shalt pray vnto him with an acknowledge­ment of thy myserie. And as touching the Inter­uention of the officers of the King, I say that hee should be foolishly modest, who should follow that way, when the King himselfe calleth him, and commaundeth him to come directly vnto him. Now God calleth vs with promise to here vs, Psal. 51. Cal vpon me, and I will hear thee. And Iesus Christ his sonne doth inuite vs to come vnto him, saying in the eleuenth of Mathew, Come vnto me all you that are heauy laden, and I will refresh you. Should we feare then to goe directly to God, and to our father, who calleth vs with so much sweetnes?

7 If we be the children of God and brethren of Iesus Christ, neede we any spokes-men to speake for vs to God or to Iesus Christ? This crooked way doth sauour of a seruile humour, and hath no­thing of a sonne like libertie.

8 Moreouer, seeing that it is God himselfe that doth put into our hearts to pray vnto him, and who doth stirre vp in vs those sighes and groanes of which S. Paul speakes, Rom. 8.25. what neede we any other intercessors to recommend that prayer vnto God which he himselfe hath inspired into vs? Or to make that the voyce of the spirite of GOD [Page 190]speaking in vs, should be pleasing and acceptable to God?

9 It is also very considerable, how and in what sense S. Iohn in his first Epistle, chap. 2. calleth Iesus Christ our aduocate: for hee is an aduocate who doth not onely pleade for vs, but doth also pay for vs: who not only maketh intercession for sinners, but also of sinners maketh them iust men: Those for whom he maketh intercession he doth sanctifie them also. He is an aduocateIoh. 21.41. whom the Father doth alwayes heare: who did already make inter­cession for the world, before hee came into the world. Doth it not suffice vs to haue such an ad­uocate? Or doe the Saints loue vs more then Iesus Christ? seeing that the Saints haue neyther vertue before God, nor charity towards vs, but that which Iesus Christ hath giuen them?

Aboue all, the place of the Apostle, Coloss. 2. is very expresse, which his Maiesty of England doth produce, where S. Paul doth flatly forbid the seruice of Angels: Let no man at his pleasure beare rule ouer you by humblenesse of minde, and worshipping of An­gels. Coeffeteau aunswereth, that to inuocate the Saints, is no more to turne away from Iesus Christ then when a man doth imploy the liuing. I answer, that a man doth turne away from Iesus Christ di­uers waies, either in forsaking himselfe flatly, or in turning from his commaundement. It is in this se­cond kinde, that inuocation of Saints doth decline from Iesus Christ, as we haue shewed. As for li­uing men, whom we employ to pray for vs; this is [Page 191]nothing like to the inuocation of Saints deceased: God willeth that the liuing should pray one for an other, but he hath not commaunded to inuocate the dead: and he who recommendeth himselfe to the prayers of the liuing, he doth not for all that ac­knowledge them to be searchers of the heart: He doth not fall downe on his knees before them; he doth not yeeld them any religious seruice: he doth not bring them offerings, nor light candles before them: hee doth not pray vnto God for saluation through their merites. In a word, there is no com­parison betweene them.

Coeffeteau addeth, that S. Paul condemneth onely superstition, which adoreth Angels in the quality of lesser gods. This is a meere shift and an euident tergiuersation, and which S. Paul had already pre­uented in the same place, in saying that this is done by humblenesse of minde, and voluntary deuotion. Now to acknowledge the Angels for Gods, is not for a man to humble himselfe, but to exalt the An­gels: Humiliation is rather in him, who acknow­ledging them no other then seruants and messen­gers of God, doth neuerthelesse humble himselfe beneath them by voluntary deuotion. And wee neede here no more vpon this matter then Theodo­ret, whom Coeffeteau alleadgeth in his margent a­gainst himselfe, whose words are these in his Com­mentaries vpon Colos. 2. They who defended the law, induced men also to serue Angels, saying, the lawe was giuen by their interuention. Now this vice continued along time in Phrygia and Pisidia: Therefore the Sy­node [Page 192]node assembled at Laodicea the mother City of Phrygia, forbid them by expresse ordinance to pray vnto An­gels, and euen at this day we yet see amongst them and their neighbours, the Oratories of S. Michael. Now this did they counsell, vsing humility, and saying, that the God of the whole world is invisible, incōprebensible and vnapproachable: and therefore it was necessary to to make God fauourable vnto vs by the Angels. And that is it which S. Paul hath said in humility, and wor­shipping of Angels. By these words it appeareth that Theodoret iudged that the Councell of Laodicea did absolutely forbid prayer to Angels. Moreouer that those whom he condemneth did not thinke the Aneglles to be Gods, but that they serued them as ministring spirits, whose seruice God had vsed for the publishing of the law. Now that the church of Rome hath thought that the Canon of the Coū ­cel of Laodicea was against her, [...]. it appeareth, for that it being in the Greeke. [...]. The Latine version which is in the Tomes of the Coun [...]ell hath tur­ned it, abire & ad angulos idololatriae abominande con­gregationes facere, hauing put angulos for angelos.

Saint Ierome in the 10. Question to Algasia thin­keth that Saint Paule in that place speaketh against the superstition of the Iewes, if that be so, he doth not speake against those who did adore the Angels as lesser Gods. For the Iewes since the Captiuity of Babylon haue not held this opinion; And if it were so, so is it notwithstanding that Saint Paule condemning in generall the worship giuen to An­gels [Page 193]condemneth by a consequent that which the Church of Rome yeeldeth vnto them.

All that which before hath beene alleaged, should suffice to ouerthrowe the inuocation of Saints, For after the will of God,Basill in Ethicis regu. 80. quic­quid extra di­uinam scripturā est cum ex fide non sit peccatū est. in vaine doe wee waite for the testimony of men. The word of God is as strong, when it is alone, as when it is accompa­nyed, the Law of God is not established by cu­stome, it is full of strength and force, euen from the spring,Haec ab alio ora­re non possumus quā a que scio me cosecuturum quoniam & ipse est qui solus prae­stat, & egosum cui impet rare dehetur famu­lus eius qui cum solum obsecro. Jam vero si eti­am extra corpus positi sancti qui cum Christo sunt, agunt aliquid & laborant pro no­bis, habeatur hoc quoque inter oc­culta Dei nec chartulae com­mit tenda myste­ria. as tract of time doth not bring it any autho­rity, so is there prescription of time against it. How beit let vs graunt this to the Malady of time, and to the depraued taste of our age which bringeth the Fathers vpon the Theator with pompe, and hi­deth the Lampe of the Gospell vnder the bushell.

Tertullian in his Apologetico. chap. 30. speaking of the prayer made vnto God, Wee cannot demaund these things of any other then of him of whom I know I shall obtaine it for so it is he alone which graunteth, and I am he who ought to be heard, to wit, his seruaunt who doe inuocate him alone.

Origen in his 2 booke and second Chapter, vpon the Epistle to the Romanes, If the Saints who being out of their bodies with Christ, doe any thing to imploy themselues for vs, let that remaine among the hidden secrets of God, neither let it be committed to prayer.

[...].The same writing against Celsus in his fift Tome We must addresse all our requests, prayers, supplications, and giuing of thankes to him who is God aboue all, by the liuing word who is also God, &c. that is to say, by Iesus Christ. And a little after, we hold that we ought [Page 194]not [...], &c. to call vpon them, who them selues doe inuocate, for that they had rather that we should addresse our prayers to God, whom themselues doe call vpon.

And in the eight Tome, [...] &c. We ought to pray to none but God alone, and his onely Sonne.

And in the same place, [...]. we ought to make God alone fauourable and mercifull towards vs, who is Lord of all things: We must seeke his fauor by piety, and by the other vertues: but if any man think, that beside him we ought further to seeke the fauours of some others, let him con­sider, that as the body mouing, the shadow doth stirre with it, in like manner when any man hath God propi­tious and fauorable vnto him, he hath by a consequent all the Angells and soules and spirits for his friends. Which is so much the more to be considered, be­cause in that very place he saith, that the Angells haue care of good men, and yet he will not that we inuocate any other but God.

Athanasius and all the Fathers who disputed a­gainst the Arrians, prooue the diuinity of Iesus Christ by that we ought to inuocate him, and ac­cuse the Arians of Idolatry, for that they adored & prayed vnto him, whom they thought to haue beene created. Read the Booke of the life of Saint Anthony and the booke of the Incarnation of the word, Therfore saith he [...]. If thou adore the man Christ, because the diuine word dwelleth in him, Adore by like reason the Saints, because of God who dwelleth in them.

The same Athanasius in his fourth Sermon a­gainst the Arians, Iacob did not inuocate any other but God, [...]. deliuer mee O Lord, said he, from the [Page 195]my brother Esau, againe, Dauid did not call vpon any other but God to be deliuered. And a little after, it is a thing cleare and plaine that the Patriarke did not ad­ioyne any other in his prayers with God, but hee which is the word, which he calleth Angel, because it is he alone who doth manifest the Father vnto vs. Which hath also beene practised by the Apostle when he saith, Grace bee vnto you, and peace from God our Father, and from IE­SVS CHRIST. And a little before he mocketh at him, who prayeth thus, God and his Angell helpe thee. Now a dayes wee heare no other thing then these wordes, to pray vnto God and his mother: a­gaine, recommend your selfe to God, and Monsieur Saint Rock or Saint Fiacre.

Chrysostome in the Homily of the aduancement of the Gospel.Tom. 3. col. 1046 Non opus est bi patronis apud^t Deum ne (que) mul­to discursu: sed li­cet solus sis, patro­no (que) careas, & per te ipsum Deū preceris: omnino tamen voti com­pos eris Ne (que)enim tam facile Deus annuit cum alij pro nob is orant, vt cum ipsimet o­ramus, etiāsi plu­rimis pleni simus malis. Thou hast no need of aduocates towards God, nor of much discourse: for albeit thou art alone, and haue no aduocate, and that thou pray vnto God by thy selfe, thou shalt obtaine thy desire: for God doth not heare so willingly when others pray for vs, as when wee pray our selues although we be full of many euills. And he sheweth it by the example of the Woman of Canaan, who was not heard when the Apostles prayed for her, but when she prayed her selfe.

The same in his 16. Homily vpon diuers passa­ges of Saint Matthew. If thou meane to make sup­plicatiō to a man, thou askest what he is doing, & he per­haps falls asleepe in hearing thee, or hath not the lei­sure, or else some seruant will not daigne to aunswere thee, But towards God there is no neede of all this, but in what part soeuer thou be and thou call vpon him, he heareth [...], &c. [Page 196] thee. There is no need of a Porter, nor of a media­tor, nor of a seruant, or Officer, but onely say, haue pitty vpon me. Then he addeth, this Woman saith, I know no good workes in my selfe, I cannot repose confidence vpon my good life: I haue recourse to thy mercy who art the safe harbour for sinners. Tell me woman, how durst thou being a sinner and wicked, approach vnto him? I know saith she, what I will doe. See the wisedome of this woman: she prayeth not Iames, She doth not be­seech Ioh. she goeth not to Peter, she doth not regard the whole company of the Apostles: she seeketh no Media­tor, but insteed of all these, shee taketh Patience for her companion, which holdeth the place of her aduocate, and commeth directly to the first fountaine. For this ende came he down from heauen for this end did he take flesh and was made man, to the end that I might speake vn­to him.

There are found in this Father some passages, wherein he recommendeth the intercession of the Saints, but it is of the liuing Saints, for the scripture in a hundred places doth so call the faithfull. But our aduersaries produce those places for inuocati­on of the dead: being falsaries in this point as in o­thers Adde, that we haue neuer denyed, but that the Saints doe intercede for the Church in gene­ral, but it doth not follow thervpon, that we ought to inuocate them or to serue them, God hauing not commaunded it, yea hauing forbidden it, and they not knowing our hearts, and besides Iesus Christ calling vs vnto himselfe.

Saint Ierome in the Epitaph of Nepotian holdeth [Page 197]for a thing assured, that he is in the heauenly glory.Scimus N [...]po­tian [...] nost [...]um es­se cum Chr [...]sto & sanctorum mix [...] choris. We know saith he that our friend Nepotian is with Christ and mingled among the quier of Saints. And neuerthelesse, he holdeth that Nepotian neither vn­derstood nor saw the things, which were said or done in the earth. For he saith,Quicquid dixe­ro quia ill [...] no audit mutū videtur Whatsoeuer I shall say vnto him, will seeme dumbe because he heareth it not. Cum quo loqui non possumus de eo loqui nunquā desinamus. Againe let vs not cease to speake of Nepotian, with whom we can no longer speake. Againe,Felix Nepotia­nus qui haec non videt, qui haec non audit. happy Nepo­tian, who neither heareth nor seeth these thinges. Thence it came that many of the auncients did pray those who were about to die, to haue them in­remembrance, when they should be in Paradise: be­cause they thought it would be to late to pray vn­to them after their death.

The same Ierome Lib 4 cap. 14. Quod si in aliquo fiducia est, in solo Domino confida­mus. Maledictus enim omnis homo qui spem habet in homine, quāuis sancti sint, quāuis prophetae. vpon Ezechiell, if there be confidence in any, let vs put our confidence in God alone, for cursed is the man who trusteth in man, albeit they bee Saints, albeit they be Prophets.

Agreeable to Origen in the 4. Homilie vpon E­zechiell towards the end.Ad cos qui in sanctis fiduciam habent, non incongrue profer­tur exemplum Maledictus ho­mo qui spem ha­bet in homine. To those who put their con­fidence in Saints, this example may fitly be applyed, cur­sed is the man who putteth his hope in the Saints.

There is among the workes of Saint Ierome, a commentary vpon the Prouerbs, which whether it be of Beda or of Ierome, it conteineth this sentenceLib. 1. cap. 2. Nullum inuocare id est in nos oran­do vocare, nisi Deum debemus. We ought not to inuocate, that is to say, to cal towards vs by prayers any other then God.

Saint Austine in his twenty two tract vpon Saint Iohn. Hoc tibi dicit Saluator tuus Non est quo eas nisi ad me. Non est quá eas nisi per me. This is it which thy Sauiour saith vnto thee, thou hast not whether to goe saue onely to me, nei­ther [Page 198]cannest thou goe, saue onely by me.

And vpon the Psalme 118.Oratio quae non sit per Chri­stum non solum non potest de­lere peccatum, sed etiam ipsa sit in peccatum. the prayer which is not made through Iesus Christ, cannot onely not blot out sinne, but it selfe is turned into sinne: and against the Epistle of Parmenian,Lib, 2. cap 8 Nam si esset me­diator Paulus, essent vti (que) & caeteri Apostoli ac sic multi media­tores essent. Nec ipsi Pa [...]lo consta retratio qua di­xerat. Vnus De­us, Ʋnus media­tor &c. if S. Paul were mediator, so should the rest of the Apostles be, and by that meanes there should be many Mediatours, and so Saint Paul should haue mistaken himselfe in saying, there is one onely God, and one onely Mediatour. Now it is to be noted, that he doth not speake in that Chapter, but of Mediator of intercession; for he disputeth a­gainst Parmenian who had called the Bishop Medi­ator betweene God and men: howbeit Parmenian did not vnderstand that the Bishop was the Redee­mer of the people. The same Doctor hath made a booke of the care to be had of the dead, wherein he disputeth at large that the dead know not that which is done here beneath, neyther doe they in­termeddle with the affaires of the liuing: his rea­sons are, that if that were so, his deare mother Mo­nica, who had followed him by Sea and by Land, would not haue forsaken him; but would haue stood by him euery night. That Abraham him­selfe, father of the Israelites, knew not his posterity, which also complayneth thereof in Esay: that God himselfe promised to Iosias for a great blessing, that he should not see the euils denounced against that people, but that he should die before: whereupon he concludeth;Ibi ergo sunt spiritus desan­ctorum vbi non vident quaecun­ (que) aguntur, aut eueniunt in ista vita hominibus. Quomodo ergo vident tumulos suos aut corpora sua, vtrum abie­cta iaceant an sepulta? The spirits then of the deceased are in place, where they see not all the things which are done, or which happen vnto men in this life. How then should [Page 199]they see their graues or their corps, whether they lie cast out and abandoned, or whether they be buried?

And in c. 15.Proinde faten­dum est nescire quidem mortuos quid hic [...]gitur dum hic agitur: postea vero au­dire ab eis qui hinc ad eos mo­riendo pergunt. We must confes that the dead know no­thing of that which is done here, whilst it is a doing, but that they vnderstand it aftewards from those, who dy­ing, goe from hence vnto them. Yet doubtlesse not all things, but that which is permitted them to declare vnto those to whom it is granted to haue it in remembrance, and that which is expedient for them to know. They may also learne something of the Angels, who haue in­tercourse while things are done here below. I make the Reader Iudge, how we can call vpon the Saints de­parted, if we must stand, till some one of our friends die to report our prayers vnto them, or if it be ne­cessary that an Angell should goe from hence be­low, to aduertise them aboue. Obserue also that this good Doctour neuer bethought himselfe of that looking-glasse forged of late: for indeede he neuer tooke his degrees in the faculty of Diui­nity.

As touching publique seruice, it is certaine that at the celebration of the Eucharist, there was com­memoration made of the Saints deceased, but with­out inuocating them, as S. Austin witnesseth in his two and twentieth booke of the Citie of God, chap 10.Ad quod sacri­ficium sicut ho­mines Dei qui mundum eius confessione vice­runt fuo loco & ordine nominan­tur. Non tamen a sacerdote qui sacrificat inuo­cantur. At this sacrifice the Martyrs as men of God, who haue ouercome the world in confessing him, are named in their place and in their ranke, but They are not In­uocated by the Priest, who sacrificeth. And to the same end the third Councell of Carthage in the three and twentieth Canon ordayneth very ex­presly, [Page 200] Cum ad altare assistitur, semper ad patrem d ri­gatur Oratio. that when they stand at the Altar, the praier be alwayes addressed to God the Father: not then to the Saints, as they doe now adaies in many Masses.

In his twentieth booke against Faustus the Ma­nichee:Cap. 21: Colimus marty­res eo cultu dile­ctionis & societatis quo & in hac vita coluntur sancti homines. We honour the Martyrs with the same honour of loue and society, wherewith men honor the holy men of God, which are in this life. True it is that he ac­knowledgeth, that it is with more assurance, be­cause they haue surpassed all danger: but he alwaies acknowledgeth that it is one and the same kind of honour. It is not then to inuocate them or to adore them, and it is that seruice which is yeelded to li­uing men, which he affirmeth to be called Dulia, whence it followeth that it is not a religious wor­ship. And therfore also in his booke of the true Re­ligion, c. 55.Tom: 1: Non sit vobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum quia si pie vixerunt non sic habentur, vt tales quaerant honores, sed illum a nobis coli vo­lunt, quo illumi­nante laetantur merito sui nos esse consortes: Let not the seruice, saith he, of men depar­ted, be your religion, if they haue liued holily, they are in that state that they craue not these honors. And a little after, We must honour them for imitation, but we must not adore them by any Religion.

The same Authour in his manuall to Laurentius cap. 114.Non nisi a Do­mino Deo petere debemus quic­quid speramus nos vel boni ope­raturos vel pro bonis operibus adepturos. We ought not to craue from any other, but from God, the good which we hope eyther to doe, or to procure as a Stipend of our good workes.

In his booke of Ecclesiasticall Determinations, cap. 81.Secreta cogi­tationis solus ille nouit ad quem dicitur: Tu solus nosti corda filio­rum bominum: He alone knoweth the secrets of the hearts, to whom it is said, Thou alone knowest the hearts of the sonnes of men.

These passages, a few amongst many, shal suffice for this time, against which our aduersaries pro­duce [Page 201]some places drawne out of forged bookes, or out of the ill gouerned deuotion of some particu­lar men contrary to the publicke beleefe. And if there be any examples found of some few who haue prayed Ad memorias Martyrum, before or neere the sepulchres of the Martyrs, our aduersaries per­swade the ignorant that these prayers were made vnto the Martyrs, in stead that they were made vn­to God to praise him for the assistance giuen vnto the Martyrs, and to craue of God the like grace.

Aboue all it is considerable, that Coeffeteau doth touch but the half of the question, and wardeth but halfe the blows: for he endeuoreth to proue that we must inuocate the Saints, which is but a litle peece of the abuse. For the Church of Rome doth not stay there, she craueth of God saluation, not onely through the intercession of the Saint, but also through their merites:Quorum precibꝰ meritis (que) rogamꝰ Which is not to goe to God by the Saints, but contrariwise to lead God to the Saints, and to represent him their merites. This is also to pray vnto God with an indiscretion; which would be accounted impudent in speaking to a King: If any man should aske him a fauour or benefite for the merites of another. And this so vnworthy a prayer is accompanied with a supersti­tious iesture,Oramus te Do­mine per merita Sanctorum quo­rum relliquiae hic sunt & omnium sanctorum, vt in­dulgere digne­ris omnia p [...]ccata mea. when the Priest bowing himself ouer the Altar, saith, We pray thee, O Lord, by the merites of the Saints, whose reliques are here (for euery Altar is a Tombe) and generally of all the Saints, that thou wilt vouchsafe to pardon all my sinnes. Of such a pray­er Coeffeteau hath not been able to produce any ex­ample.

No more then of this damnable opinion, which holdeth, that the merites of the Saints doe serue to fill vp the measure of the merites of Iesus Christ;Lib. 1: de Indulg. cap: 4. in that being adioyned to the merites of Iesus Christ, and put together into the treasurie of the Church, they are employed by the Pope for the re­demption and discharge of the punishment of our sinnes: whence also it is that Cardinall Bellarmine saith, that in some sort they are our redeemers. How comes it to passe, that Coeffeteau holdeth his peace hereat, and alleadgeth not any father? and hath forgotten to excuse the Priest, who in his Con­fiteor which he saith at the entrance of the Masse, confesseth his sinnes to God, to the Virgin Marie, to Michael th'arch-Angell, and to the Saints, but not to Iesus Christ.

ARTICLE IX. Touching Masses without Communicants and without Assistants.

BVt if the Romish Church hath coyned new Articles of faith, The KINGS Confession. ne­uer heard of in the first 500. years after Christ, I hope I shall neuer be condemned for an Hereticke, for not being a Nouelist. Such are the priuate Masses, where the Priest playeth the part both of the Priest and of the people.

If euer man turned his backe and shamefully fledde, it is Coeffeteau in this place: We expected from him the defence of priuate Masses by the word of God, or at least that he should haue pro­duced vnto vs the practise of the auncient Church, or some examples of priuate masses in the first fiue hundred yeares after Iesus Christ; seeing that the King of great Britain doth limit him to that terme, but of all this not a word. But rather he turneth aside his Discourse, & casteth himselfe vpon the sa­crifice of the masse,Fol. 22. pag. 1. heaping vp many passages of the Fathers, who cal the Eucharist a sacrifice. ‘He saith onely that it is not necessary that a sacrifice be of­fered by many, that in times past the greatest sa­crifice of the Synagogue was done by the high Priest alone in the holy of holies; that the fathers in many places called the Eucharist a sacrifice. That the essence of the sacrifice doth not depend from the assistants: That the vertue of this Obla­tion is alwaies one as wel in, as out of solemnities. Add hereunto that the action cannot be priuate, albeit the Priest doe it in particular, seeing that he is a publike person: That S. Austin speaking of a place haunted with wicked spirits, saith, that one of his Priests went thither, & offered the Sacrifice of the body of Christ,The Answere. The Priest in the Masse saith that he doth offer Sacrificiū laudis pro re­demptione ani­marum. which could no otherwise be done, but priuately and without solemnity.’

I answere, that Coeffeteau takes much paines to no purpose; for we agree with the Fathers, that the holy supper is a Sacrifice; but yet a Sacrifice Eucharisticall, that is, a giuing of thankes, not pro­pitiatory [Page 204]for the redemption of soules, where Christ is really sacrificed; which we shall see here­after. Yea were it such a sacrifice as our aduersa­ries would haue it, yet ought it to bee celebrated with the communion of assistants, because God hath so commanded.

1 Christ Iesus saying to the assistants, take, eate, commaundeth them to participate.

2 Againe he addeth, Doe this, that in the cele­bration thereof we should follow his example.

And the Apostle S. Paul, 1. cor. 10.16. defineth this Sacrament by the Communion, saying, That the bread which we breake is the communion of the bo­dy of Christ.

4 The Apostle there addeth wordes that strike sure; We are all partakers of one bread: then all ought to participate.

5 Also the word supper, which he vseth in the twentieth verse of the Chapter following, signifies a common supper, and importeth a communion: and we haue elsewhere declared, that all auncient Wri­ters doe call this Sacrament a supper. Now what can be more absurd, then to inuite people to a sup­per, to looke on, and eate nothing? Who euer heard tell of a feast, where the inuiter doth eate a­lone? They reply, that at a Feast people cannot be forced to eate: whereunto I say, that if they should not be compelled, they should at least be entreated to eate: but in priuate Masses there are none inui­ted, and the Priest is often alone: I say farther, that the guests should be constrained to eate; if God [Page 205]haue so expresly commanded: and he hath com­manded to take, eate, and communicate in this ho­ly supper. It is no wonder then, if the word Supper, be grown odious, and out of vse seeing it serues to discouer the abuse, and that the Etymologie therof is a kinde of commandement.

6 Besides, what resemblance is there between Christ set at the Table with his Apostles, distribu­ting the bread and the cup to euery of them, and the Priest that not onely eates and drinkes by him­selfe, but is often alone, and grumbles some few wordes vnheard vpon the Host.

7 More especially it is to bee considered, that the Church of Rome teacheth, that the Eucharist is not onely a sacrifice, but also a Sacrament: whence it followes, that although the Eucharist, as it is a sacrifice, may be performed without Com­municants, yet as it is the Sacrament of that Com­munion which wee haue together with Iesus Christ, so is the communion thereof among many required as necessary: which shewes how imperti­nently Coeffeteau speakes, That it is not necessary that the Sacrifice be offered by many, and that the essence of the Sacrifice dependeth not of the Communicants, and that the vertue of the Sacrifice is still the same, both with the ceremonies and without them: seeing we do not here speake of the Eucharist, as it is a sacrifice, but a Sacrament. If any Sophister make answere, that the essence of the Sacrament consisteth not in the Communion, but in the consecration: my re­plication is, that it contradicts the Apostle, who [Page 206]defineth this sacrament by the Communion, as we haue seene, and definitions are the very essence of things. Againe, the communion of one bread, hath an essentiall reference to our Communion with Iesus Christ: which two words are relatiues, wher­of the former depends vpon the latter. Touching the pretended consecration of the Church of Rome, it cannot be of the essence of the sacrament, for euery sacrament is a holy signe, but this conse­cration is not a holy signe, because it doth not sig­nifie any thing, no body vnderstands any thing, or sees any thing.In the booke of the Apolo­gy, chap. 7. And we haue declared in it place, that the true consecration is done by prayer, and the auncients so beleeued.

8 No [...]withstanding, let vs graunt that the Communion is not of the essence of the Sacra­ment, doth it therefore follow that it is not necessa­ry? Is there not validity in Gods commandement to make it necessary? Is there nothing necessarie besides that which is of the essence of things? then shall not the law or the Gospell be necessary for men, because they are not of the essence of men: and so shal it not be necessary for Coeffeteau to draw his breath, because it is no part of his effence, there can nothing be said more wide from the pur­pose.

9 Touching that which he addeth, that the cheefe sacrifice of the Synagogue was performed by the High Priest alone within the Holy of Ho­lies: I doe admire the negligent rashnes of this Doctor, that he dares speake of the Scripture, be­fore [Page 207]he read it; for had he read it, he would haue found the contrary; he should haue seene that the blood which the High Priest alone caried into the Sanctum Sanctorū, was the blood of a beast already sacrificed in the Court, vpon the altar of burnt of­ferings, in the presence of the people; and there was no sacrifice more publique, or more solemnly performed. Is there any such a nouice in the sacred History, that euer thought that Aaron did sacrifice or offer any beast within the place that was most holy? It was then a sprinkling of bloud which he made vpon the Arke, as the conclusion of the pub­lique sacrifice, and was no sacrifice done in priuate. Read the thirtieth of Exodus and the sixteenth of Leuiticus.

10 Of like stuffe is that which he addeth, that Masses without Communicants or assistants, can­not be said to be priuate, because the Priest is a pub­lique person: this is a goodly conceit. So then if a Minister doe pray alone in the Church, his prayer shal be a publique prayer. And should not this Mi­nister deserue a greene coate, if being alone hee should say, Attend my Masters, when he reprehen­ded the walles? yet this is that which the Massing Priest in priuate doth; at which priuate Masses be­ing all alone, he saith, Orate pro me fratres, Brethren pray for me: and which is more, he saith, Accipite & man ducate ex hoc omnes; Take and eate all of this: and yet offers nothing to any body, but eates alone With like abuse doth he say, Vt quot quot ex hac al­taris participatione sumpserimus, &c. That al we which [Page 208]by the participation of the Altar, haue receiued: the bo­die, &c Wherupon the question is asked, to whom the Priest speakes, when he saith, Brethren pray for me. Pope Innocent the third doth answere finely in the second booke of the mysteries of the Masse, chap. 25. It must (saith he) be religiously beleeued, that the Angels doe beare them companie that pray, accor­ding to the saying of the Prophet, I will sing vnto thee in the presence of the Angels. Which will also serue to resolue other doubts, presuming that when the Priest saith, Take, eate, he doth invite the Angels to eate, for they come with good stomackes. And so of the rest.

At length the place of Austin is brought, which is the onely passage of antiquity that Coeffeteau can finde. This Father, lib. 22. De ciuit. Dei, speaking of a place haunted with euill spirits, saith, that one of his Priests went, and offered a Sacrifice there: wher­upon Coeffeteau saith, that this could not be done but priuately and without solemnity: but he dares not to affirme, that he had no assistants, or commu­nicants; which is that which he should, or else the place makes not to the purpose. And indeede we may presume the contrary, forasmuch as S Austin speakes of a great house, and of some great person of quality, that sent not for a Minister of the Church of Carthage to celebrate the holy Sacra­ment,Nusquam ex­presse legimus a veter ibus obla­tum sacrificium sine communione al [...]cuius ve! ali­quorum. to leaue him alone without assistants, or communicants: and indeede Bellarmine confesseth the impertinency of this place, lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9. where he acknowledgeth, That there is no expresse [Page 209]place sound, where the auncrents haue offered the Sa­crifice, without some Communicants.

The common excuse, and the same which the Councel of Trent vseth in the seuenth Session, is that it comes to passe through the indeuotion of the people: which speech doth both confes, and yet approue the abuse: for the same Councell addeth, The holy Councell doth not forbid those Masses wherein the Priest alone doth communicate sacramentally, as priuate and vnlawfull, but doth approue and commend them: which their practise doth proue; for if it be through the want of deuotion in the people, why doe they not endeauour the remedie? for if there be any question of casting into the boxe, if any bu­sines fall out concerning tithes, and offerings, they easily finde the meanes to holde the people in the humor of contribution; neither do I finde that the Cardinalls, and Bishops doe communicate of [...]ener then the people.

For the Priests hinder the people from assisting them, because they say an infinite number of Mas­ses in priuate, and vpon the sudden; of which they giue no warning. For three sundry persons will one Priest dispatch three Masses, to euery one his own, that each of them may pay for a whole Masse And they that will haue yearely Masses, doe found yearely Pensions: for neuer was any priuate Masse said for him that gaue nothing; they vse not to make God for nothing: Masses are sold for more or lesse according to the prouision that is made; & if one pay for one Masse, is it any reason that ano­ther [Page 210]should equally share with him? Yea they buy Masses for the soules of young children dying soone after baptisme, which they hold must needes be in Paradice: for if Masses doe no good to them that are dead, yet they profite those that are aliue: Doubtlesse it is couereousnesse that hath hatched this abuse, and superstition hath fomented it.

These men do againe reply, although but weakly: for (say they) if no Communicants offer them­selues, must the Sacrifice be therefore discontinu­ed? Let them heare S.Chrysostome thundring there­upon in the third Homily vpon the Ephesians: [...]. O custome! O presumption! in vaine is Sacrifice daily offered, in vaine doe we stand at the Altar, and none communicate. And a little after, Whosoeuer doth not communicate in these mysteries, is impudent and rash in standing by. And further adde, that they do falsly presume, that the holy supper is a Sacrifice, in that sense which they take the word Sacrifice, as we shal presently see. Now let vs heare the testimonies of the Auncients.Peracta conse­cratione omnes communic ent qui noluerint Ecclesiasticis carere liminibus, Sic enim & A­postoli sta tuerunt & Sancta Ro­mana tenet Ec­clesia. Tanta in altario holocausta offe­rantur quanta populo sufficere debeant, &c.

The auncient rule of the Church of the Citie of Rome, which is found in the second Distinction of the consecration vnder the name of Anaclet, in the Canon Peracta, is this, The consecration being en­ded, let all those communicate, that will not be excluded out of the bounds of the Church: for so haue the Apo­stles ordained, and the Church of Rome obserueth.

And in the Canon Tribus gradibus, of the same Distinction, Let as many offerings be laid vpon the Table, as will serue for all the people to communicate: [Page 211]and if any doe remaine, let them not be kept vntill the morrow.

And in the first Distinction of the Consecration in the Canon Hoc quoque, the Pope speakes thus: It is ordained that no Priest presume to celebrate the so­lemnities of the Masse, if he haue not two others that may answere him, and that the Priest be the third: be­cause when he saith in the plurall number, The Lord be with you, and that which he saith in secret, pray for me, it is apparantly requisite that answere be made to his salutation.

Iustin Martyr in the second of his Apologie, The Deacons doe disiribute the bread to euery one that is present.

Ignatius in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, [...]. Dominica Coena omnibus debet esse communis. One loafe hath beene broken to all. S. Ierome vpon the first to the Corinth. cap. II. The supper of the Lord ought to be common vnto all. The Reader may compare this word, the common Supper, with the priuate Masse.

The Authour of the Constitutions ascribed vn­to Clement, lib. 2. cap. 61. Let euery one receiue the bodie of the Lord. And so haue all the auncient Liturgies,Accipiant singuli per se Domini­cum corpus. although they be much falsified: yea and some traces thereof are to be seene in the Masse, where the Priest, though he be alone doth alwaies speake as vnto many communicants.

Cum ex more Diaconus clama­ret, Si quis non communi at det locum. Gregory the first, Bishop of Rome, in the second booke of his Dialogues, chap. 13. saith, that the Dea­con according to the custome, crieth, if there be any that doth not communicate, let him depart. And this was sixe hundred yeares after Christ, and we could dis­scend [Page 212]lower. But this sufficeth against a man that feares the triall, who being not able to alleadge a­gainst the King of great Britaine, any syllable of Scripture, no nor any of the Auncients that speake of priuate Masses, doth flie from the matter and de­sperately runnes into the disputation of the Sacri­fice of the Masse. We may let him runne, seeing he betakes himselfe to his heeles; yet let vs giue him this aboue his bargaine.

ARTICLE X. Of the Communion vnder one kinde.

The KINGS Confession. ANd such are the Amputation of the one halfe of the Sacrament from the people.

‘Hereunto M^r. Coeffeteau opposeth the second of the Acts, where (saith he) the Apostles admini­stred this Sacrament vnder one kinde onely; for there it is said, that the faithfull continued in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in fellowship, and breaking of bread. That our chiefe Doctors con­fesse that this place must be vnderstood of the Sacrament, and yet there is no mention but of one kinde of bread: vnlesse his Maiesty (saith he) who adoreth the sufficiency of the Scripture, will make a supplement of something to be added thereunto. He addeth that Christ is wholly and entier vnder euery kinde, and that the people re­ceiue him neuerthelesse. That the Church by this meanes hath prouided against vnreuerent behauiours: and preuented the heresie of those [Page 247]that beleeued not that the bloud was together with the body vnder the kinde of bread. He af­firmeth, that heretofore it was free to receiue the communion vnder one, or both kindes, because the faithfull sometimes carried the Eucharist home to their houses, and toooke it not but when they might commodiously doe it: and they did it (say they) for the most part vnder the kinde of bread only: and that Athanasius witnesseth, that the Communion Cup was not vsed out of the Church: that they communicated among them­selues vnder one kinde: that they might also doe it in publique. For thus saith S. Ierome, Hierom in Apol. ad Pammachiū. Is Christ another in publique then in a priuate house? that which is not to be tolerated in the Church, is not the rather permitted in a house: that the Ministers complayning of the mutilation of one kinde, haue in the meane time destroyed the essence of the Sacrament, remouing the body of the Lord as farre from the Sacrament as heauen from the earth, which is to belye the Sonne of God, who saith, This is my body, &c.’

Before we make answere to the place of the se­cond of the Acts; the Reader shall obserue,The Answere. that this is the first place of Scripture, which this Doctor hath alleadged: wherein his wisedome hath fayled him; for had hee continued not to alleadge any scripture at all, an ignorant Reader would haue thought it had not beene necessary: but seeing him beginne here to speake of the word of God, doubtlesse he will wonder, that in so many Con­trouersies [Page 248]handled heretofore, hee hath heard no­thing alleadged out of Gods word. And indeede the doctrine of saluation was neuer so prophanely handled: for GOD is become suspected, and his bookes of faith, haue now no credite in controuer­sies. This is a great grace which they doe vnto the word of God, if after a Legend of reasons, and hu­mane allegations, at length some short sentence is casually produced: and not without cause: for why then is it not more fauorable to his Holinesse Em­pire? But let vs heare this place.

In the second of the Acts, ver. 42. it is said that the Disciples continued together in the Doctrine of the Apostles, and in the Communion and break­ing of bread. It is not there said that the people participated in the Cup; therefore they commu­nicated onely vnder one kinde of bread.

1 This coniecture is too light by a great ma­ny graines: and which is more, it makes against the Church of Rome, which beleeueth, that the Pa­stors ought necessarily to take it in both kindes. Now in this passage it is not said that the Pastors did participate in the Cup, and they are no more mentioned then are the people: therefore should it follow that the Pastors also did not participate in the cup.

2 This also is a weake kinde of Argumentati­on, to say, that in the second of the Acts, there is nothing mentioned beside breaking of bread, that therfore the Cup was not vsed. If I should say, that being inuited by such a one I haue eaten with him, [Page 249]doth it follow, that I haue not drunke, although I spake not of it?

This errour proceedeth from ignorance of the scripture phrase, which by the breaking of bread, and by eating of bread, doth vsually vnderstand the whole banquet, and all kinde of sustenance. So Gen. 31.54. Iacob inuiteth his brethren to eate breade. See Genes. 37.25. Matth. 15.2. and sundry other places.

We cannot be accused by this manner of speak­king, to adde vnto the Scripture: the sufficiencie whereof we defend against our aduersaries. For if in this place there be no mention of the Cup, it sufficeth that it is spoken of in other places. And to ioyne diuers places together, which speake of the same thing, is not to adde vnto the Scripture. Be­sides it is not credible, that the Apostles hauing so expresly receiued this commaundement, to drinke all of the Cup, would infringe the same. Againe, when we speake of the sufficiency of the Scrip­tures, our meaning is not that the Scripture recy­ting a story vnto vs, doth specifie all the particula­rities of that which happened. Onely we say, that in things which it commandeth vs to beleeue, and doe, it doth sufficiently instruct vs vnto saluation. Now to know what is to be beleeued, and done in this sacrament, we must learne it out of the institu­tion of the same, and out of the expresse comman­dements of Christ and his Apostles.

1 For Iesus Christ instituting this sacrament among his Disciples, said vnto them, Drinke ye all of [Page 250]this: That is,Lib. 1. de corpore Christi cap. 15. as saith Paschasius, aswell the Ministers as the other beleeuers. They answere, that all those to whom our Sauior spake were Pastors, and ther­fore this commaundement was giuen onely vnto the Pastors. Which if it be so, by the same reason also the Pastors onely must eate of the bread: for if in these wordes, Drinke ye all of this, Christ spake to none but to the Pastors, then certainly in these words, Take, eate, he speaks also vnto the Pastors: & if this be so, let them tel me where is the comman­dement which bindeth the people to communi­cate in the bread? For to participate thereof in faith, it must be that God hath so commanded.

2 Also it is false, that the Apostles being with Iesus Christ instructing them, or administring the Sacrament vnto them, held the place of Pastors; for they were as the flocke, assisting him in taking and receiuing.

3 Againe, the words of Christ, Do this, bound them to doe vnto their flockes, as Iesus Christ did vnto them: and therefore these wordes bound them to giue it vnto the people in both kindes.

4 But we haue moreouer the expresse com­maundement of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11. Let a man (saith he) examine himselfe, and so let him eate of this bread, and drinke of this cap. Doth he not speake to the people of Corinth, and as himselfe saith, cap. 1. ver. 1. To all them that call vpon the name of Iesus? Are not all the faithfull commaunded to examine themselues, 2. Cor. 13.5? Why then to drinke of the Cup also, for the Apostle ioyneth these things to­gether. [Page 251]Obserue also that he saith not, examine your selues when you will drinke, as some Sophi­sters would haue it, but he will haue euery one to trie himselfe, and being examined, that he drinke of the Cup. He leaues it not at their choyce, to eate without drinking after they haue beene exa­mined. And if this place binde them to eate, then why not to drinke also, seeing the commaund is e­quall?

5 It may not be omitted, that nothing so perplex­eth our aduersaries, as when we ask them, whether in the sixth of Iohn, where it is said, If you drinke not my blood, you shall haue no life in you, the Eucharist be spoken of: If it be not spoken of, why doe they al­leadge this Chapter to establish their transubstan­tiation? If it be therespoken of, why doe they de­priue the people of that life, in taking the Cup from them? Neyther doth it serue the turne to say, that the people receiue the blood together with the Host, by a concomitancy, for hee that so re­ceiues the blood, doth not drinke. Now Christ saith expresly, If you drinke not, &c. Furthermore he that takes the blood vnder the Host, doth not take it as shed for vs, and with the sacrament of the effusion of his blood vpon the Crosse, which is the manner according to which Iesus Christ would haue euery one to participate thereof: by which it falleth also to the ground, which certaine Sophi­sters say, that Christ doth not in this place of Saint Iohn explane the manner of communicating, but declareth the substance thereof: for if Christ in this [Page 252]place speake of the Eucharist, when he commaun­deth his blood to be drunke, then questionlesse he speakes of the manner of communicating: for to drinke is the manner of receiuing.

6 Yea it appeareth that the Church of Rome beleeueth not, that this commaundement, Drinke ye all of this, is giuen to the Pastors alone, seeing that Princes haue their share also in this priuiledge: An euident proofe that this Order was brought in to exalt the Clergie aboue the Layetie, and to make them companions of Kings, and Princes: which is a cunning like that whereby they make Emperors and Kings to be Canons of certaine Cathedrall Churches. And indeede as the Pope by this sleight hath desired to aduance the Clergy, so hath hee withall consulted to aduance himselfe a­boue the Clergy. For hee vouchsafeth not to drinke as others do, nor to touch the Chalice with his lips, no nor to touch it with his hand. But a Cardinall holdeth the Chalice couered,Lib. 2. Sacrarum Ceremon. cap. 14. Episcopus Cardi­nalis porrigit ca­lamum quem Papa ponit in ca­lice in manibus Diaconi existen­te, & sanguinis partem sugit, &c out of which the Pope suckes certaine gulpes with a quill, and then the Cardinall doth his reuerence: which fashion of sucking, hauing beene practised some fiue or sixe hundred yeares in certaine places of Almaigne as Rhenanus in his notes vpon Ter­tullian obserueth, the Pope hath reserued onely for himselfe, that he may exempt himselfe from the multitude.

7 And to shew that the Church of Rome hath a spleene to Iesus Christ, and that S. Pauls comman­dement displeaseth them, the Councell of Con­stance [Page 253]in the thirteenth Session, acknowledgeth:Quod licet Chri­stus post coenam instituerit & suis discipulis ad­ministrauerit sub vtra (que) specie panis & vini hoc [...]enerabile secramen tum. A little after, Licet in primiti­ua Ecclesia hoc Sacramentum reciperetur à fi­delibus sub vtra­que specie, &c. Cum in nonnullis mundi partibus quidam temera­riè praesumant populum Christi­anum debere Sacramentū Eu­char. sub vtra (que) specie suscipere. Consuetudo rati­onabiliter intro­ducta habenda est pro lege, perti­naciter asseren­tes oppositum tanquam haereti­ci arcendi sunt, & grauiter pu­niendi inuocato etiam auxilio brachij secularis Libro de com­munione laicali, scripto [...]n [...]. 1417. That Iesus Christ instituted and administred the Sa­crament vnder both kindes: and that in the Primitrue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faithfull vnder both kindes. Notwithstanding this venerable Councell complaineth, That in some partes of the world, some rashly presume, that Christian people ought to receiue the Sacraments vnder both kindes. That is to say, it is rashnesse, and presumption to follow Christ. It addeth, That the custome [of giuing but one kinde vnto the people] being brought in vpon reason, ought to be helde for a law: that they who hold the con­trary are Heretiques and to be grieuously punished, yea the ayde of the secular power being desired. It wanted not much that the Councell had denounced Iesus Christ for an Heretique, or sent Saint Paul to the Inqu [...]sition.

But Coeffeteau will perswade vs that this cutting away of the Cup, is discreetely done, to preuent some irreuerend behauiours. Gerson who was pre­sent in this Councel, opens their meaning vnto vs, and saith it is done for feare that one or other should spill the wine in the Chalice. These peo­ple are afraid to let fall one drop of the wine, but feare not to let fall Gods commandement.In the yeare 1503. vnder Lewes the 12. the Host being let fall at Paris in the holy Chappel of the Palace, the pauement was taken vp and put among the Reliques. The Supplement of Nicholas Giles. And if so be the Chalice should be ouerturned, or if any hauing drunke should regurge it, this were en­ough to stirre a whole Countrey: they runne to­gether [Page 254]as at the crie of fire; they licke the place, scrape the stones, adore the scrapings and the ashes and put them among the Reliques: a superstition not vsed in the time of Cyprian, who in his booke de Lapsis, reporteth a Story of a young Maide, that hauing dranke of the Cup, did put it vp againe, not speaking of any such furious deuotion. The said Gerson saith, that it is done for feare lest the people should wet their Mustachoes in the Chalice: for they feared that Iesus Christ should be entirely fa­stened to euery haire, for as much as they hold that his body is wholly, and entire in euery drop. But it were better that men were without Mustachoes, then want the Sacrament of the blood of Christ; and at least there is no such danger for women and young people. He saith also that it is done for feare least the wine being kept should waxe sower, or grow flat: but they should be free from this dan­ger, if they did communicate with the people in the publique assembly, not reseruing the Sacra­ments till the morrow. Expresly contrary to the defence of the auncient Church, comprized in the Canon Tribus gradibus, in the second Distinction of the Consecration, where Bishop Clement ordai­neth, that so many offerings be set vpon the Altar, Tanta in altario bolocausta offe­rantur quanta populo [...]ussicere debeant Quod si remanserint in crast num non reseruentur. as will serue for the whole assembly to communicate, and if any remaine, that they be not kept till the next day. But how comes it to passe, that Iesus Christ being included (as they will haue it) in the Chalice, doth not preserue it from taking winde, or waxing sharpe? seeing they keepe Aarons rod, and the [Page 255]milke of the holy Virgin among their Reliques vn­to this day without corruption? And why shall not Iesus Christ haue the same vertue? To con­clude, whosoeuer shal here pretend wisedome and discretion, desires to be wiser then Christ and his Apostles: neyther can there be any inconueni­ence alleadged, which Christ Iesus hath not pre­uented.

Neither is it said to any purpose that the Church of Rome would by this meanes stop an heresie, for we must not redresse one euill by another, or re­forme an error by an abuse, or helpe the ignorance of men by disobedience vnto God. Yea, wee shall hereafter see, that this taking away of the Cup hath not preuented any errour, but hath heaped vp one heresie vpon another, and to support their Tran­substantiation, it hath made Idolatry against God, to serue for their tyrannizing ouer the people.

Touching that which Coeffeteau subioyneth, that in former times it hath beene free to take the com­munion vnder one or both kindes: it is a plaine shift, for he makes shew, not to conceiue what the King of great Britaine meaneth, when he saith, that the mutilation of the Sacrament is a new inuenti­on. For he would say (and it is true) that in the an­cient Church there cannot be found any ordi­nance, custome or constitution, that hath depriued the people of the Cup: No, nor any one man, that hath made conscience in giuing the Cup to the people requiring it: No, nor any of the people that haue beene scrupulous in requiring it: But [Page 256]in stead hereof doth Coeffeteau say, that it was free to take it vnder one, or both kindes; which makes nothing to the purpose: for we complaine that it is not free to receiue both kindes. And yet that which he saith, is vntrue.

S^t. Austin in the seuen and fiftieth question vpon Leuiticus: All that will haue life, are exhorted to drinke the blood: Ad bibendum sanguinem om­nes exhortantur qui volunt habe­re vitam, &c. [...]. none is hindred, and all are exhor­ted. It was not then free.

Ignatius in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, One bread hath beene broken vnto all, and one Cup is distri­buted vnto all; then was none exempted. Iustin Martyr in his second Apologitique; The Deacons distribute VNTO EVERY ONE, the bread, and wine with water. Obserue to euery one. S. Cyprian who hath already tolde vs of a maide, that after she had dranke, cast vp the wine, complains in the third Epistle of the third booke, that some eyther tho­rough ignorance or simplicity, In calice Domini sanctificando, & plebi ministrando, in consecrating the cup, and administring to the PEOPLE, did it not conformably vnto the example of Iesus Christ. Sanguis Abel significat sangui­nem Christi, quo vniuersa Eccle­sia accepto dicit Amen. S. Au­stin in the sixty fiue booke of Questions, the fortie nine Quaest. Tom. 4 The blood of Abel signifieth the blood of Christ; which the WHOLE Church hauing receiued, saith Amen. He saith, the whole Church: not as Coeffeteau. Some receiuing one kinde onely, and some both kindes: which is eyther an audacious falshood, or very grosse ignorance in Antiquity: for euen the Canon Comperimꝰ, in the second Dist. of the Consecration, saith, that to forbeare the [Page 257]Cup is sacriledge, and a diuiding of the Mysterie: and therefore ordaineth that such Ought eyther to receiue the Sacraments entier, or to be wholly excluded from them These wordes Recipiant, Aut integra Sa­cramenta reci­piant aut ab in­tegris arceantur and Arceantur, which he vseth doe euidently proue, that he speaks of the people, who doe not of themselues receiue the Sacrament, but from the hand of the Minister. And this word Arceantur signifies, that they were not admitted, when they offered themselues: there­fore was it not free, as Coeffeteau affirmeth.

Who alleadgeth against himselfe the custome of those that carried home the bread, which they receiued in the Church, inasmuch as the Church of Rome hath reiected this custome; hauing well perceiued that this custome of so doing, doth testi­fie, that the auncient Church did not beleeue tran­substantiation: for the Priest would haue thought it a horrible prophanation to put God into the handes of the common people, for them to put him into their pocket, to carry him home to their houses, exposing him to the danger of a thousand reproaches, and to the neglect, or contempt of the first commer. Besides by the generall practise of the Church formerly declared, it appeares, that if any one did carry home with him the sacramentall bread, yet he communicated in the Cup with the whole Congregation.

The place which he alleadgeth out of Ierome, is vntruely produced, for S. Ierome speakes not there in any sort of the Communion vnder one kinde; but of those who being debarred from enting into [Page 258]the Church because they were thought to be vn­cleane, were made to bring the bread for the Sacra­ment with them.

Touching the recrimination which he vseth, that we haue destroyed the whole Sacrament: we shall see in the Article following how iniurious this ac­cusation is.

ARTICLE XI. Of Transubstantiation.

THe King of great Britaine doth rec­ken Transubstantiation also among the Nouelties brought into the Church since the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ.

Against this Coeffeteau alleadgeth onely foure places out of the Fathers, whereof the two first are false and suppositious, the third is fraudulently maimed and mangled, and the fourth is mis-vnder­stood.

The first is taken out of the Catechismes of Cyril of Ierusalem, which we formerly proued not to be Cyrils, [...]. but made by one Iohn of Ierusalem, who li­ued some foure hundred yeares after, when the su­perstition of Reliques was in force, which made him say in the fourth Catechisme, that the wood of the Crosse was then so growne and multipli­ed, that in a manner the whole earth was filled with it.

The second place is out of the booke de caena Do­mini, falsly ascribed 10 S. Cyprian, as are also all the Treatises. De Cardinalib. operibus; whereof this is one, to which there is prefixed a Prologue, wherein the Author saith that he hath suppressed his name: by which it appeareth, that the Authour of this Treatise is vnknowne; yet might this booke bee purposely alleadged had it beene written by any auncient Authour that had liued within the first foure or fiue hundred yeares, but the stile testifies, that it is newly forged, witnesse these wordes: Di­stributꝰ non demembratur incorporatus non iniuriatur This is the worke of some prentice Frier, that meant to wrong Priscian.

The third place is out of S. Ambrose in the ninth Chapter concerning those that are newly instruct­ed in the Mysteries, where Ambrose sayth, that the benediction chaungeth the nature of the Sacra­ment, and that it is not that which nature hath made, but what the blessing hath consecrated: And to shew that in this action there is a supernaturall worke, he brings the example of Airons rod turned into a Serpent: so farre doth Coeffeteau alleadge S. Ambrose, but hee doth malitiously omit many ex­amples following; by which it appeareth that S. Ambrose did not thinke, that that which was to be admired in this Sacrament, was the Transubstanti­ation of the bread. For he addeth also these exam­ples, that Moses deuided the redde Sea: that the Riuer Iordan turned his course: that water issued out of the Rocke: that the bitter waters of Mara [Page 260]were made sweete: that Elizeus made Iron to swimme vpon the water; which were all workes of God, whrein there was no transubstantiation; & which declare that he beleeued not that the bread became the body of Christ, so as it was no more bread in substance: which did plainly appeare, for that in the words following comparing these mira­cles of the Prophets, wherein God changed the na­ture of things,Non minus est nouas res rebus dare quam mu­tare naturas. with the change that is wrought in the Sacrament, he saith, That it is no lesse to adde some new things vnto things, then to change the nature of things. Auerring plainely thereby that the bread hath receiued some new thing, without losing the nature of bread. And we may not thinke it strange if he say that the bread remaining bread, hath chan­ged it nature. For so a bit of Waxe becomming the Kings seale changeth it nature without Tran­substantiation, and is not any more commonly cal­led Waxe, euen as the common bread becommeth holy in the Sacrament,Ʋera vti (que) caro Christi quae cru­cifixa quae sepul­ta est. Ʋerè ergo carnis illius Sa­cramentum est. Ipse clamat Do­minus Iesus, Hoc est corpus meū. Ante benedicti­onem verborum cael [...]stium alia species nomina­tur, post conse­crationem corpꝰ Christi significa­tur. and by this consecration is often called the body of Christ. Therefore he fur­ther addeth, It was the true flesh of Christ which hath beene crucified, and buried. This then is as truely the holy signe of the flesh. The Lord himselfe crieth aloud, this is my body: before the blessing of the heauenly wordes, another kinde is named, after the blessing the body of Christ is signified.

The last place is out of S. Chrysostome, in his Ser­mon of the Dedication, where in his flourishing Discourse after his manner, he heapes vp Hyperbo­lies, to enflame his Auditory. You which come (saith [Page 261]he) thinke not to receiue the Diuine body of a man, but that you receiue the very Seraphins of fire, with their tongues. And a little after, the spirituall fire streameth downe from the table: Transported with the same zeale, he saith there, that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body. And so in the fiue and fortieth Homily vpon S. Iohn: We are mingled and knead with him, we fasten our teeth in his flesh: All which are hyperbolicall phrases, and such as be­ing hardly taken were absurd in the very iudge­ment of our aduersaries, which make the helpes of deuotion to couer Idolatry: for to know what is a Doctors opinion, we must not take his Oratori­ous Amplifications, nor Hyperbolical extasies,Acceptum panē & distributum discipulis, corpus suum fecit di­cendo hoc est corpus meum, id est figura corporis me i. Panem suum corpus appel­lans, vt & hinc iam eum intelli­gas corporis sui siguram pani dedisse. I lle cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei per­que obsecratio­nem iuxta id quod habet ma­teriale in ven­trem abit & in secessum emitti­tur. but out of the places in which they aduisedly and ex­presly treate of this matter; of which you shall haue here some passages.

Tertullian in his fourth booke against Marcion, cap. 40. Iesus Christ hauing taken bread, and distributed it to his Disciples, he made it to be his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.

The same in his third booke against Marcion, cap. 19. God hath so reuealed it in the Gospell, calling the bread his body, to the end that thereby thou mayest vnderstand that he hath giuen to the bread to be a fi­gure of his body.

Origen vpon the fifteenth of Matthew: That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, as touching the matter, it goeth downe into the belly, and is cast out into the draught, and doth not san­ctifie of its owne nature.

Cyprian in his third Epistle of the second booke,Vinum fuit quod sanguinem suum dixit. [...], &c. Non dubitauit dicere Hoc est corpus m [...]um cum daret sig­num corporis sui. Sicut ergo secun­dum quendam modum Sacra­mentum corporis Christi orpus Christi est, Sacramentum sangui­nis Christi sang­uis Christi est. Ita Sacramen­tum fidei fides est. Spiritualiter in­telligitur quod locutus sum, non hoc corpus quod videtis mandu­caturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fu [...]uri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum a liquod vobis commendaui: Spiritualiter in­tellectum viui­ficabit vos. We find that the Cup which the Lord offered was ming­led, and THAT WHICH HE CALLED HIS BLOVD WAS WINE.

Eusebius in the eighth booke of the Demonstra­tion of the Gospell, chap. 1. towards the end; Iesus Christ gaue to his Disciples the signes of the diuine dis­pensation, commaunding them to celebrate the figure of his owne body. For seeing that he did now no longer re­ceiue the sacrifices of bloud, nor the slaughter of diuers beasts ordained by Moses, he hath taught vs to vse the bread for a signe of his body.

S. Austin against Adimantus, chap. 12. The Lord made no difficulty to say, This is my body, when he gaue the signe of his body. Where we see that he expound­eth this word Body, by signe of my body.

In his three and twentieth Epistle to Boniface, The holy signe of Christs body is after a sort, the body of Christ: and the holy signe of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ; and so the holy signe of faith, (to wit, Baptisme) is faith. Certainely Baptisme is not tran­substantiated into faith, neyther the Sacrament then of the body of Christ, into the body of Christ. Now we must note that himselfe in his tenth book of the Citie of God, and in the fift Epistle to Mar­cellius, declareth that this word sacrament signifieth an holy signe.

Vpon the ninety eight Psalme, Vnderstand that which I say spiritually; you shall not eate his body which you see, neyther shall you drinke the blood which my tor­mentors shall shedde, I haue recommended vnto you an [Page 263]holy signe, which being spiritually vnderstood, shal make you liue.

Himselfe in his third booke and sixteene Chap­ter of Christian doctrine,Nisi manduca­uerit is carnē filij hominis, & non biberitis eius sanguinem—fa­cinus vel flagiti­um videtur iu­bere Figura est ergo, praecipions passioni domini­cae esse commu­nicandum & suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius cruci­fixa & vulnera­ta sit. [...], &c. Except you eate (saith Christ) the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood, you shall haue no life in you. It seemeth that he commaundeth a wickednesse. It is then a figure: which commaundeth vs to communicate of the Passion of our Lord, and quietly and profitably to lay vp in our memo­ries that his flesh was wounded and crucified for vs. Obserue how he expoundeth this Figure, to wit, that to eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, is to communicate of his Passion, and to ruminate and meditate thereon carefully in our memories.

Theodoret in his first Dialogue, intituled Im­moueable, fol. 8. of the Romane Edition, The Lord hath giuen to the signe the name of his body What can a man say more expresly? And a little after, He hath called the signe his blood.

A little after, Iesus Christ hath honoured visible signes with the Appellation of his body, not hauing changed their nature, but hauing added grace to nature. So many wordes, so many flashes of lightning.

In the second Dialogue, the Eutychien Here­tique agreeth with Coeffeteau, and maintaineth the Tran [...]ubstantiation of the bread into flesh. But The­odoret doth reprehend him thus: The Mysticall signes doe not change their nature after the consecration: for they remaine in their first substance and forme and figure: and are visible and to be handled, as before, but they are vnderstood to bee the things which they are [Page 264]made: and are beleeued and reuerenced as being be­come that which they are beleeued to be.

Gelasius aboue all is excellent in his booke of the two natures:Et tamen esse non desimit sub­stantia vel natu­ra panis & vini & cert è imago & si [...]itudo corporis & sang­uinis Christi in actione mysterio­rum celebrantur Certainly the Sacraments of the bo­dy and blood of Christ which we receiue, are a diuine thing, and therfore also by them we are made partakers of the Diuine nature: and yet notwithstanding, the Substance and nature of the bread, and of that wine doth not let to remaine. And surely the Image and sem­blance of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of mysteries.

What more? Let vs heare the Canonists of the Church of Rome in a Glosse more auncient then the Transubstantiation,Caeleste Sacra­mentum quod verè repraesentat carnem Christi dicitur corpus Christi sed im­propriè, vnde dicitur suo modo non rei veritate sed significante mysterio vt sen­sus sit, vocatus Christi corpus, id est significatur Sicut caelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum revera sit Sacra­mentum corporis Christi ill us videlicet quod visibile, &c. couched in admirable for­mall termes, vpon the Canon Hoc est, in the second Distinction of the Consecration, thus speaketh the Glosse: The heauenly Sacrament which truely repre­senteth the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ: but improperly, and therefore it is so called after a sort, and not according to the verity of the thing it selfe, but by a significant mysterie: so that the sense is this; it is called the body of Christ, that is to say, the body of Christ is signified thereby.

The same Text of the Canon, drawne out of S. Austin, is no lesse direct to the purpose: The hea­uenly bread, which is, the flesh of Christ is after it man­ner of speaking called the body of Christ, albeit in truth it be a holy signe of the body of Christ, to wit of him who is visible, palpable, mortall, hanged on the Crosse.

Adde hereunto the auncient customes, diame­trally contrary to Transubstantiation. TheHierom. in 1. ad Corinth: cap: 11. aun­cient [Page 265]Christians made a feast, in which they did eate the remaines of the Sacrament. It was also the custome of many places to giue those residues to little children, asEuag. 4. lib. Histo [...]iae cap▪ 35 Niceph. lib. 17. cap. 25. Euagrius and Nicephorus doe witnesse. In other places they burnt them, as He­sychius teacheth in his second booke vpon Leui­ticus, chap. 8. They gaue the bread of the Sacrament into the peoplesEuseb. libr. 7. cap. 8 August. contra literas Petiliani lib. 9. cap. 30. handes, and sometimes permit­ted them to carry it home. They did not make any eleuation of the Host, neyther did the people adore it. They did not speake in those dayes of that con­comitancy, which putteth the whole body of Christ into euery drop of the Chalice. In stead of a little Wafer cake which now they lift vp, they couered the Table with bread and wine. To licke vp the drops which fall from the Chalice, to burne the Parings, and to put them vp for relicks, to seeke for the Host in the vomitings, to celebrate the God-feast, or Corpus Christi day, and to carry God in procession betweene two rowes of Tapestry, are customes of which we finde no tract or trace in the auncients: who doe neyther likewise speake of ac­cidents without subiect, of length without any thing that is long, or of roundnesse and nothing round: no more then of a body without place, and of a body of Christ farre separated from it selfe, higher and lower then it selfe: which also they af­firme to be in this Sacrament▪ figure of it selfe, and to be with all his length in each part of the Host, to haue a length without extent, to haue all his length in one point which hath no length at all. In a [Page 266]word, there is no mention of a thousand such like prodigious fancies, which now they beleeue in the Church of Rome with more respect then the Gos­pell, out of which Coeffeteau without doubt would haue produced some proofes, if he had found any, rather then haue alleadged foure miserable places of the Fathers, falsified and curtalled after his manner.

1 For if he had wel weighed the wordes of the Gospell and of the Apostles, he should haue found that Iesus Christ tooke bread, and brake it. But the Church of Rome saith, that the Priest doth not breake bread.

2 Hee should haue found that Iesus Christ tooke bread, and gaue it to his Disciples. But the Church of Rome holdeth, that the Priest doth not giue bread.

3 He should haue found that Iesus Christ gi­uing this bread, said that that w^ch hee gaue was his body. But the Church of Rome doth not beleeue that the bread is the body of Christ, but doth thus expound these wordes: This is my body, that is, that which is vnder these formes, shall be transubstantiated into my body. For it is certaine, that when Iesus Christ said This is my body, by the word This, he vn­derstood that which he gaue. Now the Gospell doth witnesse that he gaue bread: therefore these wordes, This is my body, doe signifie as much as This bread is my body. And so all the auncients doe ex­pound them. Now in that the bread cannot be the body of our Lord in substance, it remaineth there­fore [Page 267]that it be such by way of Sacrament, and in the same sense, as in the line following, the Cup is called the new Couenant, or the new Testament.

4 He should also haue found, that this Sacra­ment is a commemoration of Iesus Christ; It is not then Iesus Christ himselfe. For the remem­brance of a thing, and that wherof it is the memo­riall, are diuers things.

5 He should haue found that S. Matthew and S. Marke, say that Iesus dranke with his Disciples of the fruite of the Vine: that is, of wine: it was then yet wine whilst he dranke of it. For albeit there were two Cups, as appeareth by S. Luke; notwith­standing S. Matthew and S. Marke cannot call the wine of a Cup of which they doe not speake at all, Fruit of the Vine.

6 Hee should further haue seene that Iesus Christ maketh no eleuation of the Host, neyther doe the Apostles adore it, but continue sitting at the Table.

7 Hee might haue seene that. 1. Cor. 10. S. Paul doth giue vs a Paraphrase of the wordes This is my body. In these words, the bread which we breake, is the Communion of the body of Christ. But the Church of Rome waxing wroth and angrie against the Apo­stle, bites and snarles at euery word of this clause.

First, the Apostle saith that it is bread. The Church of Rome denieth that it is bread.

Secondly, he saith that we breake bread: on the other side, the Church of Rome saith, that there is no bread broken.

Thirdly, our aduersaries being demaunded, what that bread is that is broken, they say it is the body of Christ; and yet the body of Christ cannot bee broken.

Fourthly, S. Paul saith, that this bread which wee breake, is the Communion of the body of Christ: whence it followeth against the Church of Rome, that the bread which is broken, is not the body of Christ, for the participation or communicating of meate, is not the meate it selfe.

Fiftly, it by this word Bread, we must vnderstand the body of Christ, as our aduersaries will haue it, it will follow, not onely that the body of Christ is broken in the Sacrament, but also that S. Paul shold haue mocked vs in saying, that, the bodie of Christ is the Communion of the body of Christ, words very ridi­culous and which our aduersaries beleeue not.

Sixty, The worst is, that the Church of Rome holdeth, that there is nothing broken in the Sacra­ment but the accidents, that is, the roundnesse, co­lour, taste, and length of the bread: and so shee blaspemeth horribly, making the Apostle to say, that the breaking of colours, roundnesse, and taste of the bread, is the Communion of the body of Christ.

8 He should haue found also 1. Cor. 11. that the Apostle saith thrice that we eate bread: and in the second and the twentieth of the Acts, the Apostles came together to breake bread: where our aduer­saries are enforced to haue recourse to strange fi­gures, and to make (which is contrary to the Order [Page 269]of time) S. Iohn interpreter of S Paul. Shifts and e­uasions which we haue refuted in another place, and haue boulted this Dispute to the very branne.

I suppose also, that if Coeffeteau had any good o­pinion of Iesus Christ, he would haue presumed of him, that being souerainly good, he wold not haue taken pleasure, to deliuer the Institution of this Sa­crament in ambiguous terms: who wil beleeue, that he that is the light of the world should be the cause of darkenes? whence commeth it then that our ad­uersaries bring in a kind of Mascarado into this ho­ly banquet, when they introduce a douzen of fi­gures & perplexed termes in the words of this In­stitution? Figures which we haue handled and dis­cussed in his place.In my Apology for the Lords Supper, ch. 12. And they who cannot endure that the bread should be called the body of Christ, because it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ,Epist. ad Boni­facium, 3. according as S. Austin saith, that the Sacraments take ordinarily the name of that which they signi­fie; yet themselues in the wordes following (which is broken for you) admit a like figure, saying, that it is not the body that is broken, but the accidents and outward signes, and that that which agreeth to the signe, is attributed to the thing signified.

VVhosoeuer shall weigh these things without passion, will not suffer himselfe to be infolded in this grosse error, which doth greatly abase the glo­ry of our Sauiour, which maketh him to be swal­lowed vp of his enemies: which maketh Iesus Christ to haue drunken his owne flesh and bones: which saith that he may bee eaten of Mice and o­ther [Page 270]vermine: which incloseth him in filthy vomi­tings, which maketh the Priest sometimes to com­plaine that they haue robbed him of his God; which giueth to a Priest, be hee neuer so vitious, more power then to the Virgine Mary and all the Saints and Angels, who being all put together in one, cannot make Iesus Christ, seeing that he is already made, and cannot be produced a new, much lesse in murmuring certaine words ouer the bread. VVhich doth ouerthrow and abolish the humani­ty of our Sauiour, and by consequent all our faith; giuing him a body without length: a body which being in diuers places farre a part is by consequent farre separated from it selfe: A body without po­sition or situation of partes, seeing that they are all together vnder one onely point, and in euery little crumme of the Host. Yea many contrary bodies, of which one is at the Table with his Disciples, the other in the stomackes of his Disciples. For the one body is infirme and weake, the other without infirmity: the one spreading his handes, the other not able to stirre them: the one speaking and brea­thing, the other not able to speake or to breath: the one sweating in the Garden drops of blood, the o­ther newly receiued into the stomacks of the A­postles, which did neyther sweat nor suffer. Which of these two was our Sauiour? If hee bee but one, how is he contrary to himselfe? For we haue she­wed else where that the Distinction of diuers re­spects cannot be but when onething is compared to diuers things at one time, as when one and the [Page 271]same man is poore and rich, little and great, in comparison of diuers persons. But here they ap­ply these diuers respects to the body of Iesus Christ without comparing him to any other body, nay they oppose him to himselfe.

That I may not further say, that this doctrine doth annihilate the body of our Lord, by being re­ceiued into the stomacke: for when the formes are altered in the stomacke by the digestion, they say that the body of the Lord is no longer there, ney­ther yet is it come forth: it must follow then that eyther it is reduced to nothing, or changed into something else. Both the one and the other, are a­like blasphemous.

ARTICLE XII. Touching the Adoration of the Host.

THe Confession of the Kings Booke doth place among the new inuenti­ons of the Church of Rome.

The Adoration of the Host, and the Eleuation which is made to haue it adored.

This poynt is important, and which doth sur­prise our spirits with a heauinesse mixt with hor­rour, when at the sound of a little Bell, the Priest lifteth vp the breade, and euery man prostrateth himselfe to adore it: Or when the people doth not [Page 272]let to kneele in the dyrt to adore their God, which passeth along the street, inclosed in a Pixe or Boxe. It had beene greatly therefore to haue beene wi­shed that Coeffeteau could haue produced some commandement of God for the same, or some ex­ample of the Apostles: but that could he not doe, neyther hath any man done it hithervnto.

He commeth therefore to the Fathers, and pro­duceth for the same three passages, the one of Chry­sostome in his foure and twentieth Homily vpon the first to the Corinth. the other of S. Ambrose in his third booke of the Sacraments, chap. 12. And the last of S. Austin vpon the foure-score and eigh­teene Psalme. All three exhort the faithful to adore the flesh of Iesus Christ, and that which is more, to adore him in the Eucharist.

Neuer did man more abuse his Reader, and he seemeth to thinke that we are beside our selues: for is there any thing in all this which we doe not wil­lingly graunt him? Is there any amongst vs who hath euer denied, that wee ought not to adore the flesh of Iesus Christ? Yea who hath euer doubted that we ought not to adore him in the Eucharist? Ought not God the Father also to be adored? And what is this to the purpose to inclose Iesus Christ vnder formes? He that doth adore Iesus Christ in the Eucharist, doth not for al that adore that which the Priest holdeth in his hand, but he adoreth Iesus Christ which is in heauen.

Of these three places, that which our aduersa­ries doe most presse, is the place of S. Austin vpon [Page 273]the foure-score and eyghteene Psalme, where hee saith that no man doth eate this flesh vnlesse hee haue first adored it. Nemo carnem illam manducat nisi prius adora­uerit. An excellent passage. For doth not S. Austin speake of the true and serious adoration? Iudas then did not eate this flesh, for he did not a­dore it. According to this rule, the Hypocrites who partake of the Sacrament, doe not eate the flesh of the Lord, for they doe not adore it. Now what it is to eate the flesh of the Lord, himselfe hath tolde vs, as hath beene before alleadged;Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ cap 16. That to eate his flesh is a figure which signifieth to communicate of his passion, and to meditate thereof in our memories. And as he speaketh in his twenty sixe Tract. vpon S. Iohn: To beleeue in him is to eate the bread of life: Credere in eum hoc est mandu­care panem vi­vum [...]qui credit in eum, mandu­cat eum. he that doth beleeue in him doth eate him.

We hoped then that Coeffeteau would here haue produced the publique customes, to shewe that it was then the custome to adore the Host which the Priest doth holde vp with diuine wor­ship, called Latria: but he hath not beene able to finde any. Dionysius who in his Ecclesiasticall Hie­rarchy, discribeth very exactly the forme of the publique seruice, which was some foure hundred yeares after Iesus Christ: and the Apostolical con­stitutions of Clement, where all the Ceremony of that time is depainted; and the auncient Liturgies, howsoeuer fouly falsified, doe in no wise speake of this adoration of the Host. Theodoret saith indeede that [...], the signes are reuerenced. This word Signes sheweth sufficiently that he doth not speake of diuine adoration, w^ch they call Cultus Latriae. For that should be impiety.

ARTICLE XIII. Touching the Eleuation of the Host to haue it to be Adored.

THe King of great Britaine demaunded proofes out of the fiue first ages, or first fiue hundred yeares after Christ that is to say, aswell Scripture as the auncient Doctors, by which it might appeare, that Iesus Christ or his Apostles made eleuation of the host. Hereat Coeffeteau holdeth his peace,Fol. 50. pag. 2. and in stead thereof saith that the auncient Church did shew the mysteries or sacraments to the people by draw­ing a Vaile or Curtaine from before the Table: which is true: [...], &c. and he hath learned that out of my booke of the Apology of the Lords Supper. Chry­sostome in his third Homily vpon the Epistle to the Ephesians: When thou shalt see the double Curtaines to be drawne, then thinke that heauen doth open and inlarge it selfe. And Dionysius in his Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, The Bishop discouereth and setteth out to open view the thing celebrated by the signes holily pro­posed. And Basil in like manner in his booke of the holy Ghost, Who is it of the Saints who hath left in writing the wordes of the prayer, when they shew abroad the bread of the Eucharist, and the Cup of blessing?

This vncouering of the Sacrament was done, (saith Coeffeteau) to cause it to be adored: and as he speaketh this without all proofe, so doth he it most falsely; and was not able to alleadge any one au­thority [Page 275]where mention is made eyther of the ele­uation, or of the Adoration of the host: but in stead thereof he bringeth certaine passages, which speake of the vncouering of the bread, and of the drawing of a Curtaine.

ARTICLE XIIII. Touching the carrying of God in the Procession.

The KINGS Confession. Pope Vrbane the fourth in­stituted this feast in the yeare 1264. THe God-feast, or Corpus Christi day, and the walking or Circumportation of the Sacrament in procession, is of this ranck and the King of great Britaine doth place it among the Nouelties.

Hereupon Coeffeteau fearing the touch and triall maketh an honest retreat, without standing vpon his defence: for he onely saith,Fol 51: We rancke among the holy customes of the Church this fashion of carrying the body of our Lord in the most solemne supplications and Processions: he tels vs his opinion, and we knew it well enough before. We expected that he should haue taught vs not what himselfe beleeueth, but why he beleeueth it: when this custome began: who was the authour of it: if it haue any ground in the word of God, or in the Fathers. Of all this not a word: a Turke or a Iew might defend himselfe in like manner, we beleeue, we affirme. And should he then set vpon a King by saying so little to the purpose?

ARTICLE XV. Touching workes of Supererogation, and of Su­perabounding satisfactions, and of the treasure of the Church.

The KINGS Confession. S Ʋch are the workes of Supereroga­tion, which are rightly called, the treasure of the Church.

‘The Doctor Coeffeteau answereth. We know no such matter. For we call workes of Supere­rogation, those which haue for their obiect the Euangelicall Counsels, to the which all Christi­ans are not bound: as for a man to sell all his goods, and to giue them to the poore, &c. And of these (sayth he) we doe not make any treasure, but that which is gathered and layd vp in heauen. But as touching the treasure of Indulgences, Coeffeteau saith, that it is composed of the Super­aboundance of the merites of Iesus Christ, and of the Satisfactions of the Saints, who haue suf­fered more then they deserued, as of the holy Virgin, and other Saints. God not permitting that any thing of their sorrowes or sufferings should perish, it being a thing iust and reasona­ble that they should serue to the communion of the Saints, as members of the same body.’

In all this not a word of scripture, no authority of the Auncients,The Answere. no example of Antiquity: Coef­feteau onely telleth vs his opinion. I might satisfiè [Page 277]him with like reason, by opposing our opinion; but he shall not so lightly goe away with the mat­ter. For this is one of the Cankers of the body of the Church of Rome; one of the principal pieces of the mystery of iniquity.

The opinion of the Church of Rome, according as Bellarmine doth represent it in the seuenth and eight Chapters of his booke of Monkes, is, that there are certaine excellent workes, which are cal­led Counsels of perfection, which God doth not command, but doth only counsell; workes which as they are more cumbersome, and vneasie to be done, so also being performed, they are more per­fect, and more excellent then all that GOD hath commanded in his Law: more then to loue God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himselfe: Workes to which a man is not bound, and if he do them not, he is not punishable, but in obseruing them he getteth a degree of glory aboue the com­mon sort. Such are perpetuall Virginity, Martyr­dome, and the distribution of all his goods to the poore. But especially the vowes of Obedience, of Pouerty and Chastitie; which are the three vowes of the Monkes, whose expresse profession it is to doe workes of Supererogation, by the merite of which they shall gaine in Paradise an eminent de­gree of glory aboue the popular Saints, and the Communalty of soules.

All this being but a swolne Blister of pride, we will pricke it and abate it with the worde of God. And indeede a man had need read this often ouer, [Page 278]before he shall finde any thing relishing of the spi­rite of God.

1 It is a thing almost incredible, that there are any men to be found which thinke themselues to be more perfect, then God hath commanded. See­ing that Iesus Christ, Matth. 5. dooth giue vs this commandement, Be you perfect as your father which is in heauen is perfect. Is there any man that can be more perfect then God? For although no man can euer approach to his perfection, yet will he haue vs to conforme our selues to his example. So that amongst men he shall be the most perfect, who shall most frame himselfe thereunto. Now that this is an expresse commandement, and a perfecti­on necessarily required, Bellarmine himselfe dooth acknowledge it, chap. 13. of Monks: where notwith­standing he doth malitiously loppe off these last wordes,§ Tertio. As my father which is in heauen is perfect.

2 With like pride, these people will be more perfect then Iesus Christ, whose righteousnesse in regard of his humanity, consisted in nothing else then in doing the will of his Father. And there­fore he saith, Heb. 10. Here I am, O Lord, to doe thy will. And Galat. 4. He was made subiect to the law, to the end that he might redeeme them which were vnder the law.

3 All the perfection and righteousnesse like­wise of the Angels consisteth onely in executing the commaundements of God, Psal. 103. You migh­tie Angels that excell in vertue, you that doe his com­maundement in obeying the voyce of his wordes, ye his [Page 279]seruants that doe his pleasure. It is not found that they do any works of supererogation. And by that reason the Angelical perfection should be inferior to the Monasticall Me thinks that the Capuchins, by calling themselues Angels, Arch Angels, Spirits, Cherubin or Seraphin Friars, illuminated Fathers, &c. haue done wrong to their worth and dignity, by taking names too base for them, and inferiour to their Capuchine perfection.

4 I adde that this word of Counsell of Perfe­ction, is iniurious against the law of God, and accu­seth it of imperfection; for it is as much to say that the law is not a perfect rule of Righteousnesse, see­ing that man, a weake and sinfull creature, can sur­passe it, and doe workes much better then it com­maundeth. That wealth is not great which is sur­mounted by pouerty: It is but a weake and feeble righteousnesse which can be exceeded by sinners. If besides the law there haue beene counsels of perfection, what doth thence follow, but that the law of God is a rule of imperfection?

5 But let vs heare a little, what are the com­maundements of God. Iesus Christ, Ioh. 13. speak­eth thus: A new commaundement giue I you, that you loue one another as I haue loued you. Where is the man so much puffed vp with his owne merites that can surpasse this loue? Or loue his neighbour more then Iesus Christ hath loued vs? He being righteous, hauing giuen his life for sinners? The au­thour of life for mortall men? The Sonne of God for the slaues of the Diuell to make them his ser­uants, [Page 280]yea his friendes, yea his brethren, yea his Spouse, yea his body, yea one with him? These be depths that cannot be fathomed, but depths of his loue and grace. All the feruor of our charity is but coldnesse in comparison of it, how farre then from doing any thing ouer and aboue it?

6 God commaundeth in his law that we should loue him with all our heart, and with all our strength: He commaundeth all that we can doe; we cannot then doe more then he commaundeth: to say that a man can loue God more then he can, is to say that he can doe that which hee cannot doe. Iesus Christ himselfe neuer loued his Father more then with al his strength. And here the truth is so strong that Bellarmine in the thirteenth Chapter of his booke of Monkes,§ Quod autem. after that he had a long time la­bored and sweated therupon, is constrained to cor­rect this commaundement of God: affirming, that when God will be loued with All our heart, and with all our strength, by this word ALL we must vnderstand a part, as if I should say, that the right side signifie h the left, or that white signifieth blacke. Though this Prelate made no conscience to iest in this manner in the explication of so holy a sen­tence, and the most important of all the worde of God, and such as is an abridgement of the whole law: at least he should haue beene affraid to bring in the diuell into partage with God: for if God be content with one part of our heart, it followeth that a man may giue the other parte to the diuell.

7 Adde hereunto the Commandement of the Apostle S. Paul, Philip. 4. Furthermore Brethren whatsoeuer things are iust, whatsoeuer things are pure, whatsoeuer things pertaine to loue, whatsoeuer things are of good report, if there be any vertue, and any praise thinke on those things. I demaund then of these. our Masters, whether the workes of Supererogati­on be things iust, or whether they be vertuous, or things worthy of praise: if they be not, we must not employ our selues about them: if they be iust and praise-worthy, then are they demaunded by the A­postle. They be not then workes not commaun­ded, or ouer and aboue the commaundement of God. For he doth not say, doe nothing which is not iust, as Bellarmine speaketh lewdly, corrupting the wordes of the Apostle: but he commaundeth vs to giue and apply our selues to whatsoeuer is iust and vertuous.

8 Now if we cannot accomplish the law, how much lesse shall wee be able to doe more then it commaundeth? If Saint Paul, Rom. 7 confesse that sinne dwelleth in him, and that hee doth the euill which he would not doe; and therefore calleth himselfe miserable man. If S. Iames acknowledge that in many things we offend All. Iam. 3 [...]. 1. Ioh. 2. If Saint Iohn saith, th [...]t If we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues. If Iesus Christ haue commaunded all the faithfull to say euery day, forgiue vs our trespasses: If Dauid a man after Gods owne heart, say, Psalme 143. That in Gods sight no man liuing shall be iustified. How can we doe any thing ouer and aboue, seeing [Page 282]that we faile in that which is necessary? That man is very ill aduised, who being not able to pay his debts, doth yet offer great gifts.

9 But I would willingly aske of these Monks, who doe more then God requireth, and workes more then due, whence they haue receiued the strength and ability to doe them? They answere, from God. Then say I that if God hath giuen them this power, it is not that it should remaine idle and vnprofitable, but to the end to employ it. Then are they bound to doe more then the law, seeing that God giueth them strength thereunto, otherwise they should bury the graces of God, and should frustrate him of his end. Now if they be bound, it is no longer a Counsell, they are no lon­ger workes of Supererogation. For indeede how could they do more good then they owe to God, seeing that they owe themselues vnto him, and haue nothing but of his liberality, and that the good which they doe, doth not profite God any thing?Luc. 17.10. For if he who should doe all that God hath commaunded him is notwithstanding called by Iesus Christ an vnprofitable seruant: let some man tell me wherein and how those men are more pro­fitable vnto God, who do many workes of Super­erogation?

10 For this cause also we shall neuer finde that the Apostles or their Disciples euer made any rec­koning of their workes of Supererogation, and not commaunded: this is that Pharisaicall Leauen which puffeth vp the hearts, and sowreth the spi­rites [Page 283]of men with hypocrisie and presumption. For see here the wordes of the Pharisie. Luk. 18. I am not like other men, I fast twise in the weeke, I giue tithe of al that I possesse. Workes not commaunded, [...]. volunta­rie deuotions, traditions & counsels of perfections.

11 And indeede, that we may not remooue all this meniall trash of workes of supererogation, as it were to make a longer Lent then other men doe: or to turne ouer our Pater-noster beads oftner: or to haue more graines then ordinarie, or to carrie great beads like Tennis balls after the manner of Hermites: or to liue by going from dore to dore, and in the day time to haue the street for his house: or to carrie the wallet vpon the shoulder full of sli­ces and gobbets halfe gnawen, iust after the aunci­ent manner of the Priests of the Syrian goddesse described by Apuleius in his 8. Booke of the golden Asse: let vs speake onely of those workes which seeme the most specious. They place in this ranke single life or perpetuall virginitie. But they mis­take themselues greatly,Stipes aereas im­mo vere & ar­genteas multis certatim offeren­tibus finu rece­pere patulo: nec non & vini ca­dum & lactem & caseos-auidis animis cor­radent es om­nia & in saccu­los huic quaestui de industria prae­paratos farcien­tes. for there be two sorts of single life, one which is with continencie, and with­out being tickled with any vnchaste desire & which hath no necessity of marrying: The other which boyleth inwardly with heate, hauing much adoe to containe. This so farre is it from being merito­rious, that contrariwise it is a demerite to con­demnation. So farre is it that such a Virginity should be ouer and aboue the commaundement, that it is indeed against the commandement; for the Apostle S. Paul, 1. Cor. 7 commaundeth such to [Page 284]marry.Epistola ad Eu­stochium. It is better to marry then to burne. And S. Ierome, who confesseth that amidds his Abstinen­cies did yet feele within himselfe the fewell of lust as an incentiue to whoredome, was doubtlesse bound to marry. But as touching continent Vir­ginity, the Apostle S. Paul doth counsell vs to con­tinue in that estate, as being more free, and hauing lesse trouble and fitter for the seruice of God, and to study to please him. But for all that hee doth not recommend Virginity as a worke of Superero­gation, but as a condition of life more commodi­ous to a beleeuing man for the time present. So if I should counsell some one man in a corrupt age, and in a place wherein vices are contagious, and vertue is become odious, to liue apart, and not to entermeddle with the publique affaires, to the end, that he may serue God with more facility; and to adde liberty to his innocency: should it follow thereupon that I should esteeme a priuate life, were a worke of Supererogation?Bellarm. lib. 2. de Amissione gra­tiae cap. 18. §. Di­cet. Non peccat Magistratus si meretricib' cer­tum locum vrbis [...]olendum attri­buat, quamuis certo sciat eo loco ipsas non bene osuias. Potest e [...]n per­mittere minus malum vt maio­ra impediantur.

Here might be a fit place to represent the incon­ueniencies of the Vow of Virginity, and what vices it hath brought into the Couents. Thus at Rome, from whence this ordinance doth come, publique Stews are allowed and established; which Bellar­mine doth maintaine to haue beene wisely establi­shed, and compareth in this point the Pope with God. Adde hereunto that this vow is vndertaken many times without thinking of this matter, and of which they afterwards repent them by leisure. Many there be that enter into Cloysters and these [Page 285]vowes out of necessity, others out of griefe and discontentment: and they beare it accordingly, with impatience. Lastly, I say that in Virginity there are two things required, first, incorruption of the body; secondly, Chastity in affections. The first is not a vertue: the second is commanded of God, and therefore is not a worke of Supereroga­tion.

They adde hereunto Martyrdome, whereunto if a man doe expose himselfe without any necessity and doth precipitate himselfe into it without being called thereunto by God, it is not onely not a work of Supererogation, but a very transgression of the commaundement of Iesus Christ, who biddeth vs, that when they persecute vs in one Citie, to flie into an­other. It is sufficient for Christian constancy to beare the brunt when it commeth vpon vs with­out running to encounter it: to receiue necessary euils and harmes without posting after them. But if we be drawne to Martyrdome, as our Sauiour Christ said vnto S. Peter, That they should gird him, and lead him whether he would not, Ioh. 21.18. signifying by what death he should glorifie God: Then I say that Martyr­dome is a worke of duetie, and not in our choyse. But that hee that should dispence with himselfe therein, should be a Traytor towards God, seeing that then there is no other meanes of escaping but onely by renouncing of the Gospell. And there­upon wee haue the expresse commaundement of Christ, Mat. 10. Luc. 9. to wit, that whosoeuer shall denie him before men, he will denie him before his Fa­ther. [Page 286]Whosoeuer then in this case shall seeke to saue his life shall loose it. God commandeth vs to loue him aboue all things, therefore aboue our liues also. And shall this then be counted a Coun­sell, whereunto a man is not bound, which not­withstanding if we doe not follow, we are perfidi­ous against God, and prodigall of our owne salua­tion? True it is that many are saued without suf­fering Martyrdome. But so withall that there is none saued vnlesse that he be prepared for Martyr­dome: In which there are these two things: first, the paines and torments of the body: secondly, the constant perseuerance in the faith. The bodily griefes and paines are not vertues, and therefore cannot bee workes of Supererogation. But that which is praise-worthy in Martyrdome is a firme faith and feruor of zeale, which becommeth a vi­ctorious Conquer our ouer the flame of the fire. Now this faith and this zeale are commaunded of God, and we are bound to strengthen and fortifie our selues thereunto. It is not then an vndue worke, or a worke of Supererogation [...] and indeede it is a subtilty of Sathan to place Martyrdome a­mongst vnnecessary workes, to the end that a man should not hold himselfe bound thereunto.

They further adde the sale of all our goods, to distribute them to the poore: and this is the onely example which Coeffeteau doth produce vnto vs,To sell all that he hath. which is the weakest of all. For so farre is it from being a worke of Supererogation, that many times it is not so much as a good worke. The wordes of [Page 287]Saint Paul are very expresse, 1. Cor. 13. Though I should giue all my goods to the poore, and haue not loue, it profiteth me nothing. This is then a worke which may be done without charity, and by hypocrisie. I adde also that he that should bee charged with a great number of children should haue a charity in­humanely vndiscreet, if he should giue al his goods to the poore: for piety doth not ouerthrow nature. He that hath no care of his family hath denyed the faith, and is worse then an Infidell:1. Tim 5. for in stead of being charitable, he becommeth voyde of huma­nity, and naturall affection. A man should haue his purse open, but not without bottome that will holde nothing: neither should a man giue his mo­ney without reason, as if hee were angry with it. We must further also take heede that our liberali­ties be not in the nature of thefts and larcenie, in giuing that to one which is due to another. This distribution then is commendable, if it bee done without hypocrisie, without superstition, and with­out an opinion of making God indebted and be­holding vnto vs, and so that it do not diuert vs from other more necessarie works.

These things considered doe furnish vs with an inuincible demonstration against this abuse, which thinketh that for a man to distribute all that hee hath to the poore, is a worke more excellent then the fulfilling of the law, that is to say, more then to loue God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himselfe. For the things which are alwayes good, are more valuable then those which are only goodArist. Top. 3. [Page 288]conditionally, and vpon certaine considerations. Now the loue of God and of our neighbour, re­commended vnto vs in the law, is alwayes and in all considerations good. But the distribution of a mans goods to the poore is only good vpon those considerations which I haue before represented, and therefore the loue of God and of our neighbor is more of value then it.

This reason is yet stronger: a thing that is good in it selfe is alwayes better then that thing which is not good, but in respect of another. Now the loue of God & of our neighbor is good in it selfe; but the distribution of all that wee pos­sesse to the poore, is not good vnlesse it be in re­spect of our loue to God, and to our neighbor, and therefore our loue to God and to our neighbour is better. Yea I say that all that is praise-worthy in that liberality which giueth all to the poore is cha­rity, which is commaunded vs in the law, euen so farre as to loue God with all our heart, and with all our strength, and to loue others as our selues.

It is then in vaine, that they alleadge vnto vs the commaundement of Christ, Mat. 19. giuen vnto the young man (who said that hee had kept all the commaundements from his youth) to whom our Sauiour replied, If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast, and giue it to the poore, and thou shalt haue a treasure in heauen. For first of all our aduersaries are deceiued in thinking this young man had ful­filled the law, seeing that he was couetous, as our Sauiour sheweth, Marc. 10 24. where after that this [Page 289]young man had left Christ, with purpose rather to keepe his goods then to follow Christ, our Sauior said to his Apostles, Children how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the Kingdome of God? He that trusteth in his riches and preferreth them before Christ, transgresseth the law, and doth not loue God aboue all things. And indeed Chryso­stome in his 64 Homily vpon S. Matthew, saith that he was couetous. S. Ierome vpon that place sayth, that he came to tempt Christ, & in that our Sauior Christ loued him, it was a loue of compassion, and not an approbation of his Auarice.Luc. 19.41. So Ierusalem was full of the blood of the Prophets, and yet our Sauiour wept ouer it, which teares could not bee without some loue.

Secondly, they abuse themselues in thinking that this is a counsell giuen to all: for we haue she­wed that it should be il done oftentimes, to obserue it. But Christ gaue this commaundement particu­larly to this young man to discouer his coueteous­nesse, and to shew vnto him how farre he was from the accomplishment of the law; of which hee so much boasted: our Sauior putteth his finger vpon his impostume, to make him to feele his Maladie. For Christ who knoweth the hearts of men, and the things that are to come, knew well enough that he would not forsake his goods, and that hee was not in disposition to follow him And indeede no man can denie but that this young man was much to blame that he reiected Christs counsell, and refused to follow him. But according to the [Page 290]doctrine of our aduersaries, he is not to be repre­hended: for (say they) it is a counsell of perfection, to which no man is bound. In a word it is ney­ther said there, nor else where, that in so doing he had done a worke of Supererogation.

But it seemeth to me that this presumptuous doctrine is not comely in the mouth of Monkes; who doe not vow pouerty, but rather to be rich. There be many Monkes of great reuenues, who liue like Princes. Others are poore in their owne particular and priuate estates, but are rich in com­mon. Their begging and loitering is fatter to them then the peoples labouring, they gather much mo­ney vnder the colour of Pardons. They neuer goe but to the funerals of rich men: they sing no Masse but for them that haue giuen them before hand: they fleece and share euen vpon the graues, and death it selfe is made tributary vnto them. But e­specially I finde that their tottering faith, and the profession that they make of doubting of their sal­uation, doth very ill sort and agree with these works of Supererogation. But to omit for the pre­sent, this doctrine which preacheth Distrust, wher­as the Scripture preacheth confidence and certain­ty of Faith: This doctrine, I say, which teacheth vs to pray, Our Father which art in heauen, without knowing whether we be the children of the Di­uell, or no: And which accounteth it arrogant pride for a man to trust vpon the promise of God: To omit this, I say, let vs onely consider, how these things can agree; that men should seeke by works [Page 291]of Supererogation to come to a more excellent degree of glory aboue other men, and yet in the meane time to doubt, whether themselues shall be saued or eternally damned. Thus they tremble, see­ing Hell open vpon them, while their ambition stretcheth it selfe beyond the Kingdome of hea­uen. Like vnto a man whose ambition a whole Kingdome or Empire will not suffice, and yet stan­deth in feare to be hanged the next day. Were it not better to sticke to the promises of God, then to liue in suspense betweene the feare of hell, and the hope of an extraordinary glory, ballancing his spi­rite betweene Pride and Despaire? Offending God as much through incredulity as through presump­tion? How great then must the terrour of consci­ence, and trembling of heart be in those men, who content themselues with the bare keeping of Gods commaundements, and also of those that seeke vn­to these men to borrow Satisfactions, and to buy their Merites.

All this that hath formerly beene said, is not so to be taken, as though we did absolutely denie that there are no counsels in the Gospell: the auncient Fathers doe acknowledge as much with vs. It is a good and a wise counsell to abstaine from things lawfull, as from the vse of meates, when our weake brother is scandalized thereby. It is a wise counsell for a Pastor or Minister to take no stipend when he can liue otherwise, or when it giueth occasion to the wicked to defame the Gospel. It is a wise coun­sell to a man that hath the gift of continency to [Page 292]abstaine from marriage, especially in time of per­secution. But that the obseruing of them should be a perfection aboue the law, or that it should de­serue a degree of glory in Paradise aboue the com­mon rancke of Saints, is that which we haue pro­ued to be false, and contrary to the Gospell; and a doctrine that lifteth a man vp on high, to precipi­tate him with a greater downe fall.

ARTICLE XVI. Of the baptising of Bels.

The KINGS Confession. THe King of great Britaine procee­deth to these wordes: The baptising of Bels, and a thou­sand other trickes: But aboue all, the worshipping of Images. If my faith bee weake in these, I confesse I had rather beleeue too little then too much. And yet since I beleeue as much as the Scriptures doe warrant, the Creedes doe perswade, and the auncient Coun­cels decreede; I may well bee a Schismaticke from Rome, but I am sure I am no Hereticke.

‘M^r. Coeffeteau answers,Fol 51. that it is no baptisme that they giue vnto Bels, but onely a plaine bles­sing, which notwithstanding the common peo­ple do call baptisme for the resemblance of some Ceremonies therein: but it is not of simple peo­ple, but of learned men, that we must learne the beleefe of the Church.’

The Answere.This answere of M. Coeffeteau is more mannerly then that of Cardinall Bellarmines, who writing a­gainst his Maiesties booke, tels the King that it is an impudent slaunder: he might haue spoken more ciuilly to a King: for if we wrong them in calling their consecration, and benediction of bels by the name of baptisme, this imputation should be laid vpon the people of the Romish Church, which haue so named it, or rather vpon their Bishops and Priests, that by a Player-like prophanation, haue practised the same Ceremonies vpon bels, and gal­lies, which they vse in baptisme: for in the blessing, and exorcising of a bell, they giue him god-fa­thers and god-mothers, which holde the rope in their handes: the Suffragan asketh certaine questi­ons of the bell: they cloth him in white, sprinkle him with holy water, and salt: the Bishop or his Suffragan annoints him with oyle, with many signes of the Crosse, praying God that hee will graunt power vnto this bell against the secret as­saults of the diuell; against thunder and tempest, and for the comfort of soules departed; then after the singing of certaine Psalmes, he is newly marked again with seuen crosses without, and foure crosses within, which are made vpon the Crisme with the Bishops or his Suffragans thumbe, who at euery crosse repeates these wordes; Consecretur & Sancti­ficetur Domine signum istus in nomine Patris & filij & spiritus sancti: In all this Ceremony there is nothing wanting but the word, Baptisme, saue that it is done something more diuersly. The same Ce­remony [Page 310]is practised vpon gallies, when they launch them into the Sea, and for what offence they haue condemned this Sacrament vnto the gallies, I doe not vnderstand.

He that shall well vnderstand the great vertue of bels, will not wonder at all, if the people of the Romish Church haue thought that baptisme doth of right belong vnto them; sith that one peale hath power to carry soules into heauen, and especially the soules of rich men: for if a rich legacy be gi­uen, all the bels in the towne shall ringe a requiem for the soule departed: but the poore shall haue leaue to die without any sound. And it is presu­med that some bels haue more vertue then others; for they are not rung all at one rate. So at Paris there are bels some at foure Francs, some at fiue, and some at sixe. For it is not credible, that any will buy the sound of one bell dearer then another, but vpon opinion of reaping a greater benefite thereby.

It is not then without great reason that Duran­dus in his rationale, and other illuminated Do­ctors doe finde so many mysteries in bels, saying, that the clapper of the bell is the tongue of the Preacher: that the rising of the bell is the con­templatiue life, and the falling downe is the life actiue:Boniface 8. au cap. Almamater § adijcimus. De sententia ex­comm. In Sexto Grego. 9. Tit 39. De sent excomm. that a ringe of Iron is fastened to the end of the Bel-rope, to shew that the Crowne is not obteyned vntill the race be finished; which is the cause why Boniface the eighth, and Gregory the ninth haue forbidden the ringing of Bels in proscribed [Page 311]or interdicted Churches, vnlesse by speciall leaue they be licensed to toll an Aue-maria. During the interdiction, none but low Masses are said, the doors being shut, and without sound of Bell. And these obseruations the Apostles would not haue omit­ted, if they had had the keeping of the Bels in the Temple of Ierusalem: which then were not rung all the yeare long, but now a dayes they are onely speechlesse vpon good Friday, whereof there is some mysticall reason, which comes not within the compasse of my vnderstanding.

ARTICLE XVII. Of the Reliques of Saints.

The KINGS Confession. TOuching the Reliques of Saints, if I had any such that I were as­sured were members of their bo­dies, I would honourably burie them, and not giue them the reward of condem­ned mens members, which are only ordained to be depriued of buriall: But for worshipping eyther them or Images, I must account it dam­nable Idolatry.

‘Vnto this doth Doctor Coeffeteau oppose foure passages of the Fathers, alleadging S. Ierome dis­sputing against Vigilantius for the Reliques of Saint Ambrose in his Sermon of S. Nazarius, and S. Celsus, saying in many places that he honoureth the bodies of Saints: S. Chrysostome who in his [Page 312]Homily of S. Iuuentius and Maximus, saith, that men doe visite and adorue their Tombes, and touch their Reliques with faith, to the end they may receiue some blessing thereby: S. Augustine in the two and twentieth booke of the Ci­ty of God, speaking of three persons that were cured with the touch of certaine Reliques. He alleadgeth no one testimony of holy Scripture; it hath no voyce in the Chapter: and yet hee skips at once ouer the first foure hundred yeares after Christ; for the auncientest of these foure wrote about the end of the fouth age.’

1 To begin then with the word of God: Wee read in the olde Testament that the bodies of the holy Patriarches haue beene enterred,Gen. 50.25. and buried in the Sepulchres of their Fathers. Ioseph when he died, gaue order that his bones should be kept till their departure out of Egypt: for he desired that the keeping of his bones, should be an instruction to continue the hope of their deliuerance: but of any worship done vnto his bones, there is no men­tion at all.

2 When Moses died vpon the mountaine of Ne­bo,Deut. 34.6. God would not suffer the Israelites to know the place of his buriall: the reason being doubtlesse a feare, that they would haue Idolatrously abused his bodie.

3 In the first booke of Kings, chap. 13. God raised a dead man by the vertue of Elizeus his touching of the dead body, the Lord intending by this Miracle to authorize the doctrine of his faithfull seruant. [Page 313]But we finde not at all, that the body of Elizeus was for this taken out of his graue: neyther that the people did kneele to his bones, that they brought any offerings vnto it, or that they kissed or carried it in procession.

Ver. 17 4 In the second booke of Kings, cap. 23 King Io­sias forbids the digging vp of the bones of a decea­sed Prophet but will haue them left in the Sepul­chre. He doth not then commaund any transpor­tation of his bones, or to yeelde any veneration or worship, or oblation or adoration.

Ʋer. 12: 5 In the ninteenth of the Acts, there are cures wrought by touching of the Kerchiefes brought from S. Paul; yet is not the linnen put apart for a relique, nor is there any ceremony done vntoit. For the Miracles were not wrought by any vertue of the linnen, but by the power of God, who by these Miracles confirmed the preaching of his holy Apostle.

6 Therefore, Esay 8.19.20. the Prophet hauing reproued those that went from the liuing to the dead sends vs to the law, and the testimony, if wee will haue the light of heauen to shine vpon vs.

7 To be short, our aduersaries finde not one sil­lable in the word of God, nor any example of any religious seruice, or adoration of Reliques. For it is vntruely affirmed by Bellarmine, that the Scripture alloweth the religious worship performed to ourLib. de reliquijs sanctorum cap. 4 §. Ad tertium. Seriptura appro­bat cultum Se­pulchri, & fim­brie Christa, Item vmbrae Petri sudariorum & semicinct [...]o­rum Pauli. Sauiors Sepulchre, and to the hemme of his gar­ment, and to Peters shadow, and Pauls Kercheifes. How should it approue that whereof it makes no [Page 314]mention at all? Why doth he not alleadge some passage of Scripture, wherein the worship or vene­ration of the linnen, or shadowes, or Sepulchres is mentioned? who will be perswaded, that a learned man affirming a matter so full of vntruth, should haue any conscience in him. So in the beginning of the third Chapter, hee falsely alleadgeth these wordes out of the eleuenth of Esay, ver. 10. His Se­pulchre shall be glorious: for it is in the Hebrew, his rest shall be glorious: whereunto let this be added, that there is no word in that place of any worship performed to this Sepulchre.

Now that the point in difference betweene vs may be vnderstood, wee dispute not whether the bodies of Saints, and Martyrs may be reserued re­spectiuely, or in case their Sepulchres were vnde­cently placed, or ridiculously exposed to prophane insolencies, whether it be lawfull to remoue their bodies to some other place: for thus farre we agree. And his Maiesty of England protesteth that if hee certainely knew any Reliques, which were indeede the body of any Saint, he would honourably burie them, and keepe them with respect; for if men doe curiously affect the sight of the monuments of aun­cient Kings, or pagan Emperours, who should be so prophane, as not to desire the sight of the Tombs of the Apostles, and of those sacred lights, whose glory shineth euen after their death? Or who in this regard would not be touched with a louing respect to them, and their memory? But the questi­on is, whether wee must performe any seruice to [Page 315]these Reliques? or must adore them? or speake to things without life, or offer vnto bones, or clothes? or whether God haue commaunded to lay them vpon Altars, or carry them in procession? For the Conuenticle held at Nice,Pag 104 of the Colen Edition Ossa, cineres, pannos, sangui­nem, sepulera deni (que) martyrum adoremus. about the yeare 789. which the Church of Rome reckoneth for a gene­rall Councell, in the fourth Act willeth, that the bones, ashes, and the ragges be adored. And Bel­larmine in the fourth chapter§. Quod au­tem. Chrysostemꝰ Ser­mone in Sanctos Iuuentium & Maximum dicit, Tumulos Mar­tyrum adoremus of his booke of Re­liques, proueth the adoration of Reliques by these wordes of Chrysostome in his Sermon of Iuuentius and Maximus, Tumulos Martyrum adoremus: Let vs adore the Monuments of Martyrs: but the words in Chrysostome, are Tumulos Martyrum adornemus, Let vs adorne the monuments of Martyrs: which is a horrible falsification: but this is ordinary with the Cardinall; whereof Coeffeteau himselfe is euen a­shamed, for alleadging the same passage, he trans­lates it faithfully,Fol. 55. pag. 2. Let vs adorne their monuments. The same Cardinall about the end of the second chapter sayth, We adore not Reliques as God: then by his owne confession, he worshippeth Reliques, but it is with an inferiour adoration.

Now wee require our aduersaries to shew vs some commaundement of God, or some example out of the holy Historie for this adoration, and re­ligious worship: for whatsoeuer distinction of worship they may produce, is alwaies such a ser­uice and religious worship, as God hath not com­maunded, and is consequently comprised vnder that worship which S. Paul condemneth, Coloss. 2. [Page 316]calling it [...], that is, will worship, or vo­luntarie deuotion.

And there can bee no Religious worship how meane so euer, but turnes to an abuse, when it is transferred to a dead thing: Sith that the Church of Rome doeth speake to these reliques, and salutes the Napkin, the Speare, the Teares, the Crosse, saying, Aue sancta facies, &c. And Aue lignum tri­umphale. And hee that shall obserue with what zeale the people is caried to the Adoration of these Reliques, shall find that the seruice of God in com­parison thereof is key-cold. At Paris, when the Caskets of S. Geneueifues, & S. Marcellus Relickes, being carried about, come to meete each other, the people are made to beleeue, that the bearers haue much adoe to plucke them asunder, they bee such sociable Reliques and louing bones, that they should haue beene lodged in one Tombe to giue them contentment; In this solemnitie it is a won­der to see the zeale of the people, and with what a tumult they throng and presse to come neere to it. All the Angels together haue not the one quarter of this honour. And the Soules of Moyses, Abra­ham, Noe, &c. are much lesse honoured then Saint Francis breeches, or a peece of his Pilgrims staffe.

It is to small purpose to say that this is done in honour of the Saints. For it should first be shewed, that God hath commanded it: Secondly, we ought to be well assured, that the Saints are well pleased with this seruice. Add further, if a King should put off his Doublet, I thinke there is no man (vnlesse [Page 317]he haue his wits crazed) that would salute it, much lesse to say vnto it, God saue thee Doublet; as they doe in the Church of Rome, where men say, I greete thee O teare; And God saue thee O triumphall wood. If you salute any thing in honour of Iesus Christ, or of whomsoeuer, it ought in reason to vnderstand what you say.

And here we haue the first strength of antiquitie on our side, Eusebius in the fourth Booke,Nullus ad Aegy­ptum meas per­ferat reliquias, ne vano corpus honore scruetur. Ne vituperati ritus a me (vt nostis) etiam cir­ca me seruentur obsequia— Vos igitur humo tegite, vos patris operite corpuscu­lum. Et illud quoque senis ve­stri custodite mandatum, vt nemo praeter ve­strā dilectionem locum tumuli mei nouerit. Chapter fifteene of his Historie, speaking of the Martyrdom of Polycarpe, saith that the Christians were charie of his Ashes, and that they had procured them to bee buried; but hee doeth not speake of any seruice, or Religious worship, or adoration done to the ashes. Saint Athanasius, in the life of S. Anthonie, is most pregnant to this purpose, where he saith, that these were the last words of Anthony when he lay dying; Let no man carie my Reliques into Egypt, for feare lest my body be honoured with vaine honour, for feare least Obsequies, and Funerall solemnities (which I haue bla­med as you know) be practised vpon my selfe; For I am especially returned to this place to auoide it; doe you then hide and couer this poore body with earth, and obserue the commandement of your aged father, that no man beside your selues, know the place where I am buried. Out of this place appeareth, that the Christians e­uen from that time, were excessiuely giuen to honour the bodies of the beleeuers that died: And we must not thinke, that S. Anthony was afraid that the Christians would adore him for GOD after his death. For Bellarmine doeth acknowledge that [Page 318]which indeede is a truth; That * it was neuer heard that any Christians did conferre Diuine honours vpon the Reliques of Saints. The custome of the ancient Church, was to burie the bodies of Martyrs, and not to put them in Caskets out of the ground to carie them about in Procession. In the eight Chap­ter of the Acts of the Apostles, the Christians doe there burie Steuen without mention of any seruice done vnto his body. The same was done to Poly­carpus, as Eusebius witnesseth. Saint Ambrose had appointed the place, which was vnder the Altar or the Communion Table for his buriall, as ap­peareth by his last Epistle; for in those dayes the Altar was most commonly a Table of wood, easie to be remooued, so that the pauement vnderneath might well be broken vp to lay a dead body.Gaudens autem quae aderat mul­titudo corpora Sanctorum dili­genti tradidit sepulturae. Vi­ctor in his third Booke of the Vandals persecution, The multitude did with ioy and withall diligence, lay vp the bodyes of the Saints in a Tombe. The Poet Pru­dentius, about the end of his Hymne vpon Eulalia,

And in the beginning of the Hymne next follow­ing,

Theodoret in the first Booke of his Storie, Chapter eighteene, doeth sufficiently shew, that the Chri­stiansCap. 4 de relliq. Sanct. § Dices. Nuaquam est auditum apud Christianos ot a­liqui sanctorum reliquijs d [...]uinos honores detule­rint. [Page 319]then knew not what it meant, to yeeld Reli­gious worship to Reliques, in that hee saith, that Constantine hauing recouered the nayles of our Sa­uiours Crosse, set some of them in his Helmet, the rest hee thrust into the Bit of his Horses bridle: That is, he put two * in his Head peece, and the other two in the Bridle. Thus did this venerable Horse chew Reliques. What it was that mooued this Emperour to doe it, is another matter: But I say that the Bishoppes of that time, would neuer haue suffered that to haue beene done, if they had thought that any Religious seruice or adoration had beene due to those Nayles.

In the meane while, it is a thing to be wondred at, how these Nayles hauing beene lost for three hundred yeeres space, were thus found altogether so fitte to the purpose. And how Helena the Em­perours mother could discerne them from the Nayles of the two theeues, and how the fourth Nayle was lost. For the Crosse had in the mid­dle a littlePlautus Mo­stellaria Act 2. Vt affigantur bis pedes bis bra­chia. Irenaeus l [...]bro secundo cap 42. Vnum in medio vbi requ [...]escit qui clauis affi­gitur. Super hanc ta­bulam tanquam hominis s [...]antis sacrae affixe sunt plantae. boorde, vpon which the feete of the malefactors to bee Crucified, were set, and each foote was Nayled a part, and so also our Sauiour way Nayled, as Iustin Martyr teacheth in his Dia­logue against Tryphon: and Ireneus lib. 2. Cap. 42. Nazianzen in his verses of Christ suffering, And Theodoret before alleadged. But especially Grego­rie of Tours in his booke of the praise of Martyrs: And therefore it was a negligence in Helen that shee did not imploye her selfe to finde out the fourth nayle. [...]. For there were foure Nayles, Cypriani liber nothus de passi­one, Clauis sa­cros pedes tere­brantibus.

It is a thing also to be wondred, how the nailes were found in the same place with the Crosse; Se­ing that the custome of the Aunciens was to burie togither with the bodies of malefactors,Inueniuntur ossa inserta catenis, & implicita. the chains and yrons wherewith they suffered, as appeareth in Plinies Epistles, lib. 7. Epist. 27. where he reciteth the stories of a Ghost that appeared to the Philoso­pher Athenodorus. And in Chrysostome in his Ora­tion against the Gentils. And Welserus In cōmentarijs rerum Vindeli­carum. cōfirmeth it in his seauenth booke of his Commentaries of Ausbourge.

In the meane time it appeareth by the place of Athanasius, heretofore alleaged, and by the simpli­city of Constantine, that this abuse began from that time to slide on and increase, which was so farre growne in some places 400. yeares after Christ,Noui multos esse sepulcrorum & picturarum ado­ratores. Noui multos esse qui super mortuos luxuriosissimè bi­bant. that S. Austin in his first booke de Moribus Eccles. doth greatly complaine of it. I know (saith he) that there are many that adore Sepulchres and Pictures; I know that there are many that drinke at large ouer the dead: The same Austin in the 28. chapter of his booke of the labour of Monkes (for in those daies they had each man his trade) complaineth of some gadders vp and downe,Membra mar­tyrum, Si tamen martyrum. carriers about of reliques, which they reported to be the limmes of Martyrs: Yea, saith he, if so be that they be members of Martyrs.

The auncient Christians in the three first ages were wont to warme their zeale by the imbers of the Martyrs; And because they had no Temples, they assembled together in the Church-yardes; where the Tombes of the Martyrs serued them for [...]. [Page 321]tables to administer the Lords Supper; This be­ing at the first done onely as occasion and the pre­sent opportunity would permit, was afterward made a law. For in the fift Councell of Carthage, the Altars are called Monuments or Tombes: Where is to be noted, that the Councel complai­neth, that many such false monuments were ere­cted vpon dreames and vaine illusions, and com­maundeth to plucke them downe, if the tumult of the people shall not hinder them: which sheweth that superstition was already growne strong in this point. Gregorie Bishop of Rome in the first booke of his Dialogues chap. 2. speaketh of one called Li­bertinus, who alwaies carried about a hose of S. Ho­norate. In those times, our Kinges planted their whole Religion in founding of Monasteries and getting Relikes together thinking by these means to be saued. King Dagobert tooke away all the Re­liques from the other Saints, to enrich the Temple of S. Denis, S. Rusticus, and S. Eleutherius; whereup­on there fell out great strife and debate among the Saints, if wee beleeue the Chronicles of France. For the Saints whom he had robbed and riffled, as S. Hilarie, S. Fremin, &c. adioyned themselues to the Deuils,See this Story in Nicolas Gilles anno 645. and it is taken out of Turpin. & craued their helpe to carry the soule of this good King to hell; But hee cal ed to the Saints, whom he had enriched, for succour, who so valiantly resisted the other Saints and the De­uils, that they plucked away his soule from them, and carried it into Paradise. Now a daies many superstitious persons are ashamed of their reliques [Page 322]and mocke at them; And yet for all that, it is held for an absolute and inuiolable Decree, that euery Altar must haue his Reliques vnderneath it, other­wise they cannot consecrate. For after the Introite of the Masse, the Priest bowing himselfe ouer the Altar, asketh of God pardon of al his sins, through the merits of those Saints, whose bones lie hidde vnder the Altar. This greatly auaileth to strike the people with a superstitious horrour, and astonish­ment of hart, and with a trembling deuotion, it being done out of singular wisdome, and vpon great consideration. For it is credible that when Christ did administer his last supper, that he close­ly conueighed vnder the table, some bones of Sa­muel, or some tooth of Sampsons Asses law bone; And if Christ did not seeke saluation throgh their merits, it was because those old Saints were worse stored and prouided of merits, then they whom the Pope hath Canonized for Saints, as S. Iuniper, or S. Thomas of Cāterbury, defender of the crowne of England.

Concerning the Fathers, whom Coeffeteau op­poseth hereunto; Chrysostome, Ambrose, and Au­stin, are of the minde that the bodies of the Saints ought indeede to be honored, and their sepulchres beautified and adorned. But what is this against the King of England, who saith asmuch. As for those miracles which were done at those Sepul­chres, of which S. Austin speaketh, God by them did authorize the doctrine of the Gospell, which his faithfull seruants had vttered in word, and signed [Page 323]with their bloud. Such were the miracles wrought by the touch of Elizeus his body, and by the Ker­chiefes of S. Paul: But it followeth not thereupon, that they adored or yeelded any religious seruice to those Reliques. Vnlesse perhaps we must adore the shadow of S. Peters body, as Bellarmine will haue it:Bell. lib. de reli­quijs cap 4 §. Ad tertium. Scriptu­ra approbat cul­tū vmbrae Petri. of which shadow doubtlesse some peece may bee found stored vp among the Reliques, aswell as at Cour-chiuerni neare Blois they keepe the Labour of S. Ioseph, when hee cleft wood, for hee was a Car­penter.

Howbeit there be two thinges which I will not here dissemble; the one is, that Heretikes at that time,Doctores haereti­cos maximè do­ctrinae suae fidem onfirmasse, mor­tuos suscitasse, de bil [...]s reformasse, futura significas­se vt Apostoli crederentur. Nunquid non Africa sanctorū Martyrum cor­poribus plena est? Et tamen nus­quam hic scimus talia fieri. did more miracles as Tertullian witnesseth lib. 3. against Marcion cap. 3. and in his 44 chapter of his Prescript. where he saith, that the Heretikes did raise the dead, heale the sicke, foretell thinges to come. The other is, that the place in S. Austin De Ciuitai. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. is to be suspected For he speaketh of miracles done in Africa, and neare vnto Hippo, where he was Bishop, by touching the Reliques of Saints. Whereas himselfe Epist. 137. saith that in some places of Italie, as at Nola and at Millan, such miracles were done neare vnto the monuments of the Saints: but that in Africa there were not any wroght in any place; And that which is more to be obserued, is, that this Epistle was written to the people and clergie of Hippo, who would easilie haue controuled him, if such miracles had beene wrought in Africa; What shall we now beleeue? Here is S. Austin who saith in one place, [Page 324]that many miracles were done in Africa neare vnto the place of his abode; by the Reliques of Saints: In another place he saith there were non done at all. Surely the writings of the Fathers passed throgh certaine ages, horribly darkened with ignorance, in which some malicious men tooke a pleasure to falsi­fie them. And indeede by the course of Storie of the ages following a man may obserue, that by how much the more ignorance increased by corruption of doctrine; by so much the more miracles were wrought. Reade the Dialogue of Gregorie the first, and you shall see that Christ did nothing in a man­ner, & in comparison of the miracles then wrought. Gregorie himselfe in the fourth booke of his Dia­logues chap. 41. wondereth at it, and propoundeth this quetion to himselfe:Quid hoc est quaeso, quod in his extremis tem poribus tam multa de anima­bus clarescunt quae ante latue­rant? How commeth it to passe that in these latter times so many thinges are reuealed vnto vs, touching the soules of the dead, which before were bidden. For then in those times, men talked of nothing but of Ghosts that appeared, which ex­horted men liuing to giue to the Church. And it was yet but the sixt hundreth yeare of Christ, so much had the Prince of this world gotten in short time.

That which Coeffeteau most maketh bragges off, and setteth it out with fairest colour, is the testi­mony of S. Hierome, Epistola ad Ri­parum aduersus Vigilantium. Er­go Petri & Pau­li immundae sunt reliquiae? who hath written two Epistles in defence of the Reliques of Saints, against Vigilan­tius who did oppugne them. But there is no affini­ty betweene their quarrell and ours. For Hierome accuseth Vigilantius for accounting the Reliques of [Page 325]Saints vncleane, a thing which we neuer affirmed; nay the King of England speaketh of them with great respect. He saith further,Epist. 2 aduers. Vigil. Sanctorū reliquias proijci in sterquilinium: vt solus Ʋigilan­tius ebriꝭ & dor­miens adoretur. That Vigilantius would haue the reliques of Saints cast out vpon the dung hill, that himselfe alone though druncke and asleepe might onely be adored. Haue we euer said so? Or is there any of vs that would onely be adored? But as touching the question, whether Reliques be to be adored, S. Hierome in the Epistle before alleaged, doth flatly denie that they ought to be adored:Nos autem non dico Martyrum reliquias, sed ne Solem quidem & Lunam non An­gelos non Arch­angelos colimus & aaoramus. We doe not adore, I doe not say onely, the Reliques of Mar­tyrs; But neither Sunne nor Moone, for Angels nor Archangels: Where is to bee seene that hee would haue it esteemed lesse strange to adore the Sunne, then Reliques. Which maketh vs to suspect the place in his Epistle to Marcella, of falshood: where he exhorteth her, Samariam pergere, & Iohannis Baptistae, Helisaei quo (que) & Abdiae pariter cineres ado­rare: to come to Samaria and to adore the ashes of Iohn Baptist, Elizeus, and Abdias. Howsoeuer, if he would haue beene beleeued, he should haue grounded his saying vpon the authority of the word of God: ac­cording to the rule which himselfe giueth vpon the 23. chapter of S. Matthew. Because, saith he,Hoc quiae de Scripturis non habet authori­tatem pari faci­litate contēnitur qua probatur. Lib. de Reliquijs Cap. 3. §. Gregor. Lib. de Reliquijs c. 3. §. ex Africa. this is not grounded vpon the authority of the Scriptures, we may as easily reiect it, as they proue it.

The place of Gregorie Nyssenus which Bellarmine produceth is false. We haue heretofore shewed the falshood of that Oration vpon Theodorus; As also that is false which he saith, that the fift Councell of Carthage forbiddeth any Altar to bee dedicated [Page 326]without Reliques. The Councell doth not speake in that place, of all Altars, but of the monuments of Martyrs, which the beleeuing Christians, assem­bling themselues together in the Church-yeards, v­sed in steede of Altars. And because that for want of true monuments, they sometimes erected in ho­nour of true Martyrs, false deuised sepulchres, the Councel commandeth them to be plucked downe. It is a thing incredible how the workes of this Car­dinall doe swarme with vntruthes. The other pla­ces which he alleageth doe neither speake of ado­ration, nor religious worship.

Suborning of counterfait Reliques.But the maine point is, that through tract of time, and the malice of men, the question is now changed. For in those times, while the sufferings of the Martyrs were yet fresh in mens mindes, and their Reliques certainely knowne; men disputed vpon some ground and subiect, how far they were to be honoured: But now a dayes they thrust vpon vs fained Reliques, counterfaite marchandise, as a meere Artifice for gaine: Reliques which they are wont [...]o shew in darke places, and that by vncoue­ring them either by halfes or not at al; making the seely people to rest content by bare seeing of the box or casket, causing them to kneele vnto them with troubled deuotion: And if they depart out of th [...]se Oratories without offering, or paying, it will be thought heresie or ingratitude.

Some Reliques there are meerely forged to mock and abuse the world: And Burgos in Spaine there is a Crucifix, whose bearde they cut euery moneth, [Page 327]and pare his nailes, and these parings are said to bee of great vertue. At Rome there is kept in S. Iohns Church in Lateran, the circumcised fore-skin of Christ, as also the very Altar at the which Iohn Bap­tist did say diuine seruice in the wildernesse, as wit­nesseth the booke of Romish Indulgences printed at Rome. Our Pilgrims bring home, out of Galizia, the feathers of certaine hennes which are of the race of that cock, that crew to S. Peter when he de­nied his master: In S. Sulpitius Church in Paris, there is a stone of that fountaine wherein the Virgin Ma­ry washed the swathing-clothes of Christ newly borne. There was shewed vnto my selfe at S. Denis, Iudas his Lanterne, which doubtlesse is a peece of great vertue. As also Aarons rodde, which by that reckoning must needes haue lasted three thousand and six hundred yeares without rotting; and yet our good masters confesse, that the cōsecrated hosts doe finnow and grow mouldy, the presence of Christ in them, cannot saue them from putrefacti­on. Men goe to Collein to worship the bodies of the three Kings that neuer yet were. The authour of the booke called Opus imperfectum vpon S. Ma­thew, attributed to Chrysostome, saith that they were of those whom they called Magi, wizards, or sooth­sayers, and that they were twelue in number. Their names Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, doe shew that it was the inuention of some Almaine Monke, for the two first are high-dutch names. That good and faithfull seruant of God Theodore Beza, whom God hath now gathered to his Saints in glory, in [Page 328]his booke against Baldwine, reporteth of himselfe that he saw at Tours a crosse laden with rich stones which the people adored at the Passion; amongst the rest there was an Achates or an auncient Agate stone which the people kissed, and that himselfe be­holding the ingrauing, he found it to bee a Venus weeping ouer her Adonis lying by her. And further, that to Lewis of Bourbon, Prince of Condee, being in the same Towne, there was brought amongst o­ther Reliques an arme of siluer, which being ope­ned, there was found within it a knaue of spades with a loue ditty. And that at Bourges there was found in a casket of Reliques a little wheele turning round vpon a staffe, hauing a little scroule written about it.

How can a man reconcile S. Iohn of Angerie, with Amiens and Arras, seeing that these three Townes doe bragge that they haue the head of Saint Iohn Baptist? How many houses might there be built, with that which is said to be the wood of the true Crosse? Or who could recken the thornes of Christ his Crowne? Or the milke, or the haire of the Virgin Marie? In England only in the be­ginning of the reformation of religion, there were found aboue a bushel full of S. Apollonies teeth. And alwaies the bason to receaue the offering, is at hand. Wee see many Churches founded by this meanes. What semblance of these thinges was there a­mongst the auncients, nay was there euer any gros­ser [Page 329]cosenage in all the Heathen Paganisme? In all this abuse of Reliques, finde me out any Relique or remnant of Pietie, or any trace of Christianity.

ARTICLE XVIII. Of Images.

The KINGS Confession. B Ʋt for worshipping either them or Images, I must account it dam­nable Idolatrie. I am no Icono­machus; I quarell not the making of Images, either for publike decoration, or for mens priuate vses: But that they should bee worshipped, be prayed to, or any holinesse at­tributed vnto them, was neuer knowne of the Ancients: and the Scriptures are so directly, vehemently and punctually against it, as I won­der what braine of man, or suggestion of Sa­than durst offer it to Christians, and all must be salued with nice Philosophicall distinctions: As, Idolum nihil est: And, they worship (for­sooth) the Images of things in being, and the Image of the true God. But the Scripture for­biddeth to worship the Image of any thing that God created. It was not a nihil then that God forbad onely to be worshipped, neither was the [Page 330]brasen Serpent, nor the the body of Moses a ni­hil, and yet the one was destroied, and the other hidden for the eschewing of Idolatrie.

Master Coeffeteau answers,Fol. 57. ‘that the Church of Rome doeth not beleeue that there is any Deitie in Images, nor doeth worship them, nor make any petition vnto them, or repose any confi­dence in them: but doeth onely honour them for that which they represent: Iust as the men of Reu­ben and Gad, and the halfe tribe of Manasses be­yond Iordan,Ios. 22. erected another Altar beside the Tabernacle, only for amemoriall for their poste­ritie, but not for the offering of sacrifices. So Co­effeteau saith, that the Church of Rome doth not erect Images vnto Saints, that they should bee accounted either Gods, or Images of God, nor to offer sacrifices vnto them: but to testifie that we are not depriued, or seperated from the Com­munion of our holy brethren, that dwell beyond Iordan in the Land of promise. That as in ciuill Gouernements, Statues are aduanced for those that haue spent their liues in the defence of the Commonwealth, both for honour and example: so for the same purposes are Martyrs adorned with triumphant Statues: that they are faire Church ornaments: and that thereby we make protestation that we liue in the same Church, and in hope to attaine the same societie.’

He addeth thereunto the testimonie of the Fa­thers, alleadging one of the second age,Lib. de pudic. c. 7. to wit, [Page 331] ‘Tertullian speaking of an Image in a Chalice; two of the fourth age, First Gregorie Nyssenus, Se­condly Basil, speaking of the Images of certaine Saints engrauen vpon a seeling, and Painted vp­on the Walles.Lib. 5. byst. c. 21. Three other Authours of the fifth age, namely, Sozomen who speakes of the Image of Iesus Christ, broken by Iulian, the bro­ken pieces whereof were brought afterward into the Church; and the Poet Prudentius and Pauli­nus, speaking of Painting in Churches.’

And farther he addeth ‘that the distinction of an Image and an Idoll, is grounded vpon the Scrip­ture. That the Cherubins were Images, and not Idols. That an Idoll either presenteth things that neuer were in being; or representeth them in the nature of a God. Which doth no way agree to the Images of Saints who haue had a true being, and whom men doe onlie honour as the seruants of God.’

‘That the brasen Serpent was broken, and the bo­die of Moses concealed, for that the Iewes were humorouslie enclined to Idolatry, and would rea­dily haue acknowledged Moses for their Sauiour, and worshipped, and burnt incense vnto the bra­sen Serpent. And that therefore Ezechias did re­ligiously breake it: but that he medled not with the Cherubins in the Temple, because this was abused, but those were not: Whereupon Coeffe­teau concludeth, that the abuse, not the Images, is to be blamed, the good vse of them being not forbidden, especially in Churches.’

This is the substance of his discourse,Answere. which hee loades with so many, and such tedious wordes, that the matter is hardly perceiued. By which discourse he sheweth that he is ashamed of his religion. For he speaketh of Images, as of memorials, or meere representations, whereas the Church of Rome commandeth men to reuerence them, to performe religious worship vnto them, nay to adore them.

In the second Councell of Nice, Pope Adrian writing to Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople, speaketh thus,Act 2. Imagines omnium Sancto­rum beatitas ve­stra colere & a­dorare pergat. Let your beatitude continue to serue & adore the Images of all Saints. This commandement is repeated through the whole Councell aboue twenty times. These wordes are to be found in the seauenth Act.Virginis Mariae Deiparae inteme­ratae quin etiam gloriosorum An­gelorum & om­nium Sanctorum has quoque ado­randas & salu­tandas putamus. Qui vero non est ita animatus, sed circa venerāda­rum imaginū a­dorationem labo­rat & dubitat, cum anathema­tisat sancta & venerāda nostra Synodus. We hold that the Images of the pure Virgin Marie, the mother of God, and also of the glo­rious Angels, and of all Saints, are to be adored and salu­ted. That if so be any be otherwise minded, and doe wauer and be of a doubtfull opinion concerning the ado­ration of venerable Images, our holy and reuerend Sy­nod doth anathematise him. And which is more, in the first Act of this venerable Councell it is decla­red, [...]. that a Church without Images is nothing worth. Which is againe affirmed, that to oppose Images is the worst of all heresies. In the fourth Act it is said, thatVt etiam meo iudicio cum san­ctis Euāgelijs & venerāda cruce aequi ua [...]eant. Images are equiualent to the holy Gospels. And in the eight Act it is ordained, thatImaginibus a­dorationem ex hibeant—quem­admod [...] typo ve­nerandae & viui­ficae crucis & sanctis Euāgelys. such adoration be vsed vnto Images, as is vnto the venerable, and quickning Crosse, and the holy Gospels. In the same fourth Session, speaking of the holy Hystories of Abraham, and of the Martyrs, it saith, that maior [Page 333]est Imago quam oratio, An Image is of more excellency then prayer. In the fifth Act, the entire body of the Councel pronounceth,Ecclesia sentit nō omnino esse cor­poris expertes & muisibiles, verū tenus corpore prae dito & aerio si­ue igneo. that the Church holdeth that the Angels are corporall, and not inuisible, but that they haue subtile bodies compounded of aire, or fire. And throughout the whole Councell is the worship­ping of Images commanded. Now this Councell in the Church of Rome is most authenticall, is sti­led Canonicall, and confirmed by the Popes; and it is to be beleeued that such a Councell cannot erre: which is as much as can be said of the holy Scripture.

Bellarmine with other of their Doctors follow­ing this decision, doth teach that Images are reli­giously to be worshipped, and adored. Who di­rectly opposeth that which Coeffeteau saith, that I­mages are worshipped Simply for that which they represent. For Bellarmine in the 21. chapter of his booke of Images, sets downe this maxime in Capi­tall letters, that the Images of Christ, and the Saints, Imagines Christi & Sanctorū ve­nerandae sunt, nō solum per acci­dens vel impro­priè sed etiā per se & propriè tita vt ipsae terminēt venerationē vt in se consideran­tur, & non so­lum vt vicem ge­runt exemplaris. ought to be worshipped, not by accident only, or impro­perly, but properly, and by themselues, so that the wor­ship of them is determined in the Images, as they are considered in themselues, and not according to the pat­ternes which they represent. And about the end of the 22. chapter. The vsuall worship performed vnto externall Images, is considered properly, and in them­selues. So the worship done to Images, doth eui­dently shewe that they reuerence the Images for themselues. For among the diuers Images of one Saint, one is couered with dust, another is cladd in [Page 334]silke, and is often in change of rayment: and some haue offerings tendered vnto them, and some haue none; and which [...]s more, the Images of the selfe same Saints haue diuers names: there is our Lady of Vertue, our Lady of Ioy, our Lady of good newes, our Lady of Snow, whose festiuall day is in Italy celebrated in the moneth of August, and hee that should call our Lady of Vertue, by the name of our Lady of Ioy, should be reputed a blockhead, or that he had beene at Geneua And so doubtlesse when one censeth an Image, or kindleth lights, or clothes it with apparaile, or offers vnto it; or when one speaketh to a piece of wood, or to the painting in a cloth, I see not how the Saint is more honou­red thereby: for he meddles not with the perfumes; and when the stones are polished, he sees not a whit the clearer. He takes no delight in seing the Ima­ges clothed, or naked; nor doth he gather vp anie of the offerings, but they are all for the Curates, and Vicars. And if any should speake to the picture of a King, the King would not esteeme himselfe ho­noured thereby.

And if Images which doe but doubtfully resem­ble the countenances of Saints, must be worship­ped, then why should not the Bible bee adored, wherein the power of God is most certainly repre­sented?

Now if his Maiestie of England speake of this a­buse, as an abhomination, what would he say if he had been an eye-witnesse of that superstitious mad­nesse, wherwith the poore multitude are inflamed? [Page 335]if he had seene behinde an Image of stone, cladde in silke, a poore naked picture, standing for the Image of God? if he had seene the people marching in pro­cession before Lent toward the Image of our Lady, for leaue to eate butter? if he had seene the rule pra­ctised, which the Tridentine catechisme sets downe approuing such as say a Pater noster before the pi­cture of S. Dominicke, or S. Barbara? Cap. de Oratio­ne, Editionis Lo­naniensis p. 483. Cum ad imagi­nem sancti ali­cuius quis Domi­nicam orationem pronunciat, ita tum sentiat se ab illo petere vt se­cum oret. if he had seene troupes of Saints in Churches diuersly apparailed, among which some are but very basely cladde, and some Saint hauing a hogge by his side, some other a dogge, &c, and these creatures to haue a share in the perfume, & to be equally adorned with lights? He that should breake an arme of one of these liue­lesse Images, shall be thought to haue committed a greater fault, then if he had broken the heades of a hundred liuing men; howbeit the Image might be mended, when the men could haue no amends. This abuse is boundlesse, and here superstition ad­deth madnesse vnto their blindnesse. For the liuing Image of God fals downe before the Image of a dead man. He among them that should see a church without Images, would thinke himselfe in a newe world: or he that should see Images vnworshipped, would perswade himselfe he were among Deuils.

Such as blush at this abuse, and speake thereof more nicely, (as Coeffeteau doth) they say that Ima­ges doe helpe our deuotion; but whence then is it, that they may not be seene in Lent, which is the time of deuotion, and what deuotion is there, with­out, nay against the commandement of God?

Others say, that they are ignorant mens bookes, and they say the truth, for they keepe them in igno­rance. So Habacuc cap. 2. calleth them teachers of lyes: the mischiefe is, that whiles the Churches and publique places, are filled with these bookes for the ignorant, they keepe away the Scripture, which might haue made them learned, and cured their ignorance, they amaze the people insteed of instru­cting them, they quicken the sense, but dull the conscience, they kindle their wax-lights, while the Candle of Gods word is hid vnder the bushell of an vnknowledge language: and by this meanes are men turned into stones, hauing stones for their instru­cters. And this is an old tricke of policie, to busie the people with playes, and publike shewes, while their liberty is vndermined,Tacitus in Iuli­o Agricola. Pau­latim discessum ad del inimenta vitiorum porti­cus & balnea, & conuiuiorum elegantiam. Id apud imperitos humanitas vo cabatur. cum pars [...]eruitutis esset. so dealt Alcibtades by the Athenians, and so (as Cor. Tacitus witnesseth) the Romanes dealt in great Britaine. The same cunning hath beene vsed by the Pope, who hath built his Hierarchy vpon the ruines of the Ro­mane Monarchy, he sets the people gazing on paintings, and spectacles, while he doth insensibly change the doctrine of saluation, to make it seruice­able to his Lordlinesse.

They alleadge the Images of the Cherubins made by the Commaundement of God, which makes very much for our side: for they were faste­ned in the Sanctuary, where the people came not at all, for God concealing them from the sight of the people, preuented their Idolatry. Whence ap­peareth the strange boldenesse of Bellarmine, in the [Page 337]12. Chapter of his booke of Images,Imagines Che­rubin super arcā existentes neces­sario adoraban­tur ab ijs qui ar­cam adorabant. where without any purpose, he presumeth to affirme, that the Isra­clites did worship the Cherubins with the Arke. If so be the Iewes worshipped not the Angels, how would they haue worshipped their Images? hee should first then haue prooued, that the people of God worshipped the Angels in the Temple, or addressed their prayers vnto them. And had the children of Israel worshipped the Arke (as he falsely supposeth) may it thence be concluded that they worshipped the Cherubins placed on the Arke? he that saluteth the King, doth he salute his hat, or his habit? this hath neither reason, nor likelyhood.

Neither was the brasen Serpent worshipped, or adored, for as soone as the people began to per­forme any worship vnto it, Ezechias brake it in pie­ces, now it is impossible that the Israelites should haue thought, that this peece of brasse was God, the wit of man was neuer so blunted: but they per­formed a respectiue seruice vnto the Serpent, be­cause of the power of God, wherof that was a me­moriall.

These men mend not their market by telling vs, that they worship not the Images of false Gods as did the Paynims: but the Images of the friends and seruants of God, for Idolatry is called in the Scripture adultery, and an adulterous woman can­not be excused in saying that she betakes not her selfe to her husbands enemies, but onely to his friendes, and in so ticklish a point, and whereof God is so [...]ealous, we must be grounded vpon the [Page 338]commaundement of God: and to make it appeare, that God would haue vs to worship the Images of his seruants, or that we should yeeld them some re­ligious seruice, or bow our knee before them, and not shiftingly to shunne the question, in shewing that it is lawfull to make pictures, whereas the que­stion is concerning the seruice that ought to bee performed vnto them.

Being thus vrged, in place of alleaging the com­mandement of God, they bring vs a distinction of Latria and Dulia, and cast these greeke wordes like a handfull of sand in the peoples eyes. It would be easie for vs to shew by a great number of greeke au­thorities, that Dulia belongeth also vnto God,2. Chron. 12.8. Which is the 4. c. in the greek. And 1. Sam. 7. [...]. Obserue also that S. Austin by the word Dulia vnderstāds not religious wor­ship, but a ciuil reuerēce, yeel­ded vnto men aliue. yea vnto God onlie when it signifies religious seruice; and that Latria is often referred vnto men. But this matters not, inasmuch, as the seruice and inferiour adoration, which they attribute vnto the Saints, & to their Images, is alwaies a religious seruice, and a voluntarie worship, tending to the attainement of saluation. Therefore they are perpetually foyled, seing they can neither proue, that this inferior wor­ship belongeth vnto the Saints, or to their Images, nor that God hath commanded that anie religious seruice should be yeelded vnto their Images.

They being vnfurnished with proofes out of the word of God, they flie vnto miracles, and that they haue done of late. For the second Councell of Nice saith, that [...]ct. 4. Quam­obrem miracula a nostris imagi­nibus non edun­tur? cui sanè ita sit resposum. Mi­racula non cre­ditibꝰ data sunt. then none were made.Lib, de ima­ginibus cap▪ §. Quid quod▪ Bellarmine tels of a Deuil that promised a Heremite that he would trouble him no more, vpon condition that hee [Page 339]would promise him not to worship any longer the Image of the Virgin Marie. The Image of our La­die of Montferrat in Spaine, that fell from heauen, was painted by S. Luke, who was a painter, [...]. Act. 19.35. if these men may be credited. Which S. Hierome in his catalogue hath omitted. S. Paul saith, that he was a Phisitian. But the Church of Rome hath made him a painter since he went to heauen,Coloss. 4.13. whence also come our Images. Certainly we may well say that Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian would not haue thought the Art of painting to be wicked, and vnlawfull, if they had knowne S. Luke had beene a painter: and it is strange that the auncient writers make no mention of his Images: and where were they al the foure first ages, that the Churches of the Christians were without pictures?

With like abuse doe they auerre that our Ladie of Loretto drawne by the same hand,There is one also made by S. Luk at Rome in S. Maries in Porticu. Villa­mont. l 1, c. 14. and one at S. Iustines at Pa­dua made also by S. Luke. was carryed by Angels through the aire, together with the chamber wherein shee was kept, from Nazaret in­to Italie, in the yeare 1369. for this fable is of no greater antiquity. And it is strange how the aun­cient Christians which were in Syria, neglected that chamber, and that Image of such excellencie: and how that image could subsist among the spoiles of the Turkes and Saracens, which turnde all thinges vpside downe, and that it should not be seene, till after fourteene hundred yeares: and that the Angels had not bethought themselues of transporting it sooner. And that so rare a storie should not haue any authour worthie the naming. To this Image [Page 340]hath Pope Sixtus the fourth granted an indulgence of eleuen thousand yeares, for saying a short praier of three lines, which is publikelie sold. By reason of the multitude of offerings in his time, the farming thereof was enhanced to a price incredible, but the gaines are now shrunke to the one halfe.

There is much adoe made at Rome about the pi­cture of Christ, which he sent vnto King Agbarus, drawne vpon a peece of linnen: concerning which the first that made anie mention is Euagrius, whose storie determineth about the sixt hundred yeare of our Lord. Which is doubtlesse a matter admirable; that none hath mentioned it before, and that Euse­bius, who neare the end of the first booke of his hy­storie speaketh at large of this Agbarus, and of cer­taine Epistles sent from him vnto Christ, and from Christ vnto him, hath not a word of this picture. And yet notwithstanding Gelasius Bishop of Rome, in the fifteenth distinction of the Decrees, and after him Isidore, account these Epistles fabulous, and A­pocryphall: Sith that Eusebius makes him speake er­roneously to Thadeus the Apostle, sent vnto Agba­rus, saying that in the death of Iesus Christ, his Dei­tie was diminished. [...]. And which is more, if this hy­storie of Agbarus were true, then had S. Paul told an vntruth, saying 1. Cor. 2.8. that none of the Princes of the world knew in his time the wisdome of the Gospell.

That other picture of the holie Veronica, inuen­ted a while after, is of the same stampe; which be­ing carried in procession in the time of Innocent the [Page 341]third turnde topsie turuie of it selfe, casting his beard vpward, as Matthew Paris reporteth.Matt. Paris in Henrico 3. pag. 279. For expiation wherof the said Pope graunted an indul­gence of ten dayes, for at that time they were not giuen by thousands.

It would be an endlesse peece of worke for anie to make report of the images that haue spoken, or sweate, or bowed the head in signe of consent. Reade Caesarius a Monke of the order of the Cist [...]r­tians, his booke of miracles. In the Abbey of Saint Guerlicou in Berrie neare the towne of Bourg-Dieu, vpon the way of Romorantin, such women as would be got with child, are stretched along vpon the i­mage of this S. Bennet after such a manner, as mo­desty may not report.

In fine, not to tyre the reader with thousands of the like abuses, if we may beleeue these our good Masters, it is certaine that the images of Saints do more miracles, then euer the Saints themselues did.

Concerning these miracles wee offer them the choise, whether they wil haue them accounted true or false: if they be false, we are not bound to beleeue them: and then there is collusion. For now adaies these miracles are nothing but coniuring of deuils, with many trickes, aspersions, crossings, exor­cismes, giuing power vnto wordes and signes: or it may be, the curing of one that is but counterfait lame or sicke. But to giue sight to one that is borne blinde, or to raise one from the dead that hath been buried, &c. are matters which their cunning could [Page 342]neuer contriue. And the Lieutenants, and Iudges in Criminall causes, howsoeuer, of the Romish Religion, haue often discouered and punished such impostures: Consider farther, that as the ancient Christians did glorie, that the Deuils and Oracles were dumbe in their presence:Read M Mare­scots Booke, concerning Martha B [...]ossier and the Histo­rie of Matthew So these miracles could neuer be wrought before vs: for if we stand by, the deuill looseth his fencing trickes.

Neuerthelesse, to deale fairely with these men, let vs graunt, that these Miracles are not counter­fait. For the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. foretelleth, that the sonne of perdition shall come with signes and Mi­racles. And Christ, Marke 13. saith, That false Tea­chers shall come, and worke signes and wonders, whereby to deceiue. And Mat. 12. A naughtie and adulterous generation seeketh a signe. If we teach no other Doctrine then Christ and his Apostles haue deliuered, the Miracles which they haue wrought doe sufficiently confirme our teaching: Besides we know that Heretickes in old time, did as many, and more Miracles, then they which taught the Or­thodoxe faith.

Being foyled then about these Miracles, they haue recourse, to the testimonies of the Fathers, Mast. Coeffeteau saith, that Tortullian in the seuenth Chapter of his Booke of Chastitie, teacheth that in the Primitiue Church, there were Images ingra­uen in Chalices: this is false, For Tertullian in this place, speakes not of the Picture of Iesus Christ, nor of any Saint or Angell; but hee speaktth of a Chalice, whereon was grauen a Shepheard, bea­ring [Page 343]a sheepe vpon his shoulder: which was no Image of Christ, but an Embleme of his office, as men doe vsually picture the vertues: and had the people worshipped this Picture,Lex coniungens, ne (que) ▪ similitudi­nem corum quae in caelo sunt, & quae in terra, t [...]to muado e [...]smodi artibus inter­dixit. Hermogenes pin­git illicitè, nubit assiduè: Legem Dei in tibidinem defeadit, in ar­tem contemnit, bis falsarius, & Cauterio, & Stylo. they would haue drawne it elsewhere in a place more eminent. Now Tertullian was so farre from the worshipping of Images, that he held it simply vnlawfull to make a­ny Image. So in his Booke of Idolatrie, cap. 4. The Law conioyning things, as not to make the likenesse of any thing in heauen, or in the earth, or in the Sea, hath forbidden such trades throughout the whole world. And in his Booke of Spectacles, cap. 23. God forbiddeth to make the resemblance of any thing, how much more of his Image? And therefore doeth he reproch Hermo­genes the Painter with his Art, as being full of ab­homination.

Coeffeteau alleadgeth also a place of Gregorie Nys­sen taken out of the Oration concerning Theodore the Martyr, which we haue heretofore disproued as false, and yet there is no speech of worshipping Images, no more then in the Oration of S. Basil, concerning the Martyr Barlaam, where there is on­ly mention of Painted Histories, and the represen­ting of the suffrings of the Martyrs; in which Pain­ted works, the Executioners, and Souldiers horses are also represented, and if the storie required, Christ was also drawne in the Picture: but of wor­ship performed to these Painted stories, or to any Image, there is no maner of mention.

Besides it is to be obserued, that if this were then practised in the Churchyards of Cappadocia where [Page 344] Basil was, or in some Church within his Bishop­pricke, yet wee finde not that this custome was brought into other countries. For Prudentius, and Paulinus alleadged by Coeffeteau, liued a hundred yeeres after, and they speake onely of the Historie, and not of any worship.

Hee alleadgeth also Sozomen lib. 2. cap. 20. where he speakes of an Image of Christ in Caesaria, broken by Iulian the Apostata, the pieces whereof were brought into the Church by the Christians, wherin his vnderstanding failes him, for thereby it appea­reth that this Image was not in any Church, and that no worship was done vnto it. Now we speake here of Images set vp in Churches, and which are there worshipped. Eusebius is the first that menti­ons this Image, lib. 7. cap. 17. of his Historie, whom Coeffeteau neglected to alleadge. For he saith, that this Image was made by that Heathen woman, whom Christ cured of a bloudy issue.Luke 8. Matth. 9. Afterward he saith, That none should wonder, if such of the Hea­then as Christ healed made such things, in as much as wee haue seene the Pictures of the Apostles, Paul and Peter, yea and of Christ himselfe drawne in colours, to be kept in Tables; which the ancients did out of an Hea­thenish custome, which was to honour those in like ma­ner, whom they esteemed their deliuerers. Obserue here, that he cals it an Heathenish custome, and be­ing begun by some of the Heathen that were hea­led by Christ, or his Apostles, they desired to ho­nour them after the maner of the Heathen. Wee must also vnderstand, that this Image was not in [Page 345]any Church, but in a corner of the streete, and that the Christians were so farre from giuing any ho­nour vnto it, that they knew it not to be there For Nicephorus in the tenth of his Historie saith,Temporis enim diuturnitate & obliuione inter­ciderat, cuius­nam ea statua formam referret & cuius rei gra­tia ib [...] esset callo cata Quod namque simula­crum sub dio astaret, non pa­rum corpus eius est immutatum. & imbres ex su­perioribus locis limum secum t [...]ahentes statuae ipsi aggesserant. That through age and forgetfulnesse it so decayed, that it could not be discerned whose Picture it was, or for what end it was set vp, for this Image was spoyled because it stood vncouered, and the raine had made much He speakes this because the houses in Capadocia, were couered with Earth, and so are at this day, wit­nesse Busbeck in his Voyage of Amasia [...]. earth to fall from the houses vpon it. And he addeth that in the ende it was knowen by the subscription, all which proues, that it was some Image made after the heathen maner, sent thither for some publicke ornament. But of Images in Churches, or of their worship, there is no such newes.

These are the places which Coeffeteau hath taken out of the ninth Chapter of Bellarmines Booke of Images: Hauing done wisely in omitting the place of Gregory Nazianzene, where Bellarmine commits a notorious falshood. Hee saith that in the fortie ninth (he would say) fortieth Epistle, Gregorie la­menting because the Towne of Diocaesatia was to be destroyed, wherein hee had adorned a Church with great magnificence, he addeth; Ne (que)enim si statuae deijciantur hoc nos excruciat, etiam si aliquan­do excruciat. The trueth is, that the Emperour be­ing incensed against the Towne of Diocaesaria for some offence (which Gregorie in this Epistle attri­buteth to the insolent behauiour of certaine chil­dren) did threaten to ruine it, and the Emperour had already taken away the Statues of the Empe­rours, which he had in the Towne: As wee haue an [Page 346]example in the insurrection at Antioch, where the people inraged against Theodosius the Emperour, they puld downe his Statues; concerning which Chrysostome hath diuers Homilies: and indeede Gregorie cals them [...], as Chrysostome doeth: otherwise, had he spoken of Images in Churches, he would with Zonaras, Damascene, and Cedrenus, haue called them [...]. And there is not so much as a word of that which Bellarmine saith, namely, that he speakes of Images in Churches, for indeede he speakes thereof contemptuously, in these words. For it is not very irkesome, although it grieue vs, if the Statues be puld downe, and doe you not thinke that I speake hereof, for I am busied about affaires of more moment.

With like falshood doeth he alleadge the Litur­gie of Chrysostome, in which Pope Nicholas, and the Emperour Alexius, borne many ages after Chryso­stome, are named. There also, and often elsewhere doth he alleadge the supposed Oration of Gregorie Nissen vpon Theodore.

So in the twelfth Chap. he falsly alleageth Basil against Iulian, the Liturgie of Chrysostome, and Au­sten in his third Booke of Christian Doctrine, and the questions of Athanasius, which are so full of vn­trueth, that Athanasius himselfe is alleadged: And Cyrils Catechismes, heretofore conuinced of false­hood, and certainely he that shall take the false Al­legations out of Bellarmine, shall not leaue one halfe part behind. The other places are imperti­nent, for one part speakes of historicall Pictures [Page 347]out of Churches in priuate houses:As S. Austin lib 1. de consensu E­uangelist. c. 10. Lib. 22. contra Faustum cap. 73. and not anie where mentioneth the worshipping of Images. Which is the point in controuersie.

All this being ouerthrowne, let vs relie vpon the commandement of God, which saith, Exod. 20. Thou shalt not make any grauen Image, nor the like­nesse of any thinges which are aboue in heauen, or be­low in earth, nor in the waters vnder the earth. Thou shalt not bow downe before them, nor worship them.

The distinction which they make here betweene an Image, and an Idoll, makes their confession ve­rie cleare, that they are not pleased with this com­mandement, sith they haue taken it out of their Houres and Offices, Thou shalt worship one God alone, and yeeld him perfect loue. Thou shalt not sweare in vaine by God, &c. which they giue abroade among the poore multitude; and that they put the Law of God into meetre, where this commandement is wholy left out. So the Councell of Ausbourg, which is in the latter Tome of the Councels, held in the yeare 1548, turneth the commandements in­to high-dutch, as they ought to be set forth to the people, wherein there is not a word spoken of I­mages, nor of the likenesse of things in heauen, &c, Now to make vp the number of ten commande­ments, they cut the tenth in two partes, and make the coueting of another mans wife to be the ninth. Whence it followes, that there is no ninth com­mandement in the twentith of Exodus; for it is thrust into the middle of the tenth, and put after the coueting of our neighbours house.

The Reader shall then haue matter of verie ma­ture consideration. For were there wordes euer [Page 348]pronounced with more maiesty then the law? the law written by the finger of God? the law pro­nounced by his mouth with fire, and tempest, and a terrible sound, to terrifie the creature with a sacred astonishment? would any beleeue that wormes of the earth should presume to correct this law, and charge it with superfluity? this cannot possibly re­ceiue sufficient aggrauation. Christ saith, that hea­uen and earth shal sooner passe away,Matth. 5. then that one iot of that law should not bee accomplished: and loe, these are then men that raze out whole periods, yea, that commandement which the Lord deliue­red with greatest maiestie, calling himselfe a iealous and a mighty God, adding thereunto his threat­nings, and promises vnto a thousand generations.

Being then conuinced of impiety, they fall to grammaticall disputations, and say, it must be tran­slated, Thou shalt not make any grauen Idoll, and not Image: that an Idoll is the representation of a false thing, and the obiect of Idolatry: but that Images doe represent true things. I confesse that in French an Image, and an Idoll are diuers thinges: but the law of God was not promulgated in French, but in Hebrew: wherein the word Pesel signifies a grauen Image, and so the Romish Bible translates it, Non facies tibi sculptile, Thou shalt not make a grauen, or carued Image. And Deut. 4, 16. it is, for feare that yee defile your selues, and make vnto you Pesel, that is, an Image, as the Romane Bible expresseth it. And so Esay. 40.19. and many other places. Iustine Martyr in his dialogue against Tryphon, translates [Page 349]it as wee doe, Thou shalt not make an Image, [...] &c. or the likenesse of any thinge in heauen aboue, or in the earth beneath. And I am of opinion that Tully vnder­stood the Greeke and Latin almost aswell as the Ia­cobins. Yet in the first booke de finibus, he speaketh thus: Images which they call Idols, Imagines quae I­dola nominant quorum incursio­ne non solum vi­deamus, sed etiā cogitemus. by meeting with whom we see and consider, &c. Tertullian in the vn­derstanding of these thinges is not inferior to any of the auncients; and yet he takes and Image, and an Idoll for the same thing, in his booke of Idolatrie cap. 3. Idos in greeke signifies a figure, or representa­tion, whence comes the diminutiue Idolon, which signi­fies a little forme, or fashion; and therefore euery little representation, or figure, must be called an Idoll. If then it be absurd in French to call the Cherubins Idols, in Greeke it shall be no absurditie at all.

But what neede we dispute, whether we ougth to say, Thou shalt not make any grauen Image, or Idoll, seing it is added, nor any likenesse, or resemblance what soeuer? And that it is also forbidden, to kneele, or bow downe before it, or at all to worship it? and consequently this Dulia is forbidden, which signi­fieth nothing else but worship?

Therefore, neither had the Israelites the pictures of Abraham, or Iacob, or Dauid in the Temple, or in their Synagogues being men that deserued to bee worshipped, and adored, at least aswell as S. Domi­nicke, or S. Guerlicon, or their good S. Francis: They being farre from yeelding them worship or adora­tion.

Neither had the primitiue Christians anie of [Page 350]them, and when in the fifth age they began to haue them in Church-yardes, in some places they made nothing but painted hystories, without any wor­shipping of them.

We haue heretofore seene that Tertullian con­demneth alike all kindes of painting, yea without any reference to religion.

Clement of Alexandria hath the like in his Pro­trepticon, where speaking of Painting and Caruing he saith, We are altogether forbidden to practise this deceitfull Art. And hee discourseth very largely thereof, in his sixth Booke of his Stromata.

Irenaeus Frenaeus lib 1. Cap. 23. & 24. Etiam imagines quasdam depi­ctas, quasdam de reliqua ma­teria fabricatas habent, dicentes forman Christi factam à Pilato. reckons it among the abuses of the Gno­stickes, That they had certaine Painted Images, and o­thers made of other stuffe, saying that it was the Pi­cture of Christ made by Pilate. Epiphanius saith the same, Lib. 1. Tom. 2. Haeres. 27.

Origen in his eight Booke against Celsus, Wee ought to Dedicate vnto the Lord, not Images made by the hands of Craftesmen, but framed by the word of God, which are vertuous examples.

In the Dialogue of Minutius Faelix, Caecilius a Pagan doth aske of the Christians,Cur nullas aras habent Christia­ni? Templa nulla? nulla nota si­mulacra? Whence it comes that the Christians haue no Altars, no Temples, no Ima­ges that are obserued?

The testimonie of the Historian Lampridius, in the life of Alexander Seuerus, is remarkeable, who saith that in fauour of the Christians,Quod & A­drianus facti­tasse fertur, qui Templa in omni­bꝰ ciuitatibꝰ sine simulacris iusse­rat fieri, quae ho­die idcirco quia non habent nu­mina dicuntur Hadria [...], quae ille ad hoc pa­rasse dicebatur. Sed probibitus est as his qui consulentes sacra repererunt om­nes Christianos suturos siad opta­tato euenisset. The Emper­our Adrian commanded that in euery Citie, Churches should be built without Images, which at this day are called Adrians Churches, because they haue no Gods in [Page 351]them; which they said he made for that end; to wit, to pleasure the Christians.

Saint Austen in his Booke of Heresies cap. 7. spea­king of the Carpocratian heretickes.Coleban [...]ma­gines I [...]as adorando & in­ [...]ensum ponendo. They worship­ped the Images of Christ, adoring, and burning in­cense vnto them.

Amphilochius Bishop of Iconia, reporteth in the second Synod of Nice,Non enim nobis sanctorum cor­porales vultus in tabulis coloribus vultus in tabulis coloribus effigiare curae est quoniam his opus non habemus, sed politiae illorū virtutum memo­res essedeb emus. We take no care of colouring in Tables the corporall visages of the Saints, for wee haue nothing to doe with them, but we ought to call to remembrance their vertuous conuersations.

Saint Austen vpon the hundred and thirteene Psalme, expounding these words of Dauid, that Idols haue a mouth and speake not, eyes and see not, that they are the worke of mens hands, makes this obiection, that the Church hath also instru­ments made with mens hands, but hee answers, that this is true,Et sanè profe­cto ista instru­menta vel vasa quid aliud quam opera manuum hominum? ve­runtamen nua­quid os habent & non loquun­tur? &c. But haue these instruments mouths and speake not? Or eyes and see not? Doe we addresse our Prayers to them, &c. Surely he could not haue spo­ken thus, if hee had had Images in Churches, or if Images had beene a part of the Churches mooue­ables.

The same Father in his first Booke,Noui multos esse sepulchrorum & picturarum ado­ratores. De moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae cap. 34. complaining of the super­stition of certaine Christians, that in Churchyards did kneedle before the Tombs of the Martyrs, and before the Painted Histories of their sufferings, saith, I know some who worshippe Sepulchres and Pi­ctures, I know many that drinke largely ouer the dead. It is not credible that these Christians thought [Page 352]these Images to be Gods, for Christians neuer cal­led a Saint God, and much lesse his Image, this is the reason why Bellarmine cap. 16. saith that S. Au­gustin was as yet but a nouice in Christianitie, when he wrote this, and that afterward he changed his opinion, when he was better instructed.

Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere ne quod adoratur in parietibus de­pingatur.The Eliberin Councell held at the same time as was the first of Nice, in the thirtie and sixe Canon, saith, It is ordained that there be no Pictures in Chur­ches, for feare least that which is worshipped and ado­red, be Painted in the Wals. The Iesuite Sanders, in the second Booke of the worship of Images cap. 4. saith, That then it was necessarie, but that now the matter is without danger, as if mans nature were now adayes not so prone vnto Idolatrie. Others say, that this Councell forbids the Painting of Pi­ctures vpon wals, but not the hauing of them in Frames; with which conceite the Councell meetes, not onely forbidding Painting in wals, but ordai­ning also that there should bee no Painting in Churches. It hath beene ordained (saith the Coun­cell) that there bee no Painting in the Church, but if Painted frames be fastned to the wals, are they not in the Church?

In the second Tome of S. Ieromes Epistles, there is an Epistle of Epiphanius, which Ierome himselfe hath vouchsafed to Translate into Latine; whereof obserue these words.Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ec­clesia Christi contra authori­tatem scriptura­rum, hominis pendere imagi­nem, scidi illud. Et magis dedi consilium custo­dib [...]eius loci, vt pauperem mor­tuum eo obuolue­rent — Et de­inceps praecipere eiusmodi vela quae contra reli­gionem nostram veniunt non ap­pendi. As I was in a Village called A­nablata, seeing as I walked along a burning lampe, and perceiuing that it was a Church, I went in to pray, and found in the porch a veile hung vp coloured, and pain­ted, [Page 353]hauing in it the picture as it were of Christ, or some Saint, for I doe not well remember of what: ha­uing then seene that in the Church of Christ, there was hung vp the Image of a man, contrarie to the authority of the Scriptures, I rent it, and aduised the keepers of the place to burie some poore dead bodie in it. He addeth, that hee sent another veile without any Image, for re­compence of that which he had torne, to content the kee­pers that murmured at it: after that he saith, I pray you that in the Church of Christ such veiles be no more hung vp, which are opposite to our religion. And this same Epistle is in the same wordes alleaged in the Councell of Paris, held vnder Lewes le debonaire, in the yeare 824 that none may thinke it a peece of new forgerie.

Gregorie of Tours speaking of the Baptisme of King Clouis and his children, witnesseth that the a­dorning of Churches, was to hang the Church with veiles, or white linnen. Of which S. Ambrose speakes, Epist. 33. and this custome doth yet conti­nue in Lent. An euident proofe that then they had no Images; for to what end should they then keepe them couered? and this was about the yeare of our Lord fiue hundred.

Out of Monsieur Pithou his librarie, who was a man rarelie learned, we haue the Councell of Paris against Images: wherein King Lewes le debonaires, and the French Bishops, doe make remonstrances vnto Pope Eugenius, who defended Images tooth and naile. For the Popes laide handfast vpon this occasionn, to shake off the yoke of their master the [Page 354]Emperour of the East, vnder a coulour that he puld downe Images.

Not long before in the yeare 794. Charlemaigne assembled the Councell of Franckford, against the worshipping of Images;Adonis Chroni­con. in an 795. Abbas Vspergen­sis in anno 793. Hinemarus Re­mensis lib. 20. cō ­tra Episc. Iandu­nensem. Matth. Westmonasteriēs. in hyst an. 793. Auentinus. An­nonius Regino, Ʋignier. &c. wherein the second Ni­cene Councell was condemned, before which Councell of Nice a generall Councell was held at Constantinople in the yeare 750 where there were three hundred and thirty eight Bishops; some parts of which Councel are alleaged in the secōd Coun­cell of Nice, howsoeuer maymed, yet stronger then that which those Nicence Bishops opposed against it.

About the yeare 600. Serenus Bishop of Marsilia puld downe all the Images found in Churches, be­cause the people worshipped them:Greg. Epist. 109. ad Serenum E­pisc. Massilien­sem & lib. 9. E­pist. 9. and it is not by any meanes credible, that the Christians accounted Images for Gods, or worshipped them as God. Nor doe we find that the said Serenus erected them againe, notwithstanding hee was controuled by Gregorie Bishop of Rome.

Petrus Pithoeus in praefatione in hystorias Miscel­las à Paulo Aqui­legiensi Diacono collectas. Nuper adm [...]d [...]m nostri homines imagi­nosi esse coeperūt.And indeede Monsieur Pithou hath good ground to say, that the French-men, beganne verie soone after to be addicted vnto Images. For Ana­stasius keeper of the Librarie, one superstitiously gi­uen, in the preface to the second Councel of Nice, saith, that the Gaules had not yet receiued Images, because the truth was not yet reuealed vnto them; that is to say, more then eight hundred yeares after Christ. And Nicetas Choniates in the second booke of the raigne of Augustus Angelus saith, that the [Page 355]Armenians did gladly receiue the Almaines, be­cause Apud Alemannos & Armenios Imaginum ado­ratio aequè interdicta est, among the Almaines and Ar­menians, the worshipping of Images was forbidden a­like. For Charlemaigne had so farre reiected the worshipping of Images, that hee himselfe wrote a booke against it, which is yet extant. And soone after Agobardus Bishop of Lyons compiled a great volume against Images, which is also extant, and newly printed at Paris.

To conclude, whosoeuer shall diligently reade the scornefull inuectiues of the primitiue Christi­ans, flouting the Images of the auncient Pagans, shall finde that their reprehensions had beene ridi­culous, if the Christians had then had Images in their Churches; as when Lactantius lib. 2. cap. 4. doth call the Statues in the Pagan-temples, Grandes puppas, great babies, and when cap. 2. he saith that the Images of the Gods are of no vse, if they be present, and that if they be in heauen, then we should rather direct our prayers toward heauen. And when S. Austin vpon the 113. Psalme, saith, that they draw the deuotion of the people, in that they haue a hu­mane shape, and are set in some high roome. And doubtlesse the Infidels would haue returnde the re­proofe, and reproach to the Christians, and to their Images of the Saints, and the worshipping of their Statues; which they doe not. But we haue here­tofore heard that they aske the Christians for what cause they haue no Images, that any could see.

ARTICLE XIX. Of the Image of God.

The KINGS Confession. YEa, the Image of God himselfe is not only expresly forbidden to bee worshipped, but euen to bee made. The reason is giuen, that no eye euer saw God; and how can we paint his face, when Moses (the man that euer was most familiar which God) neuer saw but his backe parts? Surely, since he can­not be drawne to the viue, it is a thankelesse labour to marre it with a false representation, which no Prince, nor scarce any other man will be contented with in their owne pictures. Let them therefore that maintaine this doctrine, answere it to Christ at the latter day, when he shall accuse them of Idolatrie; And then I doubt if he will be payed with such nice sophisti­call Distinctions.

For answere whereunto Coeffeteau saith, ‘that the Images of God are not made to represent his es­sence, but onlie to expresse the formes wherein he hath appeared. That none is so brutish to be­leeue that any can paint an essence immortall, in­finite, &c.’

I expected that M. Coeffeteau would haue produ­ced some commandement of God; for his ground of the Images of God; or some place to shew that God was pleased, to haue his Images made, seing they are not made to represent his essence: at least some auncient example either true, or false, after his old manner. But here is none of these, he only saith that Images doe not expresse his being. I ans­were that this may bee said aswell of the Images of men, yea of beastes: for their pictures doe not re­present their essence, and neuer was any man so vn­reasonable as to thinke that the essence of anie thing could be expressed in a picture. Then in like manner doe I say, that if these Images be not the I­mages of God, because they represent not his es­sence, then the Images of Saints are not their Ima­ges, because they represent not their essence. And indeed not the vulgar people only, but the Doctors also doe call such pictures the Image of God, and the Trinitie, The title of the eight chapter of Bel­larmines booke of Images, is this, That the Images of God are not forbidden. Now there is no picture, which hath not some resemblance with the pat­terne, and euery Image is a likenesse. Therefore, our aduersaries must hold that there is some assimi­lation, and resemblance betweene God, and his I­mages, for if there be none, they are not the Ima­ges of God.

Now these Statues and pictures are to be seene in all their Churches, and in the beginning of the Bibles printed at Rome by the authority of Sixtus [Page 358]Quintus and Clement 8. yea, they serue for signes at Tauerne dores, they vse to say Master N. lodgeth at the Trinity: and his horses are set at Gods-head, a matter ridiculously prophane, and reproachfull to Christian Religion.

It appeareth also that these Images of God, are not made to represent the formes wherein God hath appeared, for they commonly picture God in a pontificall Throne, in the habite of a Pope with a triple Crowne, and a Papall robe; as if you should say, behold Pope Iulius granting pardons. There wants nothing but a fanne of a Peacockes taile on either side, surely God neuer appeared in this habite, it makes me wonder whence it comes; that the Images of the Trinity are commonly du­sty, and Spiders playing about them, but the Ima­ges of our Lady, and of the Saints, are diapred, and trimply appaireled: me thinkes in regard of the Pa­pall habit, at least they should be neatly kept.

It is true that God appeared vnto Daniel in the shape of an old man, for he knew well that Da­niel would not Idolatrously abuse the vision, but when he speakes to the children of Israel, hee suffe­red them not to see him in any likenesse, for feare (saith he) least ye corrupt your selues in making a representation of any figure, of Male, or Female Deut. 4.16. And me thinkes when they obiect this apparition in the figure of an old man, they knock themselues on the fingers. For did the Church then vpon this occasion represent God in that fi­gure? can it be found that after that time the I­mage [Page 359]of God was painted in the Temple, or in the Synagogue? And if the faithfull in those daies did it not for what reason shall we haue license to doe that which they thought vnlawfull. God doth that which seemeth good to his wisedome, but to vs it belongeth to doe what he commaundeth, for his commandemen [...], and not his actions must bee the rule of our Religion. If he commaund the Is­raelites to spoyle the Egyptians, or Abraham to sa­crifice his Sonne, doth it follow that we must ther­fore breake his law, by the imitation of these exam­ples? if a woodden old man that people call God the Father, must be worshipped, because it resem­bles the old man that appeared vnto Daniel, why should we not much rather worship old men aliue, which doe much more resemble him?

This is the reason why some Doctors of the Church of Rome, as Abulensis, Durand, and Pere­sius doe condemne these Images: Yea, the second Nicence Councell how corrupt soeuer, yet con­demneth them in the sixth and seuenth Acts. Ni­cephorus a later and superstitious Author, lib. 18. cap 53. saith,Imagines patris & Spiritus S. effigiant quod perquam absur­dum est. The Armenian Heretickes doe paint the Image of God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, which is most absurd. Nec id ipsum quod sed [...]re pater dicitur, flexis po­plitibus fieri pu­tandum est. Ne in illud meida­mus sacrilegium, quo execratur Apostolus eos, qui commutaue­runt gloriam in corruptibilis Dei in similitudinem corruptibilis ho­minis. Tale en m simulacrum Deo nefas est Christi­ano in templo collocare, multo magis in corde. Saint Austen in the seuenth Chap­ter of his Booke of Faith, and of the Creede, saith thus, When it is said that the Father sitteth, we must not thinke that he hath Legs to bow, for feare wee fall into that sacriledge, for which the Apostle detesteth those that turned the glorie of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of a corruptible man, for to erect any [Page 360]such Image vnto God in the Church, is a thing vnlaw­full for a Christian, and much more in his heart, &c. He doeth not onely say that it is vnlawfull to desire to represent his essence, but to make an Images of God sitting, his hammes bowed in the similitude of a man: which is the fashion of the Images of God which are made in these dayes. Now, no man that hath any drop of free iudgement can make himselfe beleeue, that any Christian euer thought to represent the essence of God by such Pictures, seeing they cannot expresse the essence of man.

In briefe, by this abuse doth God shew vnto vs, into what headlong courses man runneth when hee forsakes his holy word, and that after the shipwrack of piety, he loseth euen his very reason, for the Lord hauing created man in the Image of God, Loe heere are men that make God in the I­mage of man: as if they would exchange good turnes with him. And indeed his Maiesty of En­gland saith true, that the meanest man would not be so resembled, for what man would be represen­ted in the shape of a Pismiere, or of a Frog: and yet betweene an Ant and the greatest Monarch, there is some proportion, and between things finite, the distance cannot be infinite; but betweene the shape of a man that is finite, and the Maiesty of God which is infinite, there can be no proportion. besides, the distinctions and excuses which they bring forth, are schoole distinctions, not vnder­stood by the common people, whose minds are fixed on that which they see, and seeing euery day [Page 361]in their Parish Church a God of stone, clothed like a Pope, must needes imagine very grosse things, and such as are very iniurious to the eternal Deitie.

ARTICLE XX. Of the Crosse.

The KINGS Confession. BVt Christs Crosse must haue a par­ticular priuiledge (say they) and bee worshipped ratione conta­ctus. But first wee must know what kinde of touching of Christs body drew a vertue from it, whether euery touching, or onely touching by faith? That euery touch­ing of his body drew not vertue from it, is more then manifest. When the Woman in the bloody fluxe touched him, she was healed by her faith: Luke 8. But Peter then tolde him that a crowde and throng of many people then touched him, and yet none of them receiued any benefit or vertue from him. Iudas touched him many and many a time, besides his last kisse▪ so did the villaines that Buffeted and Crucified him, and yet I may safely pronounce them accursed, that would bestow any worship vpon their reliques: yea we cannot denie but the land of Canaan it [Page 362]selfe (whereupon our Lord did dayly tread) is so visibly accursed, being gouerned by faithlesse Turkes, full of innumerable Sects of hereticall Christians, and the very fertilitie thereof so farre degenerated into a pitifull sterilitie, as he must bee accursed that accounteth it blessed. Nay, when a certaine Woman blessed the belly that bare Christ, and the breasts that gaue him sucke: Luke 11.28. Nay rather (saith he) Blessed are those that heare the Word of God and keepe it. Ex­cept then they could first prooue that Christ had resolued to blesse that tree of the Crosse, where­vpon he was nayled, they can neuer prooue that his touching it could giue it any vertue. And put the case it bad a vertue of doing Miracles, as Peters shadow had, yet doeth it not follow, that it is lawfull to worship it, which Peter would neuer accept of. Surely the Prophets that in so many places curse those that worship Images, that haue eyes and see not, that haue eares and heare not, would much more haue cur­sed them that worship a piece of a sticke, that hath not so much as any resemblance or repre­sentation of eyes or eares.

To this M. Coeffeteau ‘opposeth not the comman­dement of God,Coëff. fol. 65. but the authority of Chrysostome [Page 363]in his Sermon of the adoration of the Crosse, who saith, The Crosse & his picture ought to be wor­shipped. In like manner Prudentius the Poet, and Paulinus Bishop of Nola, and Ambrose, who speake of the worshipping of the Crosse, that Iu­das kisse, or the touching of the executioners, and the touch of the Crosse is not al one because the mouth of the one, and the hands of the other were liuing mem-bers of those Reprobates, that committed the most detestable crime in the world; but the Crosse was a dead thing, and a harmelesse instrument of our Sauiors death: that this worship is not done to the wood, but to him that was fastened thereunto, and sanctified it by his touching of it: & again, that the representati­on of the cheife mistery of our saluatiō doth make it venerable: which cannot be said of the land of Canaan, because it was no particular instrument of our saluation.’

The Doctor is not willing to leaue his good custome of paying vs with falsehoods.Answere. For Chryso­stomes Sermon of the adoration of the Crosse, w^ch saith that the Crosse, & the effigies thereof are to be worshipped is suppositious, and not found in Greek among Chrysostomes works.Gretseri notae in orationes de cru­ce, pag. 601. Hanc orationem neque in Augu­stana bibliotheca reperimus, neque aliunde nancisci potuimus. Ioachimus Pe­rionius hath set forth in Greeke and Latine, what himselfe pleased: but Gretser a Iesuit, who hath ve­ry lately inserted it among other orations that speake of the Crosse, saith that he hath made dili­gent search for the manuscripts of Chrysost. in the Libraries at Bauaria, and Ausburg; and that the hath [Page 364]neither found it there, nor any where else.

Coeffeteau addeth, that Prudentius writing against Simmachus saith, that the Christians bowed their knees before the Crosse to worship it: and yet this is false. He could not alleage the wordes, but the verses of Prudentius are these.

Which sounds in English to this sense,

The meaning is that the Senate hauing seene a Romane banner, which they called Labarum, wher­vpon the name of Christ was written for an in­scription in this forme ☧ did worship this title, and the venerable name of Christ. But of adoring the crosse he makes no mention.

He further saith, that S. Ambrose in the Oration made vpon the death of Theodosius, speaking of He­lena that put one of the nayles of the Crosse in Con­stantines crown,Sapienter Hele­na egit quae cru­cem in capite re­gum leuauit, vt crux Christi in r [...]gibus adoretur. saith, that she did wisely in aduancing the Crosse aboue the heads of Kings, that in Kings the Crosse of Christ might be worshipped. Let vs here re­solue that this Oration, as also others of the third Tome, be adiudged counterfeit by Erasmus a man of good iudgement in the reading of the Fathers. And indeed it is not credible that S. Ambrose should speake so ridiculously, as toIllum qui sicut Scarabeus cla­mauit vt perse­cutori [...] s [...]is pec­cata donaret. compare Christ Iesus [Page 365]crying on the Crosse to the beetle flie a base crea­ture, and that crieth not, as the Author of this O­ration doth: yet, beeing graunted to be true, doth Coeffeteau still shew himselfe a falsifier both of the words, & of the sense: of the sense: for these words, Vt crux Christi in regibus adoretur doe signifie, that Kings being adored, the crosse by that means might be adored: whereby it is euident that he speakes of a ciuill adoration, because he makes it one with that which is performed vnto Kings: now the question is here of religious worship. Secondly, Coeffeteau doth curtaile this place with like falshood, suppres­sing the words following, which doe explane what is meant by the Crosse. This is no arrogance (saith he) but piety, when it hath reference to the redemption: he speakes then of worshipping the redemption, and not a woodden Crosse. In like manner hath Coeffeteau dissembled the precedent words, which are wonderfull plaine: Helena adored the King, Helena regem a­dorauit nō lignū vti (que), quia Gen tilis est hic error & vanitas im­piorum. and not the wood, for this is a heathenish error, and a vanity of the vngodly. But shee worshipped him that was han­ged on the wood. This licentious falsifying, and clip­ping of the Fathers is horrible: if our Doctor durst falsifie the Scripture with like liberty, hee would questionlesse alleadge some passages therehence.

Concerning Paulinus who liued in the fifth age,Crux enim pisius columna est ge­neris humani. In ipsa columna ae­dificata est do­mus eius. Ego crucem dico, non lignum sed pas­sionem. and al others that speake of honouring, or reueren­cing the Crosse, yea or if there be any that speake of adoring it, S. Ierome vpon the 95. Psalme giues vs a generall rule, whereby to expound such places. His Crosse (saith he) is the Pillar of mankind, vpon this [Page 366]Pillar his house is built: now by the Crosse I vnderstand not the wood, but the passion. The same Father vpon S. Matthew, lib. 4. cap. 23. complaining that certaine women carried about them some wordes of the Gospell written in little rolls of parchment, and su­perstitiously worshipped the Crosse. Some odde hus­wiues among vs (saith hee) vse to doe this with little Gospells, Hoc apud nos su­perstitiosae quaedā mulierculae facti­tant in paruulis Euangelijs & in crucis ligno & istiusmodi rebus (quae habēt qui­dem zelum Dei sed non secun­dum scientiam.) and the wood of the Crosse, & such like things, which haue the zeale of God, but not according to know­ledge. What would he haue said, if he had seene any to speake to a peece of wood, and to salute the Crosse, as if it vnderstood them? saying to it, Aue lignum triumphale, haile triumphant wood. And, O a­ue crux, spes vnica, auge pijs iusticiam, reis (que) dona veni­am. Haile Crosse our onely hope, encrease righteousnesse vnto the faithfull, and pardon the sinfull: as our aduer­saries doe.

For I aske to whom they speake: doe they speake to Iesus Christ? why, he is neither called wood, nor Crosse: doe they speake to the Crosse: why, that vnderstands them not: do they speak to the Crosse in honour of Christ? or doe they worshippe the Crosse, with a relatiue adoration, hauing refe­rence vnto Iesus Christ? then should that whereun­to they speak in honour of Christ, vnderstand what they say; and he that should speake to the timber of the Kings chaire in honour of the King, would be taken for a foole: neither should the King bee more honoured thereby: and to giue a relatiue worship vnto the Crosse, is to worship the Crosse: we may not worship a dead thing, to honor Christ [Page 367]thereby; nor must wee honour God, by transgres­sing his commanndement.

Now our aduersaries tell vs of twosorts of Cros­ses which must bee worshipped: one is the true Crosse, which neuerthelesse is not now a Crosse, because it hath beene cut out into little peeces: the other is the image of the Crosse, such as are the common Crosses.

Concerning the true Crosse, the Author of the Catechismes falsey ascribed vnto Cyrill of Ierusa­lem, in the fourth Catechisme saith, [...]. that this wood is so growne, and multiplyed, that in a manner, the whole conntrey is full of it: I thinke one may build a Cittie of it: for as time and experience makes menwiser, so haue the Christians at length thought good to haue some little chip of the true Crosse in their chest, or about their necke, as a holy defensa­tiue against deuills. Whence it appeares, that the Apostles, and the Christians in their time, that might each of them haue had a cut of the true Crosse, and yet left it whole and vntouched, with­out any search for it, for 300. yeares together, were either more barren in invention, or colder in deuo­tion. In the yeare 1239 Iohn naming himselfe King of Ierusalem, who was afterward Emperour of Constantinople, beeing hunger-starued for want of money, began a traffique of reliques, and solde great store of them to the westerne Princes, that were not so subtile as himselfe: he sold the Crowne of thornes to King Lewes the ninth, and the true Crosse to the Venetians, which the said King Lewes [Page 368]bought of them againe, making them gainers halfe in halfe: he bought also the sponge wherewith they offered drinke vnto Christ; and the yron of the speare, wherewith S. Longis pierced his side, and re­couered his sight thereby. The holy Chappell of the Pallace, was purposely built for the reseruation and the adoration of these reliques.

Touching the worshippe and adoration of this Crosse,Thomas 3. parte. Quaest. 25. Art. 3. Alexander. 3. part. quaest. 30. art. vltimo. Caie­tanus in Thomā 3. part. quaest. 25. art. 3. Bonauen­tura. Marcellus Almain Carthu­sianus, Capreo­lus in 3. dist. 9. Henr. Quod li­betico 10. q. 6. Namclantus in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 1. I finde that all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, (Bellarmine, and some inferiour Iesuites excepted) do agree, that the true Crosse ought to be worshipped with Latria, that is to say, with the very worship which is giuen to God himselfe. An abhominable Doctrine, giuing to a dead creature as great worship as vnto the high God; which cannot be excused, that this worship of the Crosse hath relation vnto God, or is referred vnto Iesus Christ: for to adore Iesus Christ, and to adore the Crosse in honour of Iesus Christ, must needes bee two different adorations, We must not in honour of God, adore the creature with honour equalling the worship of God; for in seeking thus to honour God, we shall dishonour him; reproach him by such worship; by such respect disrespect him; neg­lect him by such seruice: in a word, this is to make ex opposito appositum, to descend in clyming, and to get heate by freezing. Besides, what honour, or re­spect soeuer you may shew vnto the King, it can neuer be made good, that any can honour him the more, by giuing like reuerence to his chaire, or his cloke: the chief point is, that if such worship of the [Page 369]Crosse be lawfull, then hath God commaunded it. For we may not adore any thing, but what he hath commaunded vs to adore: and here are our aduer­saries tongue-tied, and alleadge no one word of Gods commaundement.

This is the reason why Cardinall Bellarmine thinkes it better to say, that the Crosse ought to be worshipped with an inferiour adoration: wherein he plainely confesseth, that the adoration of the Crosse differs from the adoration of Iesus Christ, in that it is inferiour: and so his meaning is that the dead creature be worshipped in it selfe, and with a differing worshippe from that by which Christ is worshipped, Secondly, he doth thereby confound the vnderstanding of the poore people, who when they fall downe before the Crosse, thinke of perfor­ming no more then one worship: but Bellarmine will haue them to performe two seruices, one to Christ, and the other to the Crosse, and in the one instant to cut their deuotion in two peeces, deui­ding their thoughts betweene two kindes of wor­ships. It were extreamely absurd to hope, that hee, or any other should produce any commandement of God touching this religious worship subordi­nate to the worship of Christ; without saying, that the people adoring a piece of the Crosse, must assu­redly beleeue that it is a piece of the true Crosse, and that it is not suppositious: whereof notwith­standing there can be no assurance.

For the other kinde of Crosse, which is the I­mage of the Crosse in woode, or siluer, the Church [Page 370]of Rome doth worship that also: and at the eleua­tion thereof, they say, Ecce crux, adoremus. And therefore Cardinall Bellarmine in the thirtieth chapter of his booke of Images, speakes thus: We worship all Crosses, §. Ad quartum. Omnes cruces a­doramus quia omnes sunt ima­gines verae cru­cis. because they are all Images of the true Crosse: yea the bare Crosses without a Crucifix. We worship (saith he) the Crosse, yea without Christ cru­cified.

All which is a Medley of absurdity with impie­ty. For none worshippeth the Image of the Crosse with like worshippe, as hee doth the true Crosse: and if the true Crosse be to be adored with a worship subordinate to that yeelded to Christ, then behold three sorts of religious worship. Now if we must adore a Crosse without a crucifixe; for that it is an Image and resemblance of the Crosse; why doe they not worship the barres of windows, or the Sayle-yardes of Ships, seeing they resemble the Crosse of Christ? Why shall we not worship all the nayles, and all the linnen clothes in the world, seeing they better resemble the nayles which pierced our Sauiour, and the linnen clothes that wrapped him in his infancy? Whereunto if a­ny obiect, that these common nayles and linnen, are not in any consecrated place, nor appointed to that end, nor purposely made to serue as Images, or memorials of the Passion, or birth of Christ: I answer, that this is to graunt as much as we desire, and to fall into the like impiety: for this is to af­firme, that common nayles and ordinary linnen ought to be worshipped, if they were carried into [Page 371]some holy place, and appointed to serue for the re­semblance, or commemoration of Christs passion; w^ch our aduersaries wil be vnwilling to grant: And wherfore then doe they adore all maner of Crosses, yea without crucifixes, assoone as they are put into some holy place, and ordayned to represent the passion? For if the question be of the touching, the linnen touched the body of Christ as neere as the Crosse; yea I say, that the nayles and Iron of the Speare touched him nearer, euen to the very heart: and then whence is it, that the nayles and Iron of the Speare put into a holy place, are not adored as well as the Image of the Crosse? And where is the adoration of this Image commaunded by God?

To be short, I say that if any should doe obey­sance, or speake vnto the kings cloake, although the king did weare it, he should neuertheles be thought to be beside himselfe. How much more if he spake to the cloake, or did obeysance to it, when it is han­ged vpon a hooke? And yet how much more, if he should salute or talke to the picture of this cloake? In like manner I say, that if any had saluted the Crosse, whiles our Sauior was fastened thereunto, or had spoken vnto it, hee would haue beene thought to haue beene madde, although his salu­tation had beene relatiuely made vnto Christ. How much more then if he had saluted it alone, Christ not being thereon? And how much more, if he had saluted or spoken to the picture, or Image of this Crosse? especially to a bare Crosse without a crucifixe, as at this day the Church of Rome doth? [Page 372]Certainely no wordes can sufficiently expresse the absurdity of this abuse.

So Coeffeteau doth giue no manner of satisfacti­on to that which his Maiesty of England doth ob­iect: namely, that if the Crosse ought to be wor­shipped because it touched Iesus Christ; then Iu­das his mouth, and the handes of those that buffe­ted him, and the land of Canaan whereon he wal­ked, which is at this day an example of Gods curse, ought also to be worshipped.

Coeffeteau answeres, that the reason is not alike, because the lips of Iudas, and the handes of the ex­ecutioners, were their liuing members that tou­ched him sacrilegiously: but the Crosse was a dead thing, and a guiltlesse Instrument of the death of our Redeemer. This is but a bare shift: for first, if our Sauiours touching had made dead things a­dorable, it should much more haue made prophane things holy. Our aduersaries haue also forged a fable of one S. Longis, that with hate and insultati­on pierced his side, and thereby became a Saint. And secondly, the Crosse (as Coeffeteau saith) is not to be worshipped the more, for that it was a dead thing: Thirdly, the water wherewith Christ was baptized, obteyned no life thereby, and (to speake with Coeffeteau) it was an innocent Instrument of his baptisme; and did touch Christ, and yet was neuer adored Fourthly, our aduersaries (as I sup­pose) would not worship the empty Chalices, al­though they did beleeue that the bloud of Christ, yea his whole body had beene therein. They will [Page 373]not adore the Priest, albeit hee haue often eaten God, and that he come to take Christ a fresh into his stomacke: Fiftly, the whips wherewith Christ was bloudied, were harmelesse Instruments of his sufferings, yet wee finde not that euer Christian worshipped them: Sixtly, nothing touched Christ so neare, as the nayles and speare that pierced him, and they were also harmelesse Instruments of his passion, and yet the primitiue Christians neuer worshipped them. Constantine put two of them into his Helmet, and of two others he made a Bitte for a Horse; wherein he had some seedes of super­stition: yet had Constantine adored these nayles, he would haue caused them to bee put into the Church, rather then to haue put them into the mouth of a Beaste, and left them hanging on a post in the Quirry:Ambros. de obi­tu Theodosu Theodor. Histor. Lib 1. cap. 18 [...]. and yet Theodoret and Am­brose approue this action: Seuenthly, if the nayles touched the body of Christ nearer, and his fore­parts deeper then the Crosse, why doe they not a­dore the Image of the nayles, and yet they adore the Image of the Crosse, yea without a crucifixe?

Coeffeteau addeth, that there is more in the Crosse besides the touching, for it is a representation also of the death of Iesus Christ. If he speake of the true Crosse, it is not true that it representeth the death of Christ. For that of the Crosse, which they wor­ship now adayes, is but little peeces of worme ea­ten woode, which haue neyther figure nor fashion of the Crosse. But if he speake of the Image of the Crosse in siluer, or paynting, it is false that Christ [Page 374]euer touched it. And if these Crosses be without crucifixes, they doe not resemble the passion. For there is no Image of the passion, where there is no Image of him that suffereth; it may be some re­membrance but no resemblance.

The Reader shall also note, that Coeffeteau omits that excellent obseruation which the King makes touching the bodily touch, and the touch of fayth; and the example of the woman that touched the hemme of Christs garment, as also the example of that woman that said, Happy is the wombe that bare thee; together with the reason which he doth ex­cellently draw, from the person and the shadow of Peter: and the comparison of Images condemned by the Prophets, which haue eyes and see not, eares and heare not, with the Crosse which hath no re­semblance of eyes or eares. This Doctor suffers all this sweetely to slide a way, and honestly holdeth his peace; hauing of set purpose (in my opinion) made his booke a foile to giue lustre to the King of great Britaines booke.

After all these abuse, these our Masters haue the good grace, to accuse vs of misprision of the Crosse of Christ, who say with the Apostle, Galat. 6. God for bid that I should reioyce in any thing but the Crosse of our Lord Iesus. Our aduersaries talke of the Crosse of Christ, but we practise it; they paint it, wee beare it; they glory in some peeces of the Crosse, but we in suffering for his name; they paint it on walles, and we print it in our hearts: many carry it tossing vpon their body, whose belly is an [Page 375]enemy of the Crosse of Christ. Let vs learne then to fasten our affections to his Crosse, and to cruci­fie our olde man with him. But for the worship­ping of Crosses of golde or siluer (for the mettall is honoured) we say with the auncient Christians in the Dialogue of Minutius Foelix, Cruces nec colimus nec optamus, We neyther worship, nor wish for Crosses. He doth vs wrong that thinkes, that we reiect this signe and memoriall of the passion, we onely wish the abuse and Idolatry to be reformed.

ARTICLE XXI. Of Purgatory.

AS for Purgatory and all the trash depending thereupon, The KINGS Confession. Iubilees, In­dulgences, Sa­tisfactions for the dead, &c, Lib. 2 de Purg. cap. 7. it is not worth the talking of; Bellarmine cannot find any ground for it in all the Scriptures. Only I would pray him to tel me if that faire greene Meadow that is in Purga­tory, haue a brooke running thorow it, that in case I come there, I may haue hawking vpon it. But as for me, I am sure there is a Heauen and a Hell, praemium et poena, for the Elect and Reprobate: How many other roomes there be, Iohn 14. I am not on God his counsell. Multae sunt [Page 376]mansiones in domo Patris mei, sayth Christ, who is the true Purgatory for our sins: But how many chambers and anti-chambers the Diuell hath, they can best tell that goe to him: But in case there were more places for soules to goe to then we know of, yet let vs con­tent vs with that which in his Word bee hath reuealed vnto vs, and not require further into his secrets. Heauen and Hell are there reuea­led to be the eternall home of all mankinde: let vs endeauour to winne the one and eschue the other; and there is an end.

In this point of such great consequence, where­in the benefites of Christ, and the cleansing of our sinnes are handled, it were very behoouefull for M^r. Coeffeteau to bring some proofes out of the word of God, whereunto the King of great Bri­taines wordes doe binde him, seeing he reproach­eth Cardinall Bellarmine with ignorance of any one passage of the Scripture whereon to ground his Purgatorie: and therefore hee cals the other Doctors to assist the Cardinall, and supply this de­fault.

In steed whereof Coeffeteau rusheth vpon the Fathers, and saith, ‘that the Fathers haue prayed for the dead, and that prayer for the dead were to no purpose if there were no Purgatory. He al­leadgeth the testimony but of two Fathers Chry­sostome [Page 377]and S. Austen: for touching Cyrils Cate­chismes, wee haue already conuinced them of falshood.’

To these allegations he ‘addeth neyther reason, neyther answereth the obiections made by his Maiesty of England, much lesse doth hee bring any proofe of Scripture; but onely sets downe his opinion in certain timorous and ambiguous termes: he saith, that Christ is the true sacrifice expiatory for our sinnes, and that his bloud is our true purgation: but that this primarie Purgation is applied vnto vs by the fire of Purgatory: that the first causes doe not exclude the second; and that soules are purged in the Purgatorie fire, by a power giuen thereunto by the bloud of Christ. That the Scripture doth expresly make but two places, for soules to remaine in, after this life, but when it speakes in this manner, the meaning is of places eternall. But that Purgatorie is a place, where they continue but for a time; to wit, vntil they haue satisfied the iustice of God, and that they are cleansed from those corruptions which hinder them from entring into the heauenly Ie­rusalem. And therefore (saith hee) wee acknow­ledge no Purgatorie after the resurrection, or the last iudgement: that no man thinkes (faith Saint Austen) that there be any Purgatory paines, but onely before the last, and dreadfull iudgement.’ But of giuing satisfaction to the Kings reasons, or defending Bellarmines flowry fielde, wee heare no newes. He hath not vndertaken the one, and he is ashamed of the other.

This being one of the vlcerous fistula's of the body of the Romish Church, it doth deserue a deepe search, and diligent examination: and herein we must declare,

• 1 The beleefe of the Church of Rome.
• 2 The doctrine of the Scripture.
• 3 The iudgement of the Fathers, eyther not

vnderstood, or fraudulently alleadged by Coeffeteau.

ARTICLE XXII. Of Anarchy, and of the degrees of superiority in the Church.

AFter the refutation of so many abu­ses, the King of great Britaine setteth downe for the shutting vp of his con­fession the Article of the Monarchy of the Church, and of the primacy of the Pope, the which his Maiesty affirmeth to be the [Page 407]cheefe of all other Controuersies, and indeede vp­pon iust cause, for all other errors serue to vphold this: superstition helpeth to support tyranny. O­ther pointes there are, but this is that for which we dispute. Whosoeuer shal examine al our Controuersies, with a iudgement not forestalled, nor pre-occupied, shall finde that euery errour is a pillar of the Popes Empire, and a prop of his Do­minion, and that the Articles of Faith haue beene skilfully bended and fitted to the aduantage of his Holinesse.

To this may be also added, that if the Pope can­not erre in the decision of doubts: the case is then cleare, without further difficulty. Neyther shall it be needefull hereafter to assemble Councels, nor to search into Scriptures, but onely to consult this Papall Oracle, and so to content our selues with what it determineth.

It is therefore vpon iust cause, that his Maiesty saith this point is the principall Controuersie, and therefore insisteth vpon it, more then vpon any o­ther, and therein displayeth the admirable ability of his wit, of which I confesse, I am rather a learner then a defender, hauing first learned to speake of him, before I did speake for him.

But before he entreth into the matter, he saith, ‘that to haue Bishops in the Church, is an Apo­stolique Institution, and appointed by God, and saith, that he hath alwayes abhorred Anarchie: and that in heauen the blessed spirits are distin­guished by diuers degrees, and that the very di­uels [Page 408]themselues, are digested and parted into Le­gions, and haue their Princes; that by the same reason, no humane society can subsist without this order, and difference in degrees: and there­upon complayneth of certain turbulent persons that haue persecuted him, euen from his mothers wombe, pursuing his death before he entred into life.’

But who these persons were, that with so hasty murther would not haue expected his birth, it is best knowne vnto his Maiesty: and it is not to bee doubted, but they haue beene punished according to the lawes. And for such any punishment is too little. But it is true that there is nothing so turbu­lent as an Anarchy, in which there is no Master, be­cause euery one is such a one, where euery one by being too free becommeth a slaue: for in a State it is better to be vnder an ill Master, then vnder none at all; and Tyrannie is more tollerable then such a freedome which vnder the title of liberty, introdu­ceth licentiousnesse, and this licentiousnesse bring­eth in extreame seruitude. So is it in Families and Common-wealths, in Armies, yea euen amongst the Angels themselues; yea if we discend to Bees, and Cranes, wee see not these meaner creatures without a naturall pollicy, and a kinde of superio­ritie.

The Church is no way exempt from this order in which God hath established Pastors and Bi­shops, and aboue them Assemblies, which the aun­cient Church called Synodes and Councels; of [Page 409]which it is likewise necessary, that some one should be President to direct and order the businesses.

But if one demaund, what differences of degrees these should be, or whether one man should haue superiority ouer one onely flocke, or ouer many? It is another question, and tendeth nothing to the kings purpose, which is only to withstand the Mo­narchy of one single man ouer the vniuersall Church. For admitting it should be yeelded, that in euery Countrey and Prouince, there ought to be one soueraine Prelate: It would not follow thereupon, that therefore there must be one Mo­narch ouer all Prelates, or one head of the Vniuer­sall Church, no more then if a man by proouing that a Monarchy is the most exact forme of Go­uernement, should by that conclude, that therefore there must be one Monarch ouer the whole world. No, there are no shoulders of strength enough to beare so great a head: the prouidence of no one man can stretch or extend it selfe so farre, or deuide it selfe into so many peeces: Such Countries as are placed vnder an other Hemisphere, and fall vn­der the tyranny of Lieftenants and officers, ouer whose gouernement a carefull eye could not be had. The same inconuenience or rather much grea­ter would be in the Church: for besides this diffi­culty, pride is much more pernitious in Diuine, then in humane things. And it would be very hard that any man should climbe so high, but that his head would be giddy: for if pride get in amongst beggars, whom we see quarrell and contest, whilst [Page 410]whilst they sit ridding themselues of vermine, how much more would it fasten it selfe to such a height of glory, which inuesteth a weake man, and many times a vitious, with the title of the head of the Church, which title the Scripture giueth not but to the onely Sonne of God.

Now the end and scope of the gouernement of the Church, and of Ecclesiasticall Discipline, is the peace of the Church, the reformation of manners, suppressions of scandals, and the conseruation of the purity of doctrine: to which end I conceiue we may attaine by different wayes. And he should be rash, that would tye all other Churches to that ex­terior Ecclesiasticall policy, which is practised in his owne Countrey; or by a peeuish presumption prescribe his particular example, for an vniuersall rule. Farre is it from the charitable opinion of the King of England, who towards the end of his book declareth, that he no way intendeth to condemne those Churches, which hold a differing forme of gouernement, since in the grounds, and in all the points of doctrine, we fully agree with the English Churches, which are our brethren in our Lord Ie­sus, members of the same body, sensible of our common greefes, and whose quarrell we esteeme to be our owne, as persons tending to the selfe same end, and by the selfe same way, though cloa­thed perhaps in colours differing. For the suspition of M^r. Coeffeteau, is ill grounded, when vpon the protestation which the King of great Britaine ma­keth, that he disliketh the Puritanes, hee inferreth, [Page 411]that his confession of faith, published in Scotland, was a supposed confession, made by the Scottish Ministers, in which they make him speake like a Puritane; for that confession agreeth in substance with that which the same King inserteth into his booke: the defence whereof we vndertake. But if in Coeffeteau his opinion, to pray to God onely, in the name of Iesus Christ, to denie the fire of Purgato­ry, to reiect the Popes Indulgences, to pray in a knowne tongue, and to abstaine from Idolatry; if this be to be a Puritane, there is none of vs that had not rather be a Puritane with the Apostles, then be impure with the Bishop of Rome. So that his Ma­iesty by the same wisdome, by which he prudently gouerneth his Kingdomes, can well discerne in this matter of Ecclesiasticall gouernment, betwixt such of his subiects, as oppose themselues meerely for contradiction, and whose heat is accompanied with contempts: from such who though they dif­fer somewhat in opinion, yet walke in obedience and with a good conscience, desiring nothing more then the establishment of his Throne, and are ready to lay downe their liues for his seruice: such are the faithfull Ministers, who carefully em­ploy themselues to root out those tares which Sa­than soweth whilst we sleepe, and to pull vp Pope­ry out of mens hearts; the encrease whereof being nourished by our petty discords, cannot choose but be a weakening to the greatnesse of Kings, and the diminution of their Empire: for it is certaine, [Page 412]vnto himselfe in England, so many subiects his Maiesty doth gaine vnto his Crowne, seeing that according to the rules of Popery, a King is an vsur­per, if he be not approued by the Pope, and that his subiects are bound to rebell, assoone as the light­nings of the Vatican haue beene cast forth vpon a­ny soueraigne Prince. And seeing that also the Cardinal Bellarmine dareth to affirme, and to main­taine, that England is part of the Popes Demaines, and that the King is Feudatory and Vassall to the Bishop of Rome. It is to be presumed that his Ma­iesty hath sent him his picture, drawne out of the Apocalips, to pay him his Arrearages, and to yeelde homage to his Lord in cheefe.

These things considered, the best meanes to be reuenged of so great an iniury, is to giue order, that the people bee carefully instructed, and that the Countrey Churches be not vnprouided of faith­full Pastors, who may watch carefully ouer their Flockes, and may expound plainly the benefites of Iesus Christ, and the doctrine of the Gospell: In presence of which, Poperie doth vanish and fall downe, as DAGON fell before the Arke of the Couenant.

ARTICLE XXIII. Of the Popes Supremacy.

ANd for his temporall Principality ouer the Signory of Rome, The KINGS Confession. I doe not quarrell it neyther, let him in God his Name be Primus Epis­copus inter omnes Episcopos, and Prin­ceps Episcoporum, so it be no otherwise but as Peter was Princeps Apostolorum. But as I well allow of the Hierarchie of the Church for distinction of Orders (for so I vnderstand it) so I vtterly denie that there is an earthly Monarch thereof, whose word must be a Law, and who cannot erre in his Sentence, by an in­fallibility of Spirite. Because earthly King­domes must haue earthly Monarches: it doth not follow, that the Church should haue a visi­ble Monarch too: for the world hath not One earthly temporall Monarch. Christ is his Chur­ches Monarch, and the holy Ghost his Deputy: Reges gentium dominantur eorum, vos autem non sic.Luke 22.25. Christ did not promise before his ascension to leaue Peter with them to direct [Page 414]and instruct them in all things, but he promised to send the holy Ghost vnto them for that end. Iohn 14.26.

And as for these two before cyted places, whereby Bellarmine maketh the Pope to tri­umph ouer Kings, Matth. 18.18. I mean pasce oues, and Ti­bi dabo claues: the Cardinall knowes well en­ough, that the same wordes of Tibi dabo, are in another place spoken by Christ in the plurall number. And he likewise knowes what reason the Auncients doe giue, why Christ bade Peter pascere oues: and also what a cloude of wit­nesses there is, both of Auncients, and euen of late Popish writers, yea diuers Cardinals, that doe all agree, that both these speeches vsed to Peter, were meant to all the Apostles represen­ted in his person: Otherwise how could Paul di [...]ect the Church of Corinth, 1. Cor. 5.4. to excommunicate the incestuous person cu spiritum suo, where­as he should then haue said, cumspiritu Petri? And how could all the Apostles haue otherwise vsed all their censures, onely in Christs name, and neuer a word of his Vicar? Peter (wee reade) did in all the Apostles meetings sit a­mongst them as one of their number: And when chosen men were sent to Antiochia from [Page 415]that great Apostolike Councell at Ierusalem, (Acts 15.) The text saith, Act. 15.22, 23. It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men; but no mention made of the Head thereof; and so in their Let­ters no mention is made of Peter, but onely of the Apostles, Elders and Brethren. And it is a wonder, why Paul rebuketh the Church of Co­rinth for making exceptions of persons, because some followed. Paul, some Apollos, some Cephas, if Peter was their visible Head! 1. Cor. 1.12. for then those that followed not Peter or Cephas, renounced the Catholik faith. But it appeareth well that Paul knew little of our new doctrine, Galat. 2. since he handleth Peter so rudely, as he not only compareth, but preferreth himselfe vnto him. But our Cardinall prooues Peters superiority, Gal. 1.18. by Pauls going to visite him. Indeede Paul saith, he went to Ierusalem to visite Peter, and conferre with him: but he should haue added, and to kisse his feete.

To conclude then, The truth is that Peter was both in age, and in the time of Christs calling him, one of the first of the Apostles: in order the principall of the first twelue, and one [Page 416]of the three whom Christ for order sake prefer­red to all the rest. And no further did the Bi­shop of Rome claime for three hundreth years after Christ: subiect they were to the generall Councels, and euen but of late did the Councell of Constance depose three Popes, and set vp the fourth, And vntill Phocas dayes (that mur­thered his master) were they subiect to Empe­rours. But how they are now come to be Christs Ʋicars, nay, Gods on earth, triple crowned, Kings of Heauen, earth and hell, Iudges of all the world, and none to iudge them; Heads of the faith, Absolute deciders of all Controuersies by the infallibility of their spirite, hauing all power both Spirituall and Temporall in their handes; the high Bishoppes, Monarches of the whole earth, Superiours to all Emperours and Kings; yea, Supreame Ʋice-gods, who whe­ther they will or not, cannot erre: how they are now become (I say) to that toppe of greatnes, I know not: but sure I am, Wee that are Kings haue greatest neede to looke vnto it. As for me, Paul and Peter I know, but these men I know not: And yet to doubt of this, is to denie the Ca­tholique faith, Nay, the world it selfe must bee [Page 417]turned vpside downe, and the order of Na­ture inuerted (making the left hand to haue the place before the right, Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 17. and the last named to be the first in honour) that this primacy may be maintained.

Thus haue I now made a free Confession of my Faith: And (J hope) I haue fully cleared my selfe from being an Apostate, and as farre from being an Hereticke, as one may be that beleeueth the Scriptures, and the three Creedes, and acknowledgeth the foure first generall Councels. If J be loath to beleeue too much, e­specially of Nouelties, men of greater know­ledge may well pitie my weakenesse; but J am sure none will condemne me for an hereticke, saue such as make the Pope their God, and thinke him such a speaking Scripture, as they can define heresie no otherwise, but to be what­soeuer Opinion is maintained against the Popes definition of faith. And I will sincerely promise that when euer any point of the Religion I pro­fesse, shall be proued to be new, and not Aun­cient, Catholike, and Apostolike (I meane for matter of Faith) I will as soone renounce it: clo­sing vp this head with the maxime of Vincen­tius [Page 418]Lirinensis,Libello aduersus haereses. that I will neuer refuse to imbrace any opinion in Diuinity necessary to saluation, which the whole Catholike Church with an vnanim consent, haue constantly taught and beleeued euen from the Apostles daies, for the space of many ages thereafter without interruption:

This discourse beeing nothing else,Fol. 74. but a rich piece of tyssue wrought full of Demonstrations, and the very language of truth in the mouth of a King; deserued an exact answer. But M. Coeffeteau not daring to confront the King to his face, doth treacherously assaile [...]im side-wise: for in stead of satisfying his proofes drawne out of holy Scrip­ture, hee entrencheth himselfe in his hold of cu­stome, and produceth some testimonies of men.

He saith then that Basil writing to Athanasius aduiseth him to aduertise the Church of Rome of certaine schismes that happened in his countrey,Epist. 32. to the end that hee by interposing his authority might send learned and able men to extinguish those diuisions which troubled the East. But with­al he should haue added, [...]. that Basil doth not intreat him to shew forth his power in punishing the ob­stinate and refractarie, but onely [...], to reprehend and admonish the fro­ward men of our countrey. For as touching the title of Head of the Church, S. Basil in the same E­pistle doth so qualifie not the Bishop of Rome, but [Page 419] Athanasius Patriarcke of Alexandria, in these words: [...] we thought that we could not better giue en­trance to our affaires, then by hauing recourse to your perfection, as to him who is the vniuersall Head, and by winning you to be counsellour and conductour of our Actions. Now he thus speaketh, not because Alex­andria was the first Sea, but because there was not then any Bishop, who did not willingly giue pre­cedence to Athanasius because of his vertue. As for the priority of the Bishops-sea, it appeareth by his 50. Epistle that S. Basill thought it due to Antioch, when he exhorteth Athanasius to adioyne himselfe to Miletius, Patriarcke of Antioch, of whome hee saith, [...] that it is he, who as we may so say, sitteth as ruler ouer the whole Church. And saith also,He so calleth the Bishop of Rome. that the Bishops of the West giue consent thereunto: it is a thing remarke-able aboue the rest, that S. Basill, purpo­sing to addresse himselfe to the Bishop of Rome, that he should lend his helpe to pacifie some diffe­rences stirred vp in Asia confesseth in one of his E­pistles, that men are deceiued to hope for any suc­cour from thence, and taking offence at his pride, he accounteth all such deputations idle, and to no purpose. For in his 10. Epistle to Gregory Nazian­zen, after he had aduised him to take heede that hee vsed no requests or intreatyes towards the Bishop of Rome, [...]. for feare lest hee waxe proud thereupon, he addeth these words; If the wrath of God continue, what helpe shall we receiue from these Westerlings, who neither know the truth, neither can they indure to bee taught it.

Coeffeteau subioyneth, that S. Chrysostome, beeing banished and driuen from his Bishoppricke, he had recourse to Pope Innocent, and implored the assistance of his authority. But he should also haue added, that Innocent taking the defence of Chryso­stome in hand, wrote two Letters which are found in Sozomen, lib. 8. cap. 26. The first of which is no­thing but a Consolatorie Epistle to Chrysostome, exhorting him to patience, without promising him any assistance; which hee would doubtlesse haue done, if it had bin in his power to haue re-esta­blished him into his charge. The second Letter was written to the people & Clergie of Constantino­ple, in which there is no commandement giuen to restore Chrysostom to the possessiō of his charge, but onely a complaint of infringing the Canons of the Church, & an aduise to summon a generall Coun­cell Sozomen further addeth in the 28. chapter,Ioannis hostes a­pud Constantino­polim hanc rem quasi in contu­meliam eius im­perij fieret ca­lumaiati sunt, & vt illi tanquam transmarini im­perij turbator s ablegarentur ef­f [...]cerunt. tum etiam vt ipse Io­b [...]na [...]s etiam vl­te [...]us, P [...]y [...]a­tem scilicet, exu­latum transfer­retu [...] pro. ura­runt. that the Deputies sent by the Pope to sollicite Chryso­stomes restitution, were sent backe without preuai­ling any thing, and were further * accused towards the Emperour Arcadius, as hauing medled in this busines with contempt of the Empire, and as trou­blers of the state of the transmarine Empire. And indeede were the cause why Chrysostome was sent farther away into banishment. So little did men then care for the Counsells or aduertisements of the Bishop of Rome. So also al his intercession was onely by way of aduise and request, and not by commaundement: neither shall you finde that S. Chrysostome or his successours, did euer demaund [Page 421]the Bishop of Romes Letters of Inuestiture, or e­uer receiued the Pall from him.

Our Doctor addeth,Lib. 3. cap. 7. that Iulius the first resto­red ‘Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria; Paul Bi­shop of Constantinople, and many others; be­cause, saith Sozomen, that the care of all things be­longed to the Bishop of Rome, by reason of his Sea, he restored their Churches to each of them.’ It would be in vaine, to expect from this Doctor, any passages faithfully alleadged: the course and order of the story sheweth, that they were not re­stored at all, and that the Easterne Churches made little account of the Bishop of Rome. For in the lines following it appeareth, that the Easterne Bi­shops did nothing at all, of what Iulius wrote vnto them, but returned Letters of mockerie, taxing his pride. They spake indeede honourably of the Church of Rome, by reason of the greatnesse of the Citie, and because that the Apostles had taught there, but withall they adde,Tamen indignati sunt se posteriores ideo ferre quod magnitudine Ecclesiae supera­rentur, id (que) cum virtute & vi­uendi instituto longè superiores essent. That they were moued with indignation, that they should be thought to be of a lower rancke, vnder a pretence that their Church was not so great; seeing that if they respected vertue or gouernement of life, they were farre before the Church of Rome. And to the end that the Bishop of Rome should not be doing with their affaires, they tell him that they intermedled not with his, And that the Bishops and Priests of the East, their predecessors, did not oppose themselues to the Bishop of Rome, when he cut off Nouatus from the Church. And further the same Sozomen, cap. 10. witnesseth, that the same [Page 422]Orientall Bishops deposed Iulius Bishop of Rome, with Osius, Maximus, and others. They were in­deed Arrians, and proceeded vniustly against Iulius, who defended the truth; but yet we shall not finde that this hath beene reckoned among the errours of the Arrians, that they did not acknowled [...]e the Bishop of Rome to be head of the Church. They were ignorant of the true nature of Iesus Christ, but they well knew what was the Ecclesiasticall policy, and how farre the bounds of the Bishop of Rome did extend. And if it be found in story, that Iulius Bishop of Rome wrote his Letters, to re-in­tegrate any expulsed Bishops into their Charges; we finde also that Liberius Bishop of Rome,Scribunt literas Faelici tum Ec­clesiae Romanae Antistiti, & Cle­ro eiusdem Ec­clesiae, vti Liberi­um recipiant & ambo pariter Ecclesiam Apo­stolicam admini­strent. being put from his Bishopricke, is sent backe with the let­ters of the Easterne Bishops, and by their com­maundement re-established, as Sozomen witnesseth lib. 4. cap. 14. And yet this is not taken vp for a proofe of superiority of the Easterne Bishops ouer the Bishops of Rome; but to testifie the mutuall helpe which the Churches lend one to another in their necessities: no more then when we read in the story of Socrates, l. 7. cap. 33. that Cyrill of Alexan­dria deposed Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople, & that Nestoriꝰ degraded Cyrill: as also that Iohn of Antioch, and Cyrill condemne & excommunicate one another: this is not a proof of Superiority. So S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers, in the fragments of his Epistles oftentimes saith, Anathema tibi a me Libe­ri: and so excommunicateth the Bishop of Rome, without any pretence of Superiority ouer him.

As for that which Sozomen saith, that the Bi­shop of Rome had the care of all Churches by rea­son of the dignity of his Sea; this is true not onely in the Bishop of Rome, but also of all the Patri­arches. Thus haue we heretofore seene that Basil saith, that Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria had the care of all Churches, as Basil had of his particu­lar Church, and that the Patriarch of Antioch was ouer the whole body of the Church. We haue also but euen now produced an example, in which the Bishops of the East, shew to haue had care of the West. But this point hath neede of more cleare demonstration.

To fetch the matter then a little higher, we must vnderstand, that from the first Nicene Councell, held Anno 328. the Histories doe make manifest, that in the auncient Church Bishops had prece­dency each of other, according to the dignities of their Cities; which precedency was without any Superiority or Iurisdiction ouer one another. No more nor lesse then the Counsellors of the Court, goe in rancke according as they were admitted, al­though they be equall in charge. Or as when Chri­stian Princes, or their Ambassadours meete toge­ther to deliberate of the affaires of Christendome, one hath precedencie and place before another, yet without rule or dominion one ouer another. So fared it with the Patriarchall Seas: there was the Bishop of the first seate: the Bishop of the second, and so in order. The Bishop of the first Sea was the Bishop of Rome, for the dignity of his Citie, [Page 424]because it was the seate of the Empire: the Bishop of the second seat was he of Alexandria, because it was the greatest and mightiest City of the Em­pire, next after Rome: then followed Antioch and lastly, Ierusalem, which had more the name, then the power and authority of a Patriarch; because it selfe was subiect to the Metropolitan of Cesarea.

Now to preuent, least any vnder the title of prese­ance or the first seate, should presume to challenge and vsurpe Dominion ouer his fellowes: the third Councell of Carthage, Canon 26. ordaineth, That the Bishop of the first Sea, Vt primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Prin­ceps Sacerdotum aut summus Sa­ce [...]dos aut ali­quid huiusmodi, sed tantum pri­mae sedis Epis­copus. shall not bee called Head or Prince of the Priests, or high Priest and Bishop, but one­ly Bishop of the first Sea, acknowledging it to be for order sake, and not for Superiority.

But after that the abode and ordinary residence of the Emperours began to be in Constantinople, together with the forces and strength of the Em­pire: the Bishop of Constantinople did then e­quall himselfe with the Bishop of Rome, and helde himselfe in nothing inferiour to him. Whereup­pon came in the Ordinance of the Councell of Chalcedon, which saith, Canon 28. that, The hun­dred and fiftie Bishops of the Councell of Constantino­ple, welbeloued of God, haue giuen to the seate of new Rome (which is Constantinople) the same prerogatiues with auncient Rome. Iudging it according to reason, that the Citie honoured with the Empire and the Se­nate, and which hath the same Priuiledges with aunci­ent Rome, ought of right to bee magnified as much as she in Ecclesiasticall matters, being the next in rancke [Page 425]after her. Where you see that the Councell put­teth a priority in order, with an equality in power: And this priority because Rome had beene the seate of the Empire before Constantinople; where­vpon is to be noted, that Leo Bishop of Rome de­nieth that his deputies consented to that Article, as appeareth by the nine and fiftie and sixtie of his E­pistles: but the Councell for all that doth not let to goe forward; and I thinke that sixe hundred and thirty Bishops (for so many there were at the Councell of Chalcedon) are more to be credited then the Bishop of Rome alone. And that which is more, you shall finde the Canon set downe at large in the sixth generall Councell. Which hath moued the Canonists to falsifie this Canon: for in the two and twentieth Distinction, in the Canon Renouantes, in stead of these wordes, Etiam in Eccle­siasticis, they haue put non tamen in Ecclesiasticis, which is a manifest imposture and corruption.

That little preheminence then which the Bi­shop of Rome had, from the time of the Councell of Nice, and a long while after, was onely in con­sideration of the Noblenesse and greatnesse of the Citie. For so also the Patriarches and Metropo­litanes were at the first ordained, according to the dignities of their Cities, as appeareth in the Ca­non Prouinciae, in the ninth Distinction. And in­deede the Archbishop of Rauenna, though it bee almost situated at the gates of Rome, yet would he neuer yeeld to acknowledge himselfe inferiour to the Bishop of Rome, during the time that the Ex­arch, [Page 426]which was the Emperours Lieutenant, made his abode in Italy. Which also appeareth, in that the Popes Boniface and Celestine, who liued in the time of S. Austen, being desirous to haue drawne to themselues the Appeales of Affrica, and to haue played their Masteries out of Italy; they alleadge nothing to the Councell of Affrica, where this matter was debated, not any text of Scripture, nor the power giuen by Christ to S. Peter, but only the ordinance of the Councell of Nice, of which they produced certaine forged Canons. Which false­hood of theirs being detected and conuinced by confronting it with the Originals brought in place, the Bishop of Rome had the foile, and lost the cause. And hereof we haue the whole Councell for witnesse, in which Aurelius Bishop of Car­thage, and S. Austen Bishop of Hippo were pre­sent; who together with the rest of their fellowes, wrote letters to Celestine, which are inserted into the Councell, and which speake to the Bishop of Rome in this manner: The Fathers haue most wisely and iustly prouided, that all affaires should be decided and ended in the places where they arise. Neyther will the grace of God be wanting to any place, through which equity shall prudently and constantly be acknowledged, and embraced of the Ministers of Christ, seeing also that it is permitted to euery man that receiueth any greeuance from his delegated Iudges, to appeale to a Pro­uinciall, or indeede to a generall Councell, vnlesse per­haps any man shall thinke that God may giue ability to some one man to examine things vprightly, which he [Page 427]will not vouchsafe to a multitude assembled in a Coun­cell. Or how can a Sentence or iudgement be of force, that is giuen beyond the Sea, where necessary witnesses cānot be present, eyther by reason of sex, or infirmity of olde age, and a thousand other hinderances? For to tell vs, that there ought Deputies [Legates a Latere] to be sent vnto vs as comming from your Holinesse side, it is a thing which we doe not finde to haue beene ordained by any Synode of the Fathers; for those Articles which you sent vs a while agone by our fellow and Companion Faustinus, as being of the Councell of Nice, we could not finde it so in the true Copies sent vnto vs by Cyril and Atticus, &c. Forbeare also to send vs your Clerkes, men ready to serue euery great mans turne, or in­deed any that shall aske them;n="*" Nolite conce­dere ne fumosū typhum seculi in Ecclesiā Christi v deamur indu­cere. least it seeme that we goe about to bring this worldes smoakie pride and hautinesse into the Church of Christ, which beareth the light of simplicity, and the brightnesse of humility be­fore those who desire to see God. After these checkes giuen to the Bishop of Rome, they publiquely de­nounce and giue him warning, that he reuoke and withdraw his Deputy Faustinus out of Affrica; af­terwards they salute him, calling him Sir and Bro­ther. Domine frater. This Epistle is a pretious Iewell of Antiqui­ty, and I wonder how so excellent a peece could e­scape the handes of these falsifiers and Spongers of the Fathers. Now they, who read this Lesson to the Bishop of Rome, who already began to be somewhat tickled with presumption, were Aureli­us Bishop of Carthage, and S. Austen, and al the Bi­shops of Affrica. For which cause Boniface the se­cond, [Page 428]in an Epistle which is found in the second Tome of the Councels, saith, that Aurelius and his fellows had separated themselues from the Church of Rome, being waxen proude through the insti­gation of the Diuell.In the 20. chapter of my Apo­logie for the Supper of the Lord. An Epistle which witnesseth, that S. Austen died excommunicated out of the Church of Rome, which also wee haue elsewhere defended against Coeffeteaus accusations.

Neither was this the first ordinance, by w^ch these Bishops sought to stifle the growing tyrannie of the Bishop of Rome, wherby he laboured to draw the appeales of the causes of Affrica to himselfe; his purpose being, that they who were condem­ned in Affrica by the Councels, might make their appeale ouer the Sea, that is, into Italy: For these same Bishops in another Councell assembled at Mileuitum, in the two and twentieth Canon, say: If they [who are condemned by the neighbour Bi­shops] thinke that they may appeale from their iudge­ment, Quod si & ab cis prouocandum putauerint non prouocent nisi ad Affricana Concilia, vel ad Primates pro­uinciarum sua­rum, ad Trans­marina autem qui putauerit ap­pellandum à nullo intra Af­fricam in com­munione suscipi­atur. let them not appeale any whither else then to the Councels of Affrica, or to the Primates of their Prouin­ces. But whosoeuer shall appeale beyond the Sea, let him not be admitted to the Communion, by any in all Affri­ca. These men feared neuer a whit, least there might come from Rome a lapse vpon their Benefices, or a deuolution to the Pope: they did not expect from him the Archbishops Pall, nor the Cardinals Hat, nor any liberality of consecrated grains, nor feared they his excommunication, whose power in those dayes passed little further then mount Apennine. And here out of this Discourse the Reader shall [Page 429]further learne, that this very Canon is found in the Romane Decrees, in the second Cause, in the Ca­non Placuit, but wholly corrupted and miserably falsified, for after these wordes, Whosoeuer shall ap­peale beyond the Sea, let him not be receiued by any to the Communion; there is a peece of another stuffe, and another coulour vnhandsomely patched on, vnlesse he appeale to the Sea of Rome: Nisi forte Ro­manam sedem appellancrit. how could this exception be allowable, seeing that this Canon of the Councell was expresly made against the Sea of Rome? So is it also against the truth and euidence of all the Coppies.

Yea so farre are the auncient customes and or­dinances from giuing any Iurisdiction to the Bi­shop of Rome ouer other Patriarches, that here is a flat Canon of the Councell of Nice, recyted by Ruffinus to the contrary, in his first booke and fift chapter, They ordaine also that in Alexandria, and in the Citie of Rome, the auncient custome be kept, to wit, Et vt apud Ale­andriam & in vrbe Roma ve­tusta consuetudo seruetur, vt vel ille Aegypti, vel hic suburbica­rum Ecclesiarum solicitudinem gerat. that he of Alexandria haue the care of Egypt, the Bi­shop of Rome of all suburbicary Churches, that is, of all the Cities that were vnder the authoritie and ciuill iurisdiction of the citie of Rome. These Fathers did liberally cut him out a large share, as the times then were, but scant enough according to his ambition as now it is.

S. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, wrote many E­pistles to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, al which beare this inscription, Cyprian to Cornelius his brother sen­deth greeting: which had bin a great vnreuerence if Cornelius had bin head of the Vniuersall Church, or [Page 430]if he had had power of Iurisdiction ouer S. Cyprian. So likewise: in the fourth booke of Socrates, cap. 11. the Eastern Bishops, who write to Liberius Bishop of Rome,Socrates lib. 4. cap. 9. Domino fratri & collegae nostro. call him nothing but Brother and Compa­nion, yea they speake like Masters, for qualifying themselues the Catholike and Apostolike Church, they denounce Anathema against the Councel of Ariminum, without expecting the iudgement, or the will and pleasure of Liberius. Thereupon Leo the first,This is the Ti­tle of the three first Epistles. albeit he speake bigge in his Epistles, ne­uerthelesse he commonly taketh no other Title to him but onely this, Leo Bishop of the Citie of Rome to such and such sendeth greeting.

See here a notable Example: The auncient cu­stome of the Church was, that the penitents should confesse their faults aloude in the face of the Church. But the Church being growne into wealth and riches▪ many men refused to vndergoe this shame,Sozom. l. 7. c. 16. Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 19. and iudged it intollerable. To giue them content herein, an order was established that euery Church should haue a Penetenciary Priest, who should receiue their confessions in se­cret. This order hauing beene euery where recei­ued: Neuerthelesse Nectarius Bishop of Constan­tinople abolished this custome throughout all the East, without asking the Bishop of Romes counsel, who also did not reprehend him for it: and this hath euer since so remained. Thereupon I say, that if Nectarius had beene subiect to the Bishop of Rome, he would neuer haue vndertaken so great a matter without his aduise, and contrary to his ex­ample, [Page 431]Should a Bishop of Paris or Lyons bee borne withall now adaies, if of his owne authority, without aduise from the Pope, he should put away auricular confession out of his Bishopricke: Here are other examples. It appeareth by S. Austens 118. Epistle to Ianuarius, This Epistle is found in the 1. Tome of the Councels, in the page 461. of the Collen Edition. that in Rome they fasted on the Satterday, but at Millan they did not so. Dama­sus Bishop of Rome, writing to S. Ierome, complay­neth, that the seruice, and the singing in the Church of Rome, was performed with ill grace and vnseem­ly, and with too great simplicity, and requesteth Ierome to teach him the custome of the singing and seruice of the Greeke Church, that he might bring it into the Church of Rome. Is it credible that the Church of Rome would haue dayned to be the Disciple of other Churches, and to correct her faults by the example of her neyghbour Churches, if she had ruled and gouerned all other Churches, as she doth to this day? S. Ierome in an Epistle to Euagrius, sheweth, that the custome of other Chur­ches touching Deacons was better then that of Rome, which he saith, was but a City from whence pride first sprunge. So the Canon Aliter in the 31. Distinction, saith, That the Tradition of the Ea­sterne Churches is one, and that of the Church of Rome another; for there the Priests and Deacons doe marry, but here not. And this Canon is attributed to Pope Steuen, to whom Cyprian writeth. Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 21. maketh a long Bed-roule of diuers Church-customs, and sheweth how different the Churches were in the obseruation of Fastes, of the marriage [Page 432]of Churchmen, and of the dayes of publique As­semblies; which diuersity is an euident proofe that they were not all gouerned by one onely vniuer­sall head, otherwise they should all haue beene conformed to the Ordinanances of the Church of Rome.

So shall we also finde that the Churches of A­sia, of Syria, and of Egypt, are called Catholique and Apostolique Churches, and yet they are neuer called Romane.

Especially it is manifest, that the Church of Rome, in those dayes did neuer giue the definitiue sentence, or that her iudgements were esteemed ir­refragable not to be gainesaid, forasmuch as wee finde examples of some causes, iudged by the Bi­shops of Rome, which the Emperours haue caused afterwards to be iudged by other Bishops, for the better examination of the matters. S. Austen in his 162. Epistle, and Euseb. lib. 10 cap. 5. report, that the Donatists demaunded Bishops of the Empe­rour Constantine, to iudge their Controuersie: and that at their request the Emperour commaunded Melchiades Bishop of Rome, and Rheticus Maternus and Marinus his associates, to take notice of their Cause: by whose iudgement the Donatists hauing beene condemned, and they not willing to stand to their sentence, the Emperour commaunded that their cause should again be heard and iudged more exactly at Arles by other Bishops in a greater as­sembly, and that there the sentence of the Bishop of Rome and of his fellowes should be sifted and [Page 433]examined: and it is found that the Bishop of Rome did complaine for that the Emperour would not that men should stand to his iudgement, but did quietly remit the whole matter to be tried and exa­mined by other Bishops.

It appeareth chiefly in the conuocation and the holding of Councells, how little the power of the Bishop of Rome was, in comparison of that which is giuen now adayes. Damasus Bishop of Rome summoned a Councell at Rome, whereunto hee inuiteth the Easterne Bishops, who were assembled at Constantinople, from diuers places, pressing them earnestly to meete together at Rome, to de­liberate of common affaires: but the Bishops of the East refused to be present, & excused themselues by letters to Damasus, Ambrose, &c. whom they call their Brethren and Colleagues, saying,These letters are found in the 1. Tome of the Councels, in the p. 484. of the Collen E­dition, and in Theodoret, lib. 5. cap 9. that they had no commission from their Churches, to passe any further then Constantinople, and that they were not prouided for that iourney, and therefore had onely sent their brethren and companions, Cy­riacus, Eusebius, and Priscian, to let them vnder­stand their mindes, which was a good will of peace and vnion In the end they conclude their Epistle with these words, God preserue you (our deare sonnes) in health and safetie. Deus vos fitij reuerendissimi conseruet in [...]o lames. Where are the Bishops now a dayes, that dare call the Pope their sonne? That would be taken eyther for beastly mockery, or plaine flattery, seeing that now the least of his Ti­tles is to be called most holy Father, not content with holy Father, which is the Title that Christ gi­ueth [Page 434]to God his Father, Ioh. 17. ver. 11. These Bi­shops then keepe themselues at Constantinople, and there hold their Councell; ouer which was President Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople; & they leaue Damasus, and Ambrose, & the Bishops of Italy, to hold their Councell at Rome. I be­seech the Reader to weigh that which I am now about to say, that is, that the Councell held at Constantinople, and called without the aduise of the Bishop of Rome, and whereat hee had not so much as any one Deputy, is held for a generall Councell, and one of the first foure. But the Coun­cell which Damasus kept at Rome, is not held but for a particular Councell, and which indeede is scarcely named. And verily in the succeeding Councels that followed, they were wont to recite the Canons of the Councell of Constantinople, but neuer made any mention of the Romane Councell.

The example which followeth, is no lesse direct to the purpose. Leo Bishop of Rome assembleth a Councell at Rome: he writeth to the Emperour Theodosius the yonger, andn="*" This is the 23. Epistle of Leo. beseecheth him verie instantly, that it would please his Maiesty to call a Councell in Italy. These bee the termes of the Councels request.Omnes mansue­tudinem vestrā cum gemitibus & lacrymis sup­plicant sacerdo­tes? generalem Synodum iubea­tis intra Italiam celebrari. All the Priests doe beseech your Clemency with sighes and teares, that you would com­maund a generall Councell to be celebrated in Italy. But Leo and his fellowes were denied their request. In the end the Synode was assembled at Chalcedon, which Synode Leo seeing that he was not able to [Page 435]transport it into Italy, besought at leastwise that it might be deferred. But the Emperour Martian, Theodosius successor, would not gratifie him in that, but the Councell was held at Chalcedon for the ease and commodity of the Bishops of Asia, as was the Emperours pleasure. Whereat Leo complay­neth in his one and fortieth Epistle to Martian, and in the nine and fortieth to Pulcheria the Empresse, in such sort notwithstanding, that hee submitted himselfe thereunto, and sent thither his Deputies by their commaundement.

Socrates the historian, lib. 7. cap. 11. obserueth that the Bishops began to goe beyond the bounds of their charge euen in the time of Theodosius the yon­ger, the sonne of Arcadius, and that they already be­gan to make themselues Princes in secular affaires, and that the Bishop of Alexandria hauing begun, he of Rome followed his example. These be his words, There brake forth a great flame of enuie against the Nouatians, Cum Episcopatus Romanus non a­liter at (que) Alexan­drinus quasi ex­tra sacerdotij fi­nes egressus ad secularem prin­cipatum erat iaw ante delap­sus. the Bishoppricke of Rome hauing past the bounds of Priesthood, after the maner of that of A­lexandria, and hauing carried it selfe forward to a secu­lar Princedome.

One of the subtle trickes of the Bishoppes of Rome was, neuer to be present at generall Coun­cels, for feare least some one of the other Patri­arches should take place before him; euen so farre that Vigilius Bishop of Rome, being in the Citie of Constantinople, whilst the fift generall Councell was held there, Vigilius notwithstanding refused to assist, and to be present, for feare least Menas Bi­shop [Page 436]of Constantinople should take the preceden­cy. With such a like cunning, when any Bishop of Asia, or Egypt, or Greece, was chosen by ioynt consent of a generall Councell to bee President therein, the Bishop of Rome well perceiuing, that his Deputies could not haue the first place, intrea­ted him who was chosen to be President, to keepe his place, and to represent his person; as he did Cy­rill in the first Councell of Ephesus, who notwith­standing this counterfeit Commission, would not haue let to haue beene President of the Councell: As well as did Dioschorus, who was President in the second Councell of Ephesus, without being Le­gate of the Bishop of Rome, and where the Bishop of Rome had his Deputies, who did not contest for the first place. The issue and the end indeed of the Councell was turbulent, but yet it was lawfully assembled according to the vsuall forme, and there was good order kept in the first Sessions. So Me­nas and Euticheus Patriarches of Constantinople sate Presidents in the fift Councell of Constanti­nople, albeit Vigilius Bishop of Rome were in the same Towne: which doubtlesse was the cause why he refused to be present at the Councell: All which notwithstanding after the close and conclu­sion of the Councell, he approued the Acts.

Read carefully the second Councell of Nice, and you shal see, that in reckoning vp the Bishops, who were assisting thereat, hee who hath translated the Acts of the Councell, hath oftentimes placed (to gratifie the Pope) the Deputies of Rome the first; [Page 437]yet notwithstanding the whole action of the coun­cell doth plainely shew, that they were not Pre­sidents at all: they speake almost neuer a word, and they giue in their opinions sometimes amongst the rest. But Tharasius Patriarch of Constantino­ple speaketh to euery matter, gouerneth the whole action, pronounceth the conclusions, and is cheefe President in the Councell.

And to come vp a little higher, the most famous Councell that euer was, was the first Councell of Nice; in which surely the Bishop of Rome was not President: but if we will beleeue the testimony of Athanasius who was there present, Hosius Bi­shop of Corduba in Spaine, sate in the first place. His testimony is reported by Theodoret in the se­cond booke of his story, and fifteenth chapter, where he saith, that there was no Councell helde, wherein Hosius was not President: And this hee speaketh agreeable to that which the same Atha­nasius saith in his Epistle to them that liue in the desert. The first speaker was Eustachius Bishop of Antioch, who sate at the Emperours right hand; Which hath made some men to thinke that he was President: but it appeareth not throughout the whole action that the deputies of Rome did any thing. In the Tomes of the Councels, though made for the Popes greatest aduantage, yet Hosius subscribeth the first, and the deputies of Rome vn­der him. And least any man should say that he was the Bishop of Romes Legate, he subscribeth apart in these wordes, Hosius, Episcopus Cordubensis, Ita [Page 438]credo. Then the deputies of Rome subscribe apart. Victor & Vincentius Presbyteri vrbis Romae pro vene­rabili Papa Syluestro subscripsimus. For if they had beene all three deputies for the Bishop of Rome, they would thus haue subscribed, Hosius, Victor, & Vincentius pro Syluestro, &c. And Hosius should ra­ther haue taken this title, then to be qualified only Bishop of Corduba, &c.

Whosoeuer hath neuer so little looked into the stories, knoweth that the Bishops of Constantino­ple, considering that the dignity of the sea of Rome came, for that Rome had for a long time beene the seate of the Empire; and seeing that the Empire was now translated to Constantinople, haue la­boured to haue themselues to be credited and pre­ferred before the Bishop of Rome. Euen so farre forth, that Iohn the Bishoppe of Constantinople, whom Greekes call S. Iohn the Almosner, began vnder the Emperour Mauritius about the yeare sixe hundred, to call himselfe the first and chiefe Bishop, and Oecumenicall Bishop, that is to say V­niuersall. Whereupon Gregory the first, Bishop of Rome doth not complaine that Iohn did set foot­ing vpon the Sea of Rome, or that he did him any wrong by vsurping that which belonged to the Bi­shop of Rome: but saith, that this was a new Title, and That he which will be called vniuersal Bishop is the forerunner of Antichrist, because that in the Pride of his heart, he preferreth himselfe before others. Now the intent of this Iohn was not to haue denyed the others to haue beene Bishops also: but he said that [Page 439]he was the first and aboue the rest. And indeede this Iohns successors continued this title, and are so called in Zonaras and Cedrenus. And further in the second Councel of Nice, the second Action: there is an Epistle of Adrian Bishop of Rome, wherein he callethn="a" Dilecto fratri Tharasio genera­li Patriarchae. Tharasius Bishop of Constan­tinople vniuersall Patriarch. Howbeit Gregory in his Epistles, thinketh that he who will be vniuersall Bishop, doth by consequent ruine the Bishopricke of others, and seeketh if not directly, yet at least­wise by consequence, to be the onely Bishop: the Bishopricke of others, after that, being nothing else but a bare name without substance, as is the charge of Bishops vnder the Papacy. Thus hath God pluckt out of the mouth of Gregory the con­demnation of his Successors; for this good man was not aware that in so speaking, he called Boniface the third his Successour, the forerunner of Anti­christ, to whom the Emperour Phocas gaue the ti­tle of vniuersall Supremacy, within a while after the death of Gregory. And yet for all this the Bi­shops of Constantinople, would neuer acknow­ledge themselues inferiors to the Bishop of Rome; no nor those of Antioch and Alexandria, vntil that the Turkes and Saracens hauing ouerthrowne all the rest, the Bishop of Rome onely finding in our Kings soft spirits, and that they were litle seene and versed in Diuinity, drew from them huge liberali­ties, perswading them to whatsoeuer he would, e­uen to subiect their Crownes vnto him, and to pill and rifle their Kingdomes, and to take vpon himn="b" Gregor. in Re­gistro l. 4. Epist. 32. & Epist. 24. & Epist. 36. & Epist. 38. & li. 6. Ep. 30. Ad Mau­ricium &c. [Page 440]those Titles, of which we shall speake anone. He that wil see how much the Pope hath exalted him­selfe, let him compare the foure first Councels, where all thinges are passed by common voices, with the Councell of Florence, in which they gaue power and authority to the Pope, to make new ar­ticles of faith: And with the latter Lateran Coun­cell, in which all is referred to the will of Pope Leo the tenth, who there is called the diuine Maiestie, the corner stone laid in Sion, the Lyon of Iuda, the King and Prince of all the world, whom all the Kinges of the earth ought to adore. To such Coun­cels the Pope doth willingly affoord his personall presence, because he doth there rule and domineere with absolute authority: but in the ancient Coun­cels he refused to bee present, because there hee should haue found Bishops as stout and as strong, and as ambitious as himselfe. Adde hereunto that in the generall Councels, they vsed the Church of Rome and her Bishop no otherwise then they did their particular Churches. So in the sixe generall Councels, re-assembled at the Pallace: Pope Ho­norius is condemned for an Hereticke. And the thirteenth Canon doth by name condemne the Church of Rome, because it disalowed the marri­age of Priests. And further in the 55. Canon the Church of Rome is expresly forbidde to fast any more the Satterdy and the Sunday, vpon payne of incurring the rigour of the Canon of the Apostles which saith,This is the 65. Canon of the Apostles. If a Clerke be found fasting on the Sat­terday or the Sunday (one onely excepted) let him be de­posed; [Page 441]Or if he be a Lay-man, let him be excommuni­cated. Would they thus haue spoken, if they had beleeued the Pope to haue beene their Superiour, or the Church of Rome cheefe ouer other Chur­ches, and that it could not erre?

That the Passages of the Fathers alleadged by Coeffe­teau for the Primacy of S. Peter are partly false, Fol. 77. & 78. partly maymed, and partly impertinent.

FRom this point Doctor Coeffeteau passeth ouer to the Primacy of S. Peter: Fol. 76. howbeit before he commeth thereto, he giueth in passing by a blow to his Holinesse, affirming, that he is not Lord ouer any Towne: thus doth he dispute the Souerainty of the City of Rome. Wee leaue themselues to cleare this doubt, and end this Processe.

He alleadgeth then for the Primacy of S. Peter the 11. Homily of S. Chrysostome: and that very falsely; for in all the Homily there is no mention of S. Peter, nor of his Primacy. But Bellarmine did deceiue him, out of whom Coeffeteau copied his al­legations.

This other is like it. S. Cyprian (saith Coeffeteau) affirmeth,Hoc erant vti (que) & caeteri Apo­stoli quod Petrus pari consortio praediti & hono­ris & potestatis, sed exordium ab vn [...]tate profici [...] cit [...]r v [...] [...]sia vna monstretur. that the other Apostles were certainly the same that S. Peter was, fellowes and partners of his ho­nour, and of his power: but the beginning proceedeth from Vnitie: and therefore the Primacy was giuen to S. Peter, the true reading is this, the Apostles inde de were the same things that S. Peter was, hauing ONE EQVALL SOCIETY In honour and in power, but [Page 442]the beginning was made by one, to shew the vnity of the Church. Coeffeteau hath razed out the word EQVAL which troubled him, and hath clapt on a Tayle of a sentence, which is not in Cyprian, and therefore the Primacy was giuen to S. Peter.

S Cyprian had said a little before, that Iesus Christ after his resurrection gaue a like power to his Apostles, and yet to shew the vnity of the Church, he so disposed by his authority, that the fountaine of this vnity should begin from one. That is to say, that he gaue to all his Apostles an equall power: but to shew that the Church is one, he gaue his power first vnto one, namely to Peter, and afterwards gaue equall power to the rest.

With like falshood he dealeth with S. Ierome, Fol. 78. pag. 2. lib 1. against Iouinian whom he thus alleadgeth, One is chosen among the twelue, to the end that there being one head established, all occasion of Schisme might be ta­ken away. At dicis super Petrū fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitu­do solidetur [...]sed vnus eligitur, vt capite constituto seismatist ollatur occasio. But he omitteth the wordes that went before, thou tellest me that the Church is founded vpon S. Peter, notwithstanding that the same is done vpon al the other Apostles, and that all do receiue the keyes of the Kingdom of heauen, and that vpon them the stability of the Church is EQVALLY grounded: whence appear­eth, that the Head and cheefe of which he speaketh, is nothing else but a superiority in ranke, without any Iurisdiction and power ouer his fellowes, see­ing that they had all the Keyes alike, and were alike the foundations of the Church. VVhich may serue (to the end we may not trouble our selues with examining the rest of his falsifications) for solution [Page 443]of all the rest of Coeffeteaus quotations, in which S. Peter is called head and first among the Apostles.

S. Austen indeede in the beginning of his second booke of Baptisme, which place Coeffeteau alleadg­eth, calleth S. Peter the first of the Apostles, but he saith also in the same place, that for all that he did not presume that the new-commers, Nee Petrus quē primum Domi­nus elegit, & super quem aedi­ficauit Ecclesiā suam, cum secum Paulus de cir­cumcisione dis­ceptaret, postmo­dum vindicauit sibi aliquid inso­lenter aut arro­ganter assumpsit vt diceret se primatum tenere & obtemperari à nouellis & po­steris sibi potius debcri. and latter Apostles were to yeelde him obedience. The same S. Austen, as he is alleadged in the 24. Cause, Quaest. 1. Canon Quod­cun (que), speaketh thus: S. Peter when he receiued the Keyes, represented the Church: if then all the good were signified in the person of Peter, so were all the wicked also signified in the person of Iudas. Seeing then that S. Peter was the same among the faithful, that Iudas was among the wicked, it followeth, that as Iudas was not the head of the wicked, to haue power and Iurisdiction ouer them, but onely was the most re­markeable among them: so S. Peter should be such a one among the beleeuers. He might haue had perhaps a priority eyther in age, or in vertue, or in zeale, or in eloquence, or in preseance, and taking the first place: but yet without Dominion or po­wer of Iurisdiction. As touching that which som­times he saith, that the Church is founded vpon S. Peter; we shall see hereafter, that he retracted that ouer sight afterwards: and we haue heard before S. Ierome to haue said that the Church is Equally founded vpon all the Apostles. As for that which he saith, that he that is without the Communion of the Church is to be accounted prophane, and that he that is without the Arke shall perish in the [Page 444]floud, the same may be said of euery other Church which holdeth the true Orthodox Doctrine, yea of the least of the faithfull, for that a man cannot se­parate and withdraw himselfe from him, but by renouncing the truth: Now in the quarrell which then was in debate, Damasus maintained the truth and sounder opinion.

Whether the Pope may erre in faith or no.

TO that which the King of great Britaine denieth, that there is any Monarch of the Church on earth, whose wordes ought to be held for laws, & who hath the gift to be able not to erre;Fol. 80. Coeffeteau thus answereth: ‘We know that the Pope is a sinfull man, as another man is, and therefore may erre in Doctrine and Manners if we consider him in particular: but in the quali­ty of S. Peters Successour, hee cannot teach any thing contrary to piety.’ This is it which is com­monly said, that the Pope indeede may erre as he is a man and a particular Doctor, but not as he is Pope: Or that he may erre in manners, but not in faith:Cap. licet. titulo 2 de Constitutioni. in 6. They say also, that he may erre in the questi­on de facto, but not in the question de Iure. For (as Boniface the eighth saith) the Pope hath all law and right in the chest of his breast.

A man had neede of a good stomach to digest this: And I doe not see how all this can agree. For first if the Pope may erre in the question of fact, it followeth also that he may erre in the question of [Page 445]Right, seeing that the one dependeth vpon the o­ther: if he may be ignorant, whether Iesus Christ came into the world, or whether hee died for vs, he may also be ignorant whether we ought to be­leeue in him or no.

So likewise if he may erre in maners, it followeth that he may teach false doctrine: for to lie and to speake against his conscience, is certainly a defail­lance in manners. If then the Pope cannot be ig­norant of the true doctrine, and yet through mali­tiousnesse will bury the truth, wilfully to deceiue, to what end serueth this truth hidden in the Popes vnderstanding, if the people in the meane time be fed with lies? But this is an absurdity aboue the rest, to thinke that the Pope may erre as man, or as a particular Doctor, but not as Pope: for why doth not the Pope correct the doctor? Or when Pope Boniface or Clement doe erre as Boniface, but not as Pope, why doth not Boniface aske counsell of the Pope? why dooth hee not consult himselfe? why doth he not betake himselfe from his priuate chaire to the Popes Seate, to the end to change his opini­on? If the Popes diuine knowledge be tyed to his Chaire or Papall habite, it followeth that when he riseth from his seat, or putteth off his Robes,Titulo. 2. de Constitutionib. cap. licet. in 6. that withall he strippeth himselfe out of his knowledge: And that Boniface the eight was to blame to in­close the Popes knowledge in his breast. Shall we thinke that these men haue a desire to be credited, and that by these pleasant distinctions, they do not mocke the Pope?

Put the case that all this may be reconciled, and that the Pope may be contrary to himselfe, and worse then himselfe, and at one instant both He­reticke and an Orthodox; what doth all this a­uaile the people, seeing that in what sort soeuer the Pope teacheth, whether as Pope or as Doctor, he will alwayes be beleeued? Neyther can the people discerne these subtle Distinctions.

Neyther may wee omit that the Pope vpon Maundy Thursday doth excommunicate all He­retickes; whence it should follow, that if himselfe be an hereticke, as man, he is also excommunicate, and consequently is out of the Church: and so it should come to passe, that the man may be out of the Church, but the Pope be within it; which is as if I should say, that the King at the same instant is within his Palace as King, but without it as man; or that Coeffeteau is at the same time in the Refe­ctory or dyning-hall as Fryer, and without as man; so that a man shall finde him in two places at once.

It was then a great vnhappinesse to the aunci­ent Fathers to haue beene ignorant of this Distin­ction, and to haue assembled so many Councels, so long and so painful for the deciding of differents in Religion, seing that they needed only to haue ad­dressed themselues to the Bishop of Rome, and to intreate him not as man, or as Doctor, but as Pope to pronounce the sentence, & giue decision of the Controuersie. Whence also it followeth, that then the Popes had but small zeale to the publique [Page 447]good of the Church, seeing that they refused to be present at generall Councels, which were the spe­ciall places in which they ought to haue put on this their Infallibility. As also when the Romane Bishop had giuen his aduise by his Deputies, the Councels did not forbeare for all that, to sound and examine the matter to the bottome, and to heare the opinions of others.

Howbeit Coeffeteau produceth this Scripture, to shew that the Pope cannot erre; he saith that our Lord said to S. Peter, I haue prayed for thee that thy faith should not faile. Whence he concludeth, that the Pope cannot erre in faith. Surely wee haue no greater proofe of the patience of God, then that he suffreth his holy word thus to be abu­sed: for first, is there any mention here of the Pope? Is all that that was spoken to S. Peter spoken also to the Bishop of Rome? If that be so, then must we needes say, that that which our Sauiour said to Peter, Mat. 16. he said also to the Pope, Get thee be­hinde me Sathan: Secondly, adde that which wee will hereafter shew, that the Pope is not the Suc­cessour of S. Peter, vnlesse it be as sickenesse succee­deth health: Thirdly, and albeit this had beene spoken to the Pope, yet by these words Christ doth not promise to S. Peter that he should not erre at all in faith; for it is one thing not to faile, another thing not vtterly to fall away. There be many that misse and faile, but yet doe they not wholly miscar­rie; whence ensueth, that though Christ should haue prayed for the Pope, that his faith should not [Page 448]vtterly faile, yet can he not for all that be exemp­ted from power of erring: Fourthly, if the Succes­sors of S. Peter enter also vpon this vertue of his, neuer to erre, then should the Bishop of Antioch who stileth himselfe Peters Successor, be exempted also from erring: Fiftly, seeing that Saint Iohn, S, Paul, S. Iames, &c. were no lesse exempted from this power of erring then was S. Peter, why should not their Successours inherite the infallibility of the rest of the Apostles, as well as the Successors of S. Peter: Sixtly, but without any more adoe, let vs looke vpon the place, and reade with one breath the verses following, and we shall finde that Christ in that place did foretell to S. Peter his fall and deni­all, and promiseth that his faith should not vtterly be vanquished in that temptation: that was then personall and peculiar to S. Peter; yet so that our Sauiour would haue his fall and rising againe, to serue to confirme his brethrē. Here by the way the Reader may note, that this Passage and Text of Scripture is the onely foundation that the Church of Rome can finde, to prop vp the Popes infallibili­ty, which is as if a man would plant and reare vp an huge Colossus vpon Reedes, or from a thing of no­thing to make a long chaine of Consequences to depend.

Wherefore Coeffeteau being put off from Scrip­ture, he hath recourse to the Fathers, and saith, that S. Cyprian is bold to say, that the Church of Rome is that, to which treachery and false hood can haue no ac­cesse. Cyprian thereby vnderstands that it cannot [Page 449]be the refuge of perfidious men, neyther can they be receiued there to finde shelter; which is true of euery Orthodox Church: for Cyprian varied from the Bishop of Rome vpon the poynt of Rebapti­zation of heretickes; which is an euident proofe that he did not beleeue that the Bishop of Rome could not erre: and indeede in the Epistle to Pom­peius (written after that which Coeffeteau alleadg­eth) he saith that Stephen Bishop of Rome was in an errour,Stephani errorē denotabis — inter caetera, vel su­peruacanea vel ad rem non per­tinentia, vel sibi ipsi contraria, quae imperite at­ (que) improuidè scripsit. and that hee had written many things idle and contradictory, very ignorantly and vn­wisely. It is not materiall to enquire whether Cy­prian were in an errour, or no; it is sufficient, that Cyprian thought that the Bishop of Rome was subiect to erre and to mistake.

Our Doctor addeth S. Ierome, who in his third Apology against Ruffinus, saith, That the Romane faith, Romanam fidem Apostolica voce baudatam istius­modi praestigias non recipere. commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not admit any such iuglings. (For so is it read, and not as Coeffeteau doth falsly alleadge it) The Trickes of which he speaketh, were, to put the title of a good Authour to an euill booke; so that this place is neyther to the purpose, nor yet faithfully alleadg­ed: and if it were to the purpose, yet doth hee not say, that the Church of Rome or her Bishop can­not erre in faith, but sayth that the Faith which S. Paul commended in the Romans, could not subsist together with such impostures; for the faith which S. Paul prayseth in them was the true faith, which doth not approue of any seducing. The same may be said of the fayth of the Ephesians and Thessa­lonians, [Page 450]to whom the same Apostle giueth the same testimony as well as to the Romanes, to wit, that their faith was spread abroad in all quarters. 1. Thes. 18.

Now that S. Ierome did not beleeue that the Bi­shop of Rome could not erre in the faith,in hoc habetur detestabilis quod Liberium Roma­nae vrbis Episco­pum pro fide ad exilium pergen­tem primus solli­citauit, ac fregit & ad subscripti. onem haereseos compulit. it appear­eth by this, that in the Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall writers, he thus speaketh of Fortunatianus: In this he is accounted detestable, that he was the first that soli­cited Liberius Bishop of Rome, who went into banish­ment for the faith, and made him to yeelde, hauing in­duced him to subscribe to Heresie. And in the same Catalogue he calleth Felix Bishop of Rome, Arri­an, as doth also Socrates, lib. 2. cap. 2.

S. Hilary in his fragments, lately published by Monsieur le Feure, doth often excommunicate Li­berius, in these termes: Anathema tibi a me Liberi. For hauing subscribed to the Confession of the Arrians framed at Sirmium: [...]. S. Athanasius an in­ward friend to Liberius, in his Epistle to them that liued in the Desert, after that he had greatly com­mended Liberius, he saith, that after two yeares ba­nishment, he yeelded and subscribed. As also the Arrians would neuer haue giuen him Letters to restore him to his Bishopricke:Tomo 1. Concil. p. 431. Ingressus Liberius in vibē 6. Nonas Augu­sti consensit Con­stantio haeretico —& perse­ [...] utio magna fuit in vrbe Roma. if he had still per­sisted in the true faith. Damasus in the Pontificall alleadged in ther. Tome of the Councels, saith, that Liberius being re-entred into the Citie consented to the Emperour Constantius an Hereticke, and that vpon his arriuall there happened a great persecuti­on at Rome.

Liberatus a great flatterer of the Bishoppes of Rome, hath written a booke, which is found in the second Tome of the Councels; where in the two and twentieth Chapter is produced an Epistle of Vigilius Bishop of Rome, written to the Eutychian Heretickes, in which he declareth himselfe an Eu­tychian, and denyeth two natures in Christ, euen so farre as to excommunicate those that say the contrary.

Honori the first is condemned for a Monothelite hereticke by three Councels which our aduersa­ries call Generall, to wit, by the sixth, seuenth, and eighth, that is to say, by a thousand witnesses; the Deputies of Rome then and there present neuer gainsaying it.

On the contrary, his Successors Agatho and Leo the second doe there accurse and detest him for ha­uing polluted the Sea of Rome through his heresie. Who will beleeue that these Popes would haue defamed their owne Sea with a false accusation? Or that so many witnesses had beene ill informed? seeing that euen in these Councels the Epistles of Honorius, in which he defendeth heresie, are pro­duced and alleadged. And although they should haue condemned him vniustly, yet it appeareth hereby, that they held it in those times for a thing certaine, that the Bishop of Rome might erre.

Bellarmine in his fourth booke de Pontifice Roma­no, maketh no difficulty to say,Potest dici Pon­tificem ex igno­rantia lapsum esse. that Pope Gregory the third, who taught, that a man whose wife was through sickenesse become vnfit for the dueties of [Page 452]marriage, might take another woman, had erred and failed through ignorance.

Iohn the two and twentieth beleeued and taught that the soules of the faithfull did not see God be fore the resurrection, as wee haue proued hereto­fore by many witnesses.

Iohn the three and twentieth out-stripped and exceeded them all; for he denyed the immortality of the soule, and maintained that there was neither Heauen nor hell. For which cause, besides many other crimes laid downe in the eleuenth Session of the Councell of Constance, he was deposed from the Papacy by the same Councell, whose wordes are these: IOHN the three and twentieth hath often and many a time, in the presence of diuers Prelates, and other honest men of worth, said, held, determined, and obstinately maintained by the instigation of the diuell, that there is no life eternall, nor any other after this life; yea and hath obstinately said and beleeued, that the soule of man dieth together with the body, and is extin­guished as that of brute beasts; and hath said, that a man once dead, shall not rise againe the last day. And to the end that no man may doubt of the truth of the Accusation, it is a little after added, that it is pub­liquely and notoriously knowne. Note also, that the Councell, before that it deposed him, acknow­ledged him for lawfull Pope, and all the Church of Rome doth reckon him among the number of Popes.

Furthermore that prodigious Canon, which beginneth Si Papa in the fortieth Distinction, af­ter [Page 453]it hath said,Si Papa suae & [...] fraternae salut s negligens innu­merabiles popu­les secum ducit primo mancip io gehennae, cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum va­pulaturos, huius cu pas istic repre­hendere praesu­mit mortalium nullus. &c. that though the Pope should draw with him an innumerable multitude of soules into hell, there to be euerlastingly tormented, yet no man should pre­sume to reproue him; because he that iudgeth all men, ought to be iudged of no man: Addeth this exception, Nisi deprehendatur a fide deuius; vnlesse he be found to haue swarued from the faith.