THE OBMVTESCE OF F. T. TO THE EPPHATA OF D. COLLINS.  
OR The Reply of F. T. to D. Collins his defence of my Lord of Winchesters answer to cardinal Bellarmines Apology. In which Reply M. Collins is convinced of most manifest frauds, falsities, fooleries,& lies.  
WRITTEN By Thomas Fitzherbert Priest of the Society of Iesus, in defence of his adjoinder impugned by M. Collins: wherein the Authors name was cyphred with the two letters F. T.  Obmutesce,& exi de homine. Marc. 1. Hold thy peace, and go out of the man. Sic est voluntas Dei, vt been facientes, obmutescere faciatis imprudentium hominum ignorantiam. 1. Petr. 2. v. 15. So is the will of God, that doing well, you may make the ignorance of unwise men be dumb. 
Permissu Superiorum, M.DC.XXI.   

TO THE honourable AND RENOWNED university OF CAMBRIDGE, Thomas Fitzherbert Priest of the Society of IESVS, wisheth all Health, Honor, and true Felicity.  
IT may perhaps seem strange unto you( dearly beloved,& my much respected countrymen) that I( being a mere stranger to you all, and very different from you, both in state of life, and Religion) do presume to dedicate unto you this my Reply, written in answer of one, who, as I understand, is a man of quality amongst you, and a principal member of your university, and therefore by all likelihood very much respected, honoured, and beloved of many of you, though perhaps not of all. But the truth is, that if I sought protection( as most do who dedicate books, or remuneration, as those that writ for hire or gain) I would follow the example of my Antagonist, who hath made choice of no meaner a Patron then of his majesty himself, from whom he may assuredly expect both Princely protection, and a royal Reward; but seeing that my end, and desire herein is no other, then the defence of the truth,& of myself; and that the confidence I haue in the iustice of my cause is such, that I fear no judge but Ignorance; I haue presumed so much of your favour, as to remit it to your censures, not doubting, but that you being men of iudg●ent, bread up in schools,& Exercise 〈◇〉 all kind of learning, will easily dis●●rne betwixt slight and plain dea●●g, show and substance, falsehood& o,& lay the fault where you find 〈◇〉 to which end I require no other favour of you for my part, then your pa●●ence to red this Reply,& to suspend ●our sentence, until you haue seen the ●hole, notwithstanding any preiudi●●te opinion which you may haue alrea●y conceived by reading my Aduersa●●es work, not having seen mine ●hich he impugneth, neither having ●ad other notice of it, as I think, then ●●ch as he hath thought good to give ●ou; which how fraudulent it hath been 〈◇〉 many respects will evidently appear ●nto you by the ensuing Treatise.  
And now for as much as I think 〈◇〉 necessary for your better information ●●uching the whole controversy, to ●duertise you of certain things, belon●ng thereto, and first of the ground, and occasion thereof, you shall understand, that Fa. Robert Persons of goo● memory, having begun, and almos● ended a work of his entitled, A discussion of M. Doctor Barlowes answer& c. 〈◇〉 pleased Almighty God to call him out of this life, in which respect I undertook to finish the same( being requested so to do by himself in his last sickness) and therefore beginning where he left, and enlarging myself so far( vpon just occasions offered) that my Answer grew to a just volume, I thought good to print it by itself, and to entitle it. A supplement to Father Robert Persons his Discussion &c. And when th●● same was almost finished, and the beginning already sent to the print, it was my chance to haue a sight of my Lord of Winchesters answer to cardinal Bellarmines Apology; and to find therein that the subject thereof was the same in effect, which I had treated with M. Barlow, and that by the occasion thereof, diuers places, authorities, and arguments which were objected, as well 〈◇〉 me in my Supplement, as by the ●ardinal in his Apology, were preten●ed to be answered by my Lord of Win●●ester in his said work; whereupon I ●●solued to examine and confute my ●ords answers to those places, autho●●tyes, and arguments, to prevent the ●●uills of my adversary M. Barlow, ●ho otherwise might perhaps in his ●eply( if he were disposed to make a●y) blame me for not taking notice ●herof, and either turn me over to his ●ordship for satisfaction touching those ●oints, or else make use of the same an●wers himself. And considering afterwards that my said Confutation of ●y Lords Answers grew to a greater ●olume then at the first I determined, 〈◇〉 thought good to cause it to be printed also a part, and gave it the title of An adjoinder to the Supplement of Fa. Ro●ert Persons his Discussion &c.  
When my Supplement, and Ad●oynder were diuuldged in England, I expected what would be answered t● either of them, either by M. Barlow, o● by my Lord of Winchester or by any other for them: but within a while I understood of M. Barlowes decease, an● never heard more of him, or of any man that had undertaken to answer for him. And some five or six yeares after( when I imagined by my Lord of Winchesters long silence that my adjoinder had been forgotten) I heard that one of your university had answered it for his Lordship, and there passed many moneths before I could get a sight of it, or understand so much as the name& quality of the Author. When I saw it, and found the title to be, Epphata t● F. T. I do assure you I wondered not a little, what had moved him so to entitle it, as whether it was only a bare allusion to the sound of the two letters F. T.( which me thought was to light a motive for so grave a man, and serious 〈◇〉 a matter) or that he imagined me to be become so dumb, and deaf, that I should needs to be conjured with that ●ord of our saviour to make ●●e hear ●●m, and answer him; wherein neuer●elesse I must needs confess he had ●ore reason, then he was ware of; for ●●ch was at that time the infirmity of ●y body grown by frequent diseases, ●●cident to my declined age,& weak ●onstitution, that I was resolved to be ●●ent from thenceforth, howsoever I ●●ould be provoked, and to desist from ●●ch laborious exercises, and studies, ●●s required more health, and strength, ●●en my yeares, and weakness could af●●rd: yet when I had perused some ●ood part of his work, and noted as ●el his manner of writing, as the sub●ance of his discourse,& that he pre●ended so to confute my adjoinder, 〈◇〉 not only to answer every chapter, ●ut also every Paragraffe,& as he saith 〈◇〉 his preface to the Reader, to leave no ●●rt of the whole unexamined, and yet ●euerthelesse that he never set down ●●y words fully, but either his false construction of them in a different letter( as if it were my text) or so lamely that the substance, pith,& force therof never appeared( whereby he both said himself, and made me say wha● he list, without any fear of control) besides that I discovered in him by the way so many egregious fraudes, and falsities in the abuse of the ancient Fathers, Historiographers, and other authors, so cunningly couched, and coloured many times, that it was not easy to be perceived;& all this so būbaste● with the vain ostentation of greek pedantical phrases, thrasonical brags& triumphant exaggerations, that to a●● unwary Reader( yea almost to any tha● hath not seen my adjoinder) he might seem to trample me under his feet,& to haue got a notable victory. having I say, noted all this, and being justly moved thereby to indignation( in respect of the injury offered as well to ou● catholic cause, as to myself) I resolved presently to give way to his Eppha●● t●, that it might work in me the effect ●hich he seemed to desire, that is to say 〈◇〉 break my determined silence; and ●et so, that I might hope withall to ●op his mouth, not by a formal con●●tation of his whole work( which I ●old both for a needles, and for a lost ●bour) but by some brief,& yet clear ●iscouery of his fraudulent dealing, 〈◇〉 such sort that it should euidentiy ap●eare to any indifferent Reader, that he ●eserueth no other answer, then such ●s might display him to the world for a ●otorious falsificatour, and coosener, ●n the highest degree.  
This then being my intention, I ●ave laboured to perform it in this ●●y Reply, with such pregnant proofs, ●nd manifest examples of his forgery, ●nd falsity, that they can admit no co●●ur, nor shadow of excuse. And therefore as he thought good to imitate ●ur saviour in the use of Epphata, to ●ake me hear, and speak when I ●eant to be silent; so I haue thought it not amiss to seek to stop his mout● with Obmutesce, in imitation also of our saviour, who did therewith put to silence a jangling, and ta●ling divell saying, Obmutesce,& exi de homine. Marc. 1. For albeit I presume not to do a miracle, as our saviour did, yet I may well hope that my Obmutesce, seconded with verity and truth, shall haue a● much force to put him to silence, a● his Epphata grounded vpon falsehoo●& fraud, hath had to make me speak and thereupon I haue made my title as you see to be, The obmutesce of F. T▪ to the Epphata of D. Collins: but how wisely, or folishly, I haue done therein, I am content to leave it to you● censure: only I will say this for my further excuse, that if my adversary ha● reason for his Epphata, I think I had no less for my Obmutesce, if he had none but played the fool in his, I haue followed nevertheless the counsel of th● Wise man, in answering a fool according to his foolishness, Prou. 26. Thu● much concerning my Title.  
Now then you shall further vn●●rstand, that albeit my first, and ●●incipall intention was( as I haue ●●d) only to discover certain notable ●●audes and falsities of his in a little ●●mphlet of a few leaves( to show the●●by that he is not worth the answe●●ng) yet considering afterwards that ●●me perhaps might think that he had 〈◇〉 other things said somewhat to the purpose, and that therefore I durst not ●●ckle with him hand to hand in a sin●e combat; I thought good to exami●e some part of his work in order as it ●●eth, for some one point or question 〈◇〉 controversy; and so I haue followed ●s footsteps for more thē fifty pages, ●●swering many objections, and argu●ents which he urgeth mightily out 〈◇〉 S. Augustine concerning the suprea●e authority of the Sea apostolic. ●nd this I haue done in six Chapters and more amply, because it seemeth by 〈◇〉 ostentation, and triumph, that he hath pleased himself therein exceedingly, though you shall see, that h● hath notably bewrayed, not only hi● own ignorance and folly, but also hi● bad conscience, and little honesty whereby you may also conceive ho● easy it would be for me to answer hi● particularly to every thing, to hi● shane, if I had leisure, and would loo● so much time to do it.  
And yet for your further satisfaction, and his greater confusion I hau● added six other chapters, touching th● invocation of saints, and the Veneration of their holy relics, with intention nevertheless, for breuityes sake not to deal therein with his impert●nent fooleries( which are innumerable but to discover only such of his euidē● and inexcusable fraudes, as should o●curre in debating with him some pa●● of the said question concerning pray●● to Saints. And those I haue though good to represent unto you for exāp●● sake only, that you may thereby ta●● a skantling of the rest of his worke●r, to undertake to lay open all his ●udes, and coosenages that may be ●erued in his whole Treatise, were less then to undergo the labour of ●rcules, to purge the filthy stable of ●geas, as you will perceive by the ●ltitude,& enormity of those which ●ave discovered in this Reply, and in him so thick heaped one vpon other, that you will easily judge whole work to be compaginate of thing else but fraudes; amongst the ●ich also, none is more ordinary, or ●●arkeable then his wilful corrup●n of the ancient Fathers, of whom ●●y few, or none haue escaped his ●gers( as I may say) scotfree; in so ●●ch that within the compass of two ●ues of his, I haue noted his notable ●se of no less then ten holy Fathers, ●d ancient authors, to wit, S. Am●●se, S. Augustine, S. jerome, S. Chry●●ome, S. Gregory the great, S. Gregory towers, Optatus, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Victor uticensis, as you may see my eleventh Chapter: whereto if 〈◇〉 add his fraudulent handling of my t●● in the dissimulation, lame allegatio● and perverse construction of it, 〈◇〉 changing the state of the question, 〈◇〉 contradictions, his manifest lies, 〈◇〉 foul oversights, his vain Argume●● more forcible many times again himself, then against his aduersar●& lastly his other impertinencyes, a●● fooleries, it willbe hard to determy● whether is greater, his fraud, or 〈◇〉 folly; albeit the latter is so notorio● thoughout all his work, that I can n● but wonder, how he got so much rep●tation among you, as to be doctor yea and to be approved for a publiq● Reader,& Writer; or that my Lord Winchester, would either admit h●● for his champion, or could hold hi● self to be sufficiently defended by hi● in this work of his, which I make 〈◇〉 doubt but his Lordship saw before was published, and therefore could 〈◇〉 b●t note therein how miserable he ●●eadeth for him, how often he becom●eth non-suite, and abandoneth him ●●ite; and that his fraudes and cogge●es would be most manifest to any ●●at should but confront his answer o my adjoinder, whereof I am for●●d to lay down whole pages, and lea●●s in every chapter to show his perfi●ous treachery as well in corrupting ●●y text many times, as in perverting ●●e sense of it, which( as I haue said) very ordinary in him; in so much ●●at I may well say of him as Tertullian o of all heretics in general, tou●●ing their handling of holy scripture; ●ntum veritati obstr●pit adulter sensus, ●antum corruptor stilus lib. de prescript. 〈◇〉. 17 Besides that, my Lord might ●●y well see, that whereas his Lord●●s reputation is deeply wounded ●●●h the imputation of many foul fal●es, and fraudes, wherewith I char●● his Lordship, this his advocate hath 〈◇〉 discharged him of any one, but only of a falsification of a place of Ambrose which I objected to his Lo●●ship( because I found not some word of the text in two or three several i●pressions, which I had seen, and e●amined) of which imputation I no● aclowledge his Lordship to be ful● cleared by certain prints produce● by M. Collins, which haue the text● my Lord allegeth it; albeit neith●● my Lord nor he hath gained any thin● thereby for their cause, as I haue showed evidently in my sixth chapter. An● truly this is the only service that M. Collins hath done his Lordship in a● his prolix, and tedious Treatise.  
Therefore seeing it hath not pleased my Lord to pay his own debt himself, but to put me of to M. Collins, wh● hath tendered me payment in suc● false money, that I haue no reason 〈◇〉 accept it; his Lordship cannot blam● me if I do not give him a quitance, bu● hold them both for my debters, vnti● the one of them do make me bette● payment, or prove at least the money 〈◇〉 be good, which I haue here rejected false, and counterfeit. For if my ●ord, M. Collins, or any other can so 〈◇〉, I will aclowledge myself to be ●●tisfyed for the whole. And of this I ●ill desire no other iudges but your ●●ues. Only I will beseech you, that M Doctor Collins do resolve to iusti●● his counterfeit co●ne, you will do and the favour, or rather the right, to ●ake trial of the truth by the touch● one; I mean by comparing his answer ●ith the text of my adjoinder, and ●f this my reply, and not otherways ●o beleeue him: for if in so doing you ●nd, that I haue done him wrong in ●●fusing his payment, truly I will not ●nly accept it for good, and lawful, ●ut also aclowledge my error, and ●●ke both him, and my Lord pardon. ●he like also I request of you( not a matter that any way toucheth my ●●rticuler, but that concerneth your ●●lues, and the honour of your university) to wit, that when you hear him at any time labour to confute, or to traduce catholic writers, ex cathedra, I mean in his public lectures or sermons, you will examine his allegations,& assertions by the authors themselves, seeing that he maketh no conscience, nor scruple to belie, corrupt, and pervert all kind of authors ancient, and modern( and especially cardinal Bellarmine, and the Iesuites) as you shall evidently see in this my reply by many examples; which if you do well consider, you will no doubt think that to be true in him, which S. Austin said of the Pelagians of his time, viz. frontem illorum non esse frontem, that his forehead is no forehead, seeing he is not ashamed of such enormous, and prodigious impostures, as you shall find to abound in him every where.  
This being so, I leave it to your prudent consideration, what a desperate cause my Lord of Winchester,& M. Collins do maintain, seeing they are forced to defend it with so much ●alsehood, as I haue discovered first in my Lord,& now in M. Collins, who having undertaken the defence of his Lordship& finding him, as I may say, over the shoes in fraudes, and falsities, ●ad no other way to deliver him, then ●o run himself over the ears to fetch him out, that is to say, to become gna●iter impudens; and no marvel, seeing that a lie can never be defended with ●ruth, nor one error without many, ●nd ever the longer the worse. And ●herefore I make account, that if M. Collins do attempt to justify his former ●raudes, he must perforce pass the ●ounds of all modesty, conscience,& ●hame, and show himself to be the im●udentest fellow, that ever lived, al●eit I verily think, that when you shal ●ave seen how far he hath exceeded ●herein already, you will be of opinion that he cannot go one step further.  
But if you think that in all this, 〈◇〉 do but exagerat some small oversights of his out of passion, I beseech you to suspend your iudgment until you com● to the sixth, and seventh chapter, where I do purposely undertake the discovery of his fraudes, and from thenceforth note well what you find,& then judge of him and me, as you shall see cause. And this shall suffice for the present; for in the Conclusion of the whole, I mean to say somewhat more unto you concerning him, as also unto the Reader in my Preface, wherein you may see( if it please you) my answer to certain calumnious cavils, and objections of his concerning myself, whereof I will remit the iudgement to any indifferent Reader; not doubting but to discover therein no less fraud then in the rest, with such gross ignorance and exorbitant malice on his part, that my ●●mutesce shall haue the desired effect, and stop his mouth, in such sort, that I may truly say with the Psalmist, Obstructum est as loquentis iniqua. Psal. 62.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. Wherein certain malicious cavils,& opprobrious reproaches objected against the Author by M. Collins in his Preface, are fully answered; and his notable fraud, folly, and gross ignorance, even in grammar is discovered.  
forasmuch as I haue already declared in my Epistle Dedicatory, the grounds and causes of this controversy betwixt M. Collins& me, and his fraudulent manner in answering my adjoinder, together with my whole drift, and scope in the ensuing reply, I will now gentle Readers) endeavour to give you satisfaction in this Preface concerning some ignominious aspersions, which he laboureth in his Preface to c●st vpon my reputation, whereby I hope to make it appear unto you, that Verba oris eius iniquitas& dolus. Psal. 35. The words of his mouth, are nothing else but iniquity and deceit: and that therefore, Conuer●etur dolor eius in caput eius,& in verticem ipsius iniquitas eius descendet. Psal. 7. His sorrow shalbe turned vpon his head, and his iniquity shall descend vpon his own crown. nevertheless my meaning is not to trouble you, or myself with the answer of many trifling objections, maleuolous cavils or s●urrilous scoffs which occur every where in him in such abound●nce, that if I should but take knowledge of them this Preface would grow to a volume) but my intention is to say somewhat briefl● to those points only, which may seem most to import, and being most urged& ampl●fied by him, may perhaps bre●d some scruple, or doubt in the Reader.  
1. Therefore whereas he insinuateth, that he could touch me if he list, with personal vices, I will let it pass as an idle vaunt of an idle brain, seeing that I fi●d in diuers parts of his worthless work, that he knoweth not as ●et the condition, and quality of my person. For albeit he saith truly of me, that I am a Iesuite( as I am indeed, I humbly praise God for it) yet he holdeth me for a lay, and a married jesuit, showing his ignorance as well of my present ●state( who haue been vnmaryed, and a Priest these ●wenty yeares) as also of the custom of the catholic church, which doth not admit to Priesthood any that ●re married, and live with their wives: so as I see ●ot what he can truly understand of my more private ●nd secret demeanour, when he so much mistaketh ●y public profession and quality, whereof no man is ●gnorant that knoweth me. Therefore for as much ●s he promiseth his Reader to give him a taste of my ●onditions, and spirit, out of mine own wry●●ngs, and especially out of my adjoinder, by the ●iscouery of four special things, which he saith he ●ath observed therein,( to wit, my vanity, my vi●ulency, my ignorance,& my circumstance) 〈◇〉 will examine how well he hath performed his pro●ise; and I doubt not but you will find, that he hath ●ot only failed in all, but also foiled himself nota●ly, discovering in himself both great fraud, and ●rosse folly.  
2. First then for my Vanity, he saith in the ●●urth page. of his Preface thus: It is worth the ●onsidering how every where he coupleth himself with the cardinal, and somety●es iets before him, sometimes behind ●im, like the fantastic wooer that ovid ●escribes,& modò praecedit, sequitur modò. ●hus saith M. Collins. And why forsooth? ●ary because I say in my adjoinder pag. 68. Places alleged by the cardinal, and myself. And again, pag. 38. The law Inter Clara● alleged both by the cardinal, and me. And again pag. 356. twelve Fathers alleged by the cardinal and me, and the like in diuers other places: but most ridiculous saith M. Collins, where I go before the cardinal, 〈◇〉 when I say: objected as well by me, as by the cardinal. And again in another place, The Bishops answer to S. Cyprian, makes as much against me, as against the cardinal. All which M. Collins taketh to be feathers of my frantic ambition, scattered every where throughout my work. Wherto he also addeth the frequent mention, which I make of my Supplement, because I say many times, As I haue noted,& shewed in my Supplement: A quality, saith M. Collins, somewhat unusual amongst Writers that are not starcke mad, to beate vpon their own, especially so often. So he, with a great deal of other idle stuff, and bitter taunts touching both these points, which I omit as well for breuityes sake, as because his book, I am sure, is so common amongst you, that I need not to be over tedious in laying down his text.  
3. Now then here you see, what he saith of my Vanity, and how well he proveth his imputation thereof; wherein he beginneth to play his prise, that is to say, to practise that kind of fraud, which he continueth for the most part throughout his whole work, I mean his dissimulation of my text, and of ●he circumstances of the matter in question betwixt us, by which means he doth charge me with what ●he list, without fear to be controlled by any that hath not my adjoinder, to confront with his answer, as you shall now evidently see in this, whereby you may the better judge of the rest.  
4. Therefore to discover his cozenage in this point, you are to understand the cause, why I do so often speak as well of the cardinal, and myself, as also of my Supplement. This doth appear sufficiently in the very title of my book, which is this: An adjoinder to the Supplement of F. Rob. Persons his discussion of M. D. Barlowes answer &c. containing a discovery,& confutation of very many foul absurdities, falsities, and lies in M. D. Andrewes his latin book entitled: Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini &c. Thus did the Printer set down my title, and added further that the said adjoinder was written by F.T. author of the Supplement, to justify certain places, and authorities alleged as well by him, as by the cardinal in his Apology, and pretended to be answered by M. Andrews.  
5. Who now is he, that seeth this, and doth not evidently see withall, what reason I had to make mention of myself many times together with the cardinal, seeing that the special scope of my adjoinder was to confute the answers of my Lord of Winchester to certain places, first alleged by the cardinal, and cited after by me, in my Supplement, so as my intention was to answer for us both, for so much as concerneth those authorities or arguments, which were common to us both. And this I say was evident enough by the very title of my adjoinder. Besides that, I also declared the same expressly& amply in the very first chapter thereof, wherein I signified, that when I had well near ended my Supplement, I chanced to haue a sight of my Lord of Winchesters answer to cardinal Bellarmines Apolog●, and found therein that his Lordship pretended now and then to answer some places, authorities, and arguments which had been objected by me to M. Barlow in my Supplement, and that therefore fearing, that if I did not confute the said answers of my Lord of Winchester, M. Barlow might either blame me for not taking notice thereof or perhaps make use thereof himself, I resolved to examine and confute them.  
6. As for as much as my meaning was not to answer my Lords whole work, or any part thereof further then those places, authorities, or arguments should give just occasion; I signified diuers times, that the place which I handled was cited, not only by me, but also by the cardinal, to the end it might ap●eare, that I kept myself still within my compass, ●nd did not extend further then to those authorities, ●r arguments, which as I haue said were common to ●s both, or had dependence thereon, and contained withall some notable fraud, or falsity. This then being my only drift, and intention in my adjoinder, ●an any man with reason blame me, or ascribe it to ●anity, that I mentioned myself now and then ●ogeather with the cardinal, having undertaken to ●nswere for us both.  
7. The like I say also for the mention I make ●therwhiles of my Supplement, as that having ●eated therein diuers things at large, which occur●ed afterwards to be touched in my adjoinder, and might haue required some large discourse, if I ●ad not handled it before) I referred the Reader of ●y adjoinder to my Supplement for those ●atters already handled therein, to avoid the need●●sse repetition thereof; besides that it appeareth eui●ently by the Printers Epistle, to the Reader, that my ●●tention was to haue had the Supplement,& the ●dioynder bound both in one volume, albeit the ●rinter altered my design because it seemed to him, ●at the volume would be over great: so as my inten●●●n being considered, it may easily be conceived how ●●perfluous, and ridiculous it would haue been 〈◇〉 haue repeated in my adjoinder those things, ●hich I made account might be easily seen in my Supplement, even in the same Volume.  
8. Now therefore judge, good Reader, what Vanity it was in me to me make mention of my Supplement, as often as I had just occasion to remit my Reader thereto for his better satisfaction, concerning those points, which I had already treated more amply therein. And consider I pray you withal both M. Collins his folly, and his fraud: his folly in that he picketh such an impertinent,& foolish quarrel against me without any ground, or cause given o● my part, his fraud in that he abuseth both me, and his Reader, in dissembling all that in my adjoinder which sufficeth to clear me of the imputation, wherewith he chargeth me. Thus much for the first point.  
9. The second is my Virulency, as he calleth it, because I speak sometimes sharply to my Lord of Winchester, retorting vpon him many contumelious speeches, which he used not only against catholics in general, but also particularly against cardinal Bellarmine, calling him liar, and dotard, and against all Popes( terming them Antichrists) yea against S. Peter himself, whom he blasphemously called caput morbidum, and vert●cem ma●è sanum) besides the notorious calumn●es and untruths which he invented, and uttered against t●e Iesuit●; all which I must needs confess moved me other whiles to some asperity of speech, to make him see how true it is which the comical Poet saith, Qui dicit quod volt, audiet quod non volt. But whatsoever passed in that kind in my adjoinder, I hope his lordship cannot take any just offence at my manner of treating him in this my reply, wherein you shall find, that I bear all due respect to his Lordship otherwise thē I did in my adjoinder, the reason whereof I think good to yield you, because I make no doubt, but that you of yourselves, will note the difference, and perhaps desire to know ●he cause.  
10. The truth is, that when I wrote my Ad●oynder, I did not know in his lordship any true title ●f Honour, or Dignity, ecclesiastical or temporal, ●hich might move me to esteem or respect him o●herwayes then as a private person; for albeit he was ●hen called Bishop of Ely, yet I could not( according ●o our catholic doctrine) aclowledge either that ●itle, or any episcopal authority in him, being no o●her, but a mere lay man, and consequently void of ●ll ecclesiastical function, and dignity, in which respect I gave him no better title thē of M. Andrews: ●ut seeing he is now advanced to the state of a privy ●ounsellour to his majesty, I do most willingly yield ●im the respect, and honour due to his place and qua●●ty; and therefore do not only forbear all vnreue●ent manner of speech, but also treat him with the ●onourable style of Lordship, as one of the Lords of ●as majesty most Honourable privy counsel. And ●hereas I call him also my Lord of Winchester, I wish it to be understood, that I do not acknowledge hi● thereby to be a Bishop( for the reason before declared but that I do it, because I will not deny to any counsellor of his majesty any honourable style, or ti●● which is commonly given him, so as it may be understood to be abstracted from all spiritual power an● authority, as I conceive this may be, and therefore I do so intend it: And this I say, notwithstandin● M. Masons pretended Register, whereby he laboureth to justify the consecration of the first pretende● Bishops in queen Elizabeths time; which hat● been so fully answered by our learned countryman M. D. Champney, that there remaineth no further doubt, or scruple concerning that matter.  
11. And now to return to M. Collins, 〈◇〉 doubt not but that considering how much he mistiketh and how severely he reprehendeth the vitulency which he would haue you conceive in me, you cann●● but imagine, that he is either a very mirror of modesty, or at least voided of all malice, and virulency, or else you must needs hold him for a very sole, t● blame that in other men, wherein he is faulty himself; for turpe est doctori &c. But truly he is so far from moderation in that kind, that he surpasseth all that ever I haue red, for railing, and scolding more like a cursed Q●eane, then a grave Doctor worthy of the chie●e chair in the Noble university of Cambridge. This may appear by the most virulent& exorbitant invectives which he maketh every where against the jesuits,& by the names which he ●uenteth for me, not contenting himself to call me ●sse, guile, fool, noddy, wretch, and such like, ●ut also false thief, Rustique, arrant clown, dog, Mastiue, cur, Lither ●ellow, Hobby-horse, Rakeshame,& Sou●erly fellow, without any other occasion, then because he cannot tell how to answer me otherwise, ●ut only by bragging, boasting, and railing vpon ●●e, as if I had committed some not able error, or ab●urdity, when he either dissembleth, or else corrupteth ●●y text in such sort, that he maketh me say what he ●●st, and then triumpheth vpon his own fraud, as if ●he salt were mine; whereof you shall see many most ●uident examples in this my Reply. But as for his re●roachfull, and reuyling speeches, I little regard thē, ●nowing from what spirit they proceed, I mean a spirit that rather deserveth to be conjured with an ●xorcisme( such as our saviour used to the tattling divell, when he said, Obmutesce,& exi de ho●ine, Marc. 1.) then to be answered in writing; ●nd therfore it is no more wonder to hear him rail, ●nd rage, then to hear a goose hiss, or a dog bark ●r to see a serpent spit his poison, or any other creature to do according to his kind. And thus much for ●he second point.  
12. The third is my Ignorance( forsooth) ●n the latin tongue, for he is loathe, as he saith, to ●earch my more hidden scholarship, and yet there was no remedy but that he must needs first h●●● a fling at my greek( though by the way of a Parenthesis only) taxing me for the word {αβγδ}, as a●●● for {αβγδ}, accepit genua, and for {αβγδ} a●qualis; but as for the first, to wit, {αβγδ}, whi●● I cited out of Homer, it was an evident error i● the print, easily committed in the change of the ta●● letters ς and φ, into ι and ψ, so as the word should 〈◇〉. And I doubt not but that the indiffere●● Reader will easily conceive, that this may well ha●● happened without any fault of mine, if he conside●● that my adjoinder was printed many hundred of miles from me; whereas M. Collins his book, being printed under his own nose, is so full of faulte● escaped in the print, that he hath corrected in a table for that purpose very near 60. besides many more, which may be noted, and are not corrected. An● whereas some of those which are there set down a●● in Latin, some in greek, and some in English. I think he would hold me to be very impertinent, if I should tax him with ignorance in any of the three tongues for any of those errors, though they were not corrected. But as for {αβγδ}, sure I am that th● words are so in Homer, Iliad. 1. and therefore I cannot guess what he blameth therein, except perhaps he be himself so ignorant, as to say, that is should be {αβγδ}, not knowing that the Poets do cast away the augment, when occasion requires. And if the Latin translation doth displease him, and that perhaps he would say, praehendit genua, and not ●ccepit genua, I grant indeed that it might be ●ayd so more elegantly, but seeing that {αβγδ} doth commonly signify accipere, it seemed to me sufficient ●o give the more literal, and common signification ●f the greek word, and not to hunt after elegancy. Lastly whereas he carpeth at {αβγδ}, or aequalis, say●ng also that Father Eudaemon joannes tripped at ●he same ston, I know not what fault he findeth ei●her in the greek or in the Latin; for if he should deny that {αβγδ}, or yet {αβγδ}; doth signify aequalis, he should and too to ignorant, and absurd; and sure I am, that he will not deny it, but will haue it to signisy so;& therefore I wonder why he saith, that it is the ston whereat we tripped, seeing that neither of us deny it, albeit we do indeed both say that it doth signify also similis, like. And if that be the petra scandali whereat we stumbled, why doth he not confute it, or at least make some mention of it? For all that he saith concerning my ignorance in this point, is this: Also, saith he, {αβγδ} for aequalis pag. 44. the very same ston that his reverent Father tripped at before. So he, wherein you see, he speaketh not a word of similis. but only of aequalis, which nevertheless both my Lord of Winchester, and he himself do take to be the true signification of {αβγδ}, and therefore they urge against us the words aequalia priuilegia, in the latin translation of the council of Chalcedon, where the greek is {αβγδ}, so as you way marvel with me, what the man meaneth here; and note also how substantially he proveth my ignorance in the greek: therefore now l●● us see what he saith to my Latin.  
13. First, saith he pag. 40. cap. 2. num. 3. because the Bishop had said, legate canone mustum, ne maiora said aequalia sint priuilegia, &c. He thus: whereas he says that the council of Chalcedon did by that Canon give to the Bi hop of Constantinople ne maiora said aequalia priuilegia &c. which though it be the reserving of the word ne in both places, yet every mean Latinist easily sees that ne should haue been turned into non in the later place, if he mean any sense should be in his sentence, as he began it, and therefore I ca● impute it to nothing but to his lack of skill in the rudiments. Thus saith M. Collins, wherein I beseech you to note, that he himself acknowledgeth that in my allegation of my Lords words, I preserve the word ne, even as my Lord hath it, though he saith it should haue been turned into non to make it good Latin is the later place where I repeat it; which objection of his would haue been of little force if he had not fraudulently ended his allegation of my text with an &c. instead of setting down my translation of my Lords words which immediately followed. For having said( as you haue seen here alleged by him) That the council of Chalcedon did give to the Bishop of Constantinople, ne maiora said aequalia per omnia priuilegia, I translated those la●●n words thus, not greater but equal priui●●dges in all things, whereby you may euident●● see, that I took ne for non, translating ne ma●●ra, not grea●er though I was scrupulous to repeat ●●y Lords words otherways then I found thē in him, ●nd therefore I preserved the word ne in both places, because my Lord hath ne& not non; for I know not ●ny such r●le of construction, or congruity to be obser●ed, betwixt Latin, and English, as might bind me 〈◇〉 alter his Latin word, when I meant to give the ●●ue sense of it, as you see I did in translating it, which 〈◇〉 I haue said M. Collins dissembled, and con●ealed, least it might help to discover the vanity of his ●euill; and therefore whereas he saith, that ne should ●ave been turned into non in the Latin to make ●●ue sense in my sentence, I remit it to thy iudgment ●ood Reader whether taking the Latin togeat●er ●ith my translation( which he concealed) the sense be ●ot both true, and clear in my sentence, and his solly ●nd fraud notorious in this his first instance; so as ●ow I may pass to the second, which you shall see to and more frivolous, and foolish then the former.  
14. He allegeth the words of my Adioyn●er out of my second Cha●ter nu. 6. pag. 42. where 〈◇〉 say thus: It is said expressly of the Church ●f Constantinople that it should be magnified& extolled as old Rome was, secundam post ●llam existentem. Thus said I, which he layeth down, and then proceedeeh in these words: This is the letter I grant, in the council of Chalcedon, but almost killing Priscian, as he sets it down, for secunda post illam existens, the Church of Constantinople( to which that refers) being Ecclesia, and not Ecclesiam, in his period,& so to be translated if it were to be put in Latin. So he. granting as you see, that I lay down truly the Latin words( to wit secundā post illam existentem) as they are in the council of Chalcedon, albeit being referred to the English which goeth before, they do not, as he supposeth, make good construction with it, and so do almost kill P●●scian. But this is much like unto the former, for whereas I had a little before alleged the whole Canon of the council in English& concluded the same with those words in Latin( which were the very words of the council, and most to be noted for the matter then in controversy) I had occasion a little after to urge the same words, and repeated them again in such sort, as M. Collins hath noted, translating them immediately thus, being the second after her, which translation being also concealed by M. Collins, as the former was, agreeth both with the Latin, which I alleged, and with the English which went before, and made the sense perfect; so as all the incongruity which M. Collins doth imagine in my words, is betwixt the Latin and the English; and therefore to make good this his conceit of error and ignorance in me, he must frame some new grammar with rules, and precepts ordaining a new ●● nd of construction( never yet heard of) to be obser●●d betwixt two diuers languages, whereof indeed I ●cknowledge myself to be ignorant.  
15. But what will you say, if he himself do ●ustify me in this, and either defend me against him ●elfe, or else condemn himself of ignorance as well ●s me? will you not take him for a very wise, and consider at doctor? In the 4. chapter of my Adionder, 〈◇〉 alleged a place of Optatus, beginning thus; Legimus principem nostrum &c. we red that Peter our prince received the whol●ome keys against the gates of hell &c. And M. Collins coming to answer this place in his 4. ●hapter. nu. 27. saith thus. Yet in the same book Optatus calls Siricius in plain terms not princeps noster, but socius noster, our fryend, ●nd fellow. Thus saith M. Collins, and now I may say to him, as you heard him say to me a little ●efore, ( mutatis mutandis) this is the let●er I grant in Optatus, but almost killing Priscian, as he sets it down; for as M. Collins exacteth of me a grammatical construction betwixt the latin and the English in t●e former sentence, so may I also, eodem jure, exact the same of him here betwixt the verb call, and the nownes princeps, and socius, which should therefore be ●n the accusative case; but if he say, that princeps, and socius, in him, must be the nominative case 〈◇〉 agree with Siricius( because he saith, that 〈◇〉 calls Siricius not princeps, but socius noster &c.) I say that Siricius being a proper name, i● English as well as latin, and therfore may pass s● in all cases, without variation, what English wor● soever doth govern it: but Princeps, and socius, being pure latin words must according to M. Collins his new grammar haue a latin construction,& therefore being governed by the verb call, they must be in the accusative case. And if he will haue Siricius in that sentence to be a pure latin word, and not english, then he should haue said by his own rule, that Optatus called Siricium, and not Syricius, so as let Syricius be what language he will( I mean English or latin) he should haue said of him, that Optatus called him, not principem nostrum, but socium nostrum. do you see now how the poor man is over taken here? for either he must clear me of the ignorance, which he imputeth to me, or else he must condemn himself as much as me, in so much that the words of the Apostle, Rom. 2. may be justly applied unto him, in quo iudicas alterum, te ipsum condemnas; eadem enim agis quae iudicas. Thou condemnest thyself in that wherein thou judgest another, for thou dost the same things which thou judgest; thus much for the second point.  
16. Thirdly he objecteth my translation of these words of S. Aug. pag. 149. componit salutem mem●rorum in capite, which I englished thus; he compounded the health of the members in the head, and in this translation, he taketh exception to the word compounded, because compounding of health, saith he, is a phrase scarce fit to be used by Apothecaryes, or their boyes, much less by Phisitians, but least of all by him that would seem to know the latin, and to english S. Augustin. So he. Whereto I answer, that whereas he undertook to show my ignorance in the latin tongue, the fault which he findeth here is only in my English, so as the question is, whether to compound health, be a good english phrase? the truth is, that I used the word compound, because it is a true english word( though derived of the latin) and doth signify the same that compono doth in latin; and forasmuch as the very latin phrase of componere salutem, is somewhat strange, and that there did not occur unto me any other proper english word to explicate the same, I thought it better to translate it so, according to the very letter( which I always do as near as I can) then to use circumlocutions, and multiplicity of words, when it may be avoided; and truly it were no great marvell, nor would give( as I hope) any great scandal to my reader, if having been out of my country above 40. yeares, I should either want now and then a proper english word, or err in some English phrase, considering the grea● mutation, and change of the English tongue since I came thence, which in dead I haue noted to be such in those few English books which I haue seen, that I do not sometimes well understand them; and none that I haue red do seem to me so extravagant for strange, and new fangled words and phrases as M. Col●ins; as for example, when he saith heer a little after, that the translators Latin is not afraid of a ●ar nycer teste; also pag. 260. thats the blindation. Likewise pag. 307, reliquations, pag. 365. circumgestation, pag. 395. inerrablenes, pag. 273. to ●renlace, pag. 156. Cicero Rhetoricates of Pompey, pag. 266. hypercriticall: and in his epistle to his majesty, intimity, and personating another, in the abstracts of his second part num. 4. mistakes of memory not sonticall. And finally to omit many other, whereas I do once in my adjoinder use the word cult pag. 388.( saying that Vigilantius took adoration for a divine cult, and worship) he saith pag. 371. that I am so cult, and so quilted in my terms &c. where you see, that cult, as I use it, is so fully explicated, with the word worship and the circumstances, that no man can doubt of the sense therof; whereas his cult, and his quilted are so obscure, that for my part, I know not what he meaneth thereby: and sure I am, that the other words also above mentioned, would not haue passed for good English in my time, howsoever they do now, ●hich I leave, good Reader, to thy iudgment. And ●is shall suffice for his third instance.  
17. His fourth is, that I haue marred my ●●rd of Winchesters latin with my addle cor●uptions, because I alleged my Lords words: ●oncludit testes suos Augustino, with the addition of cum, which my Lord hath not;& again that I allege scrutabitur jerusalem cum ●ucernis. Sophon. 1. for in lucernis, either adding to the scripture, saith he, or correcting ●he old translators latin, or both, whereof he counteth the one impious, and the other ridiculous; of all which he hath no other ground, but his own malice. For although I alleged my Lords words, and the text of Scripture, so as he saith, because I trusted to my memory, yet it is evident, that there is no corruption, nor any kind of fraud therein, nor change of the sense, or meaning, seeing that in any allegation of my Lords words, cum is but onely superfluous, and altereth nothing of the sense; neither doth it mar my Lords latin in such sort, as to make it either false, or barbarous; for albeit I grant, that it may well be said, as my Lord hath it, concludit testes suos Augustino, yet cum Augustino, is much more common, and no way to be reprehended: and whereas I haue cum lucernis, in the other text, for in lucernis, it is evident, that I keep the 〈◇〉 sense, as it may appear by the greek text of the Septuaginta, which hath {αβγδ}, cum lucerna. Therefore this would not haue seemed to M. Collins any great matter, if he were not toot● malicious, or were but half as sauourable to me, as he would ●eeme to be to S. Augustine, whom be excuseth in like case, pag. 133. for altering certain words of S. Cyprian, saying: That though he altered the words( as is soon done( saith he) in allegations of memory) yet he keeps the sense: so as to alter words in allegations of memory when the sense is kept entire seemed to him no greater matter in S. Augustine, though he holdeth the like in me, to be a heinous crime, no less then ●mpious, and a notable argument of my ignoran●e: but how much he abuseth S. Augustine with what needles excuse of him, you shall see in my fifth Ch●pter nu. 11 12.13.& 14. where I haue occasion to speak of that point.  
18. But what need I allege his favourable excuse of S. Augustine in this, when he is fain to make a serious Apology for my Lord of Winchester in like manner, saying thus. pag. 266. num. 17. The most reverend Bishop never said of himself that he could not slip in matter of memory. Si sciens fallo, is his imprecation. So Hieremy for Zachary Matth. 27.9. so diuers like. For what should I say of the Fathers quoting Scripture, as they often do, rather as it was in their memories, thē as we red it in the text? And yet no ho●est learned man, but would hold such ●apes for very venial I imagine. So he, ●ith more to the same purpose concerning the foresaid ●istake of S. Augustine, and Ciceros short me●ory touching quotations. But that which I wish to and specially noted here, that he condemneth himself 〈◇〉 be no honest learned man, seeing he doth not ●ould a scape of memory in me to be very venial ●or as he termeth it more finely in his table not ●onticall) but urgeth it potently for impiety, and a ●idiculous absurdity. And yet truly he had as much ●eed as any other, for ought I see, to pled for pardon ●n this behalf, for a notable mistake, and scape of his ●wne memory in the very same page. of his Preface within 8 or 9. lines after this, which he layeth to my ●harge, as it shall appear now presently in this next ●nstance.  
19. Thus then he proceedeth: Repraesenta●e Theodosium in liberis, is to give the children grace to be like their Father, but re●raesentare defunctum, is to supply the loss of the dead, by yielding another in his room, which S. Augustine wishes may be of the posterity. So he. Wherein first I wish ●o be noted, that I do allege this place in my adjoinder out of S. Ambrose his funeral oration made at the exequyes of Theodosius the emperor, which you see M. Collins attributeth to S. Augustine. Now then is this sonticall, or no● sonticall? venial, or mortal? if it be venial 〈◇〉 him, why is the like mortal in me? if sontical● in me, why not sonticall in him? so as you s●● his memory is no better then other mens. Secondly t● answer also to his objection in this instance, th● words of S. Ambrose, which I alleged are these Tu so●us Domine inuocandus es, tu rogandus, vt eum in filijs repraesentes, which I translated thus: Thou O Lord alone art to be invocated, thou to be prayed, that thou mayst represent him in his children; and afterward in the number following, viz 33.( which M. Collins quoteth) I do explicate the same, saying that S. Ambrose in those words, speaketh of prayer to a particular purpose, to wit, to obtain grace of God for the Emperours children, to make them like their father. And how doth M. Collins confute this? mary forsooth ●he saith, that repraesentare defunctum, is to supply the loss of the dead Theodosius, by yielding another in his room. B●● will you see his egregious foolery? for what reason or need had S. Ambrose to pray, that the children of Theodosius might succeed him, and be in his room, when his two sons Arcadius, and Honorius, were already in possession of the empire, not only then when S. Ambrose made that oration, but also before Theodosius dyed; for Arcadius had reigned together with him ten yeares, and Honorius two yeares; who also( I mean Honorius) was present at this funeral oration( as it appeareth therein,) Arcadius being gone, presen●ly vpon his fathers death, into the east partes, which were assigned, and allotted to him for his government; ●ow then is it likely that S. Ambrose would pray ●o God for that which was already performed long ●efore, and then in ure? I mean that his room might be supplied by some of his posterity? what the●●ould he mean by praying God to represent Theo●osius in his children, but only to make then like ●im in wisdom, and valour, for so indeed the loss ●f him would be as fully supplied by their virtue, as ●is room was already possessed by their personal suc●ession. And yet forsooth M. Collius concludeth against me thus: Does not this, saith he, also ●rgue him a solid Latinist? But I may say of ●im with more reason, Doth not this argue him a ●olemne fool?  
20. But what will you say if his next instance and as wise as this? mark well what he saith,& he will tell you so himsel●e. Semblable, saith he, is that cap. 1. nu. 11. where thus be construes the Bishops words, Clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius,& Augustinus, quàm vt obstrepere possint nouitij nostri: they speak it louder or clearer, then that our novices can con●radict it, whereas it should be, then that our novices can drown it, for a man may contr●dict that which is never so clearly spoken; drown 〈◇〉 or suppress it he cannot, but because he knew not 〈◇〉 other sense of the word obstrepo( as in Tully p●● Marc●llo, obstrepi videntur milirum clam●re& tubarum sono) therefore he commits th●● scepticism in translating. Thus saith this accur●● grammatical, and hipercriticall doctor, w●● you see telleth you, that this is semblable to the former:& truly you may well believe him; for he playet● the fool no less in this thē he did in the other. He telleth you of a great scepticism, which he saith 〈◇〉 haue committed in translating obstrepere, to contradict; because I knew not of another sense it hat● in Tully p●o Marcello, where it signifieth to drown, as a greater sound drowneth a less; an● to make this devise of his the more probable, he vset● a pretty slight to corrupt the text of my translation; for whereas I translate my Lords words thus: Ambrose, and Augustine do speak( or affirm) it more plainly then that ou● novices can contradict it. He hath it in a different letter( a laying down my words) that they speak it louder or clearer thē that our novices ca● contradict it; Changing the word plainly into louder& clearer, to draw the matter to a soun● that his invention of drowning it, may seem to hau● the more ground in the sentence now in question; b●● to decide this grammatical controversy I remit 〈◇〉 ●o all Dictionaryes, and to the use of that word in ●ll authors; for although it doth most properly sig●ify to make a kind of noise or rustling; yet it inclu●eth an opposition, or contradiction, as when a noise 〈◇〉 made to hinder, interrupt, or contradict some bo●y.  
21. Therfore Calepine doth explicate it in his manner, contra aliquem strepitum facio, ●bloquor, contradico. The like we red also in Thesauro Linguae latinae. Also Nizolius, ●ho professeth to give the sense of Ciceronian words, ●nd to show how Cicero useth them, giveth no o●her Sinonymum of obstrepo, but obloquor, ●hich is to speak against, or contradict;& to these 〈◇〉 may add our English Dictionaryes, whereof I haue too here; the one set forth in Oxford by rider, ●nd the other in Cambridge by Thomas Thomasius( for I haue not Cooper) but these being la●er then he, do by all likelihood, either agree with ●im, or correct him, if he haue erred) and these two ●re very consorme to the latin Dictionaryes before al●eadged. rider hath for obstiepo, to make a ●oyse, or otherwise to stir against, to trou●le, interrupt, or be against. And Thomas Thomasius, hath also the very same: so as all these ●o justify my transl●tion of obstrepere, to contra●ict. And as for the reasons which M. Collins ●ringeth to the contrary, they are indeed worthy of ●is profound wit, and skill in grammar. The first is, That a man may contradict that which i● never so clearly spoken; drown it, or suppress it he cannot. So he. But by his leave when any thing is so clear, that it cannot be impugned, or gainesayd with any show of reason, it ma● well be said, and is said commonly, that it cannot b● contradicted, supposing that it cannot be done with reason. For as the Lawyers say, hoc possumus, quod jure possumus, we may do that, which w● may do by right, and reason.  
22. moreover whereas he confirmeth his idle conceit with an example out of Tully pro Marcello( wherein obstrepi militum clamore, doth signify, as he saith, to be drowned) he sheweth himself to be a silly Grammarian; for put the case, that it should signify so there, will be therfore restrain it always to that sense: and by that example, reduce all the several significations of obstrepere, to drowning, as if it did or could signify nothing else? Then le● him tell me, whether it shall signify to drown also in Cicero, when he saith in his Epistle to Metellus vt tibi literis ostrepere non auderem, which Thomas Thomasius expoundeth to trouble with letters; but according to M. Collins, Cicero durst not drown Metellus with his Letters. Also in his third book de Oratore, speaking of some orators that were so obscure by the multitude,& confusion of strange words, that they hindered and confounded themselves, he saith, ipsi sibi quodammodo obstrepere videntur. Shall we then say that ●hose orators did drown themselves? Yea, but that will you say, if obstrepi clamore militum and expounded by an approved Author, to be cried out ●gainst which is in effect to be contradicted? Will ●ot that, trow you, suffice to make good my translati●n? So doth ●homas Thomasius expound it in his Dictionary, printed the fourth time in Cambridge, and therefore belike approved by the whole university;& if I should grant him, that ostrepe●e in my Lords sentence may be translated to drown, that should he gain thereby? Is it not clear, that the same also must needs include a gain saying, or a contradiction, as to say, that S. Ambrose, or S. Augustine do speak it louder then any contradiction shalbe able to drown it? Or that it cannot be drowned by any contradiction? Or by any man that shall contradict, or impugn it? But now take away his forgery of the word louder, which he hath foisted into my translation, instead of more plainly, there is no appearance in the world why obstrepere should signify there to drown. And how ridiculous is he to translate clariùs, louder? For who would say of those Fathers, that they speak or say any thing louder, when the same may be more properly expressed after the ordinary manner, by more clearly, more plainly, or more manifestly, as the word clariùs doth indeed import? So as his folly is no less manifest in this then his fraud. Finally if we consider as well the nature of the word obstrepere, as also my Lords scope, and drift in that sentence, it will●e evident, that it is so far from signifying to drown by any loud kind of contradiction, that it rather signifieth the quiter contrary, to wit, to contradict by way of muttering, as to say, in effect thus: Those fathers do speak or affirm it so manifestly, that none can so much as whisper, mutter, or open his mouth against it; for no doubt my lords meaning was that the matter was so clear, and manifest in S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine, that it could not admit the least contradiction in the world: and to this purpose it is to be noted, that he who added the English to the other languages in Calepine, did very well express the nature of the word obstrepere, expounding it in English to hiss, or mutter against, which is far from crying out so loud, as to drown any thing by force of voice. Thus much to his sixth instance, whereby you see how good a Grammarian he is.  
23. His seventh and last, is suitable to the former for fraud, foolery, and ignorance. But to the end you may the better understand the whole matter, I must first acquaint you with the occasion thereof which was this. cardinal Bellarmine for the proof of S. Peters supremacy over the Apostles, and the whole Church, alleged a place of S. Augustine out of his sermons de tempore, serm. 124. in these words: Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae &c. He( to wit, Christ) cureth the disease of the whole body in the very head of the Church, and con●oundeth the health of all the members, in ●pso vertice, that is to say, in the very crown, or top of the head. Thus saith S. Augustine, ●lleadged by the cardinal. To this my Lord of Winchester answered two ways; the one rejecting ●he sermon whence the place was taken, as not S. S. Augustins, because, saith he there were no ●ermons de tempore in S. Augustines time, whereof I proved the contrary at large in my adjoinder cap. 4. num. 21. 22.& 23. His other answer was, that the cardinal had produced that testimony of S. Augustine very unluckily, because it giveth us notice, saith he, of no other head but of a sickly head, nor of any other crown of a head, but of a crazed, or crakt crown. Thus said my Lord of S. Peter,& then addeth further thus: Praesertim cum eumdem morbum in capite vestro notarint diu iam medicorum filii, etsi omnes non ego, id est, plus ego quàm omnes, that is to say, especially seeing that the Phisitians children haue now a long time noted the same disease in your head, although all not I that is to say, I more then all. Thus said my Lord, which seemed to me very mystical, and so like a riddle, that I was fain to guess at his meaning, and to make diuers constructions of it, touching as well the Phisitians, as their children, and specially concerning the words etsi omnes non ego, id est, plus ego quàm omnes, of which I said thus in my adjoinder pag. 153. num. 33.  
24. But although we may guess, who were the Physitians, and their children, yet it will not be so easy to conjecture what he meaneth by etsi omnes non ego, id est, plus ego quàm omnes, although all not I, that is to say, I more then all for truly I haue shewed it to diuers, and haue not found two that agree in the interpretation of it; but the most probable seemeth to be the one of two; one is, that he alludeth to the words of S. Peter, when he said, etsi omnes scandalizati fuerint, said non ego, although all shalbe scandalised, yet not I, who nevertheless was scandalised more then they all, because he alone denied his master; which sense hath great difficulty, because it neither hath connexion with that which goeth immediately before, nor is truly appliable to the Pope( of whom M. Andrewes seemeth there to treat) but is only contumelions to S. Peter( being a taunting kind of exprobration of his fall) and therefore me thinks M. Andrewes should not admit it to be his meaning, as savouring to much of impiety. The other sense is, that it should be referred to M. Andrewes himself, and that there is some little fault in the print, I mean in the points, though not in the words, which therefore should be pointed thus, etsi omnes, non ego? And if all, not I? that is to say, of all haue noted this disease in your head, why should not I note it? Giuing to understand, that he will not yield to any of his brethren for zeal, and skill in noting the faults of Popes, but rather plus ego quàm omnes, that is to say, therein will I go beyond them all; which sense hath at least some good coherence with the precedent clause, and well befitteth, M. Andrewes his zeal to the gospel, and hatred to the Pope, and so may pass for his meaning.  
25. Thus said I in my adjoinder, making two expositions of my Lords words: the former, as you may well perceive, more serious then the later: nevertheless M. Collins maketh no mention of the former, but taketh hold of the later, because I divided etsi, into et and si, and make an interrogative at ego? Whereupon he saith thus: These are the fopperyes of this great gull,& you see how profound an vnderstander of the Latin he is, that he is fayn to point the Bishops words a new, with his senseless interrogatiues, before he can construe them or misconstrue them rather, as likewise to divide them, and clip them by turning etsi into et, and si, but lastly to devise a difference between, medici and medicorum filii, a most palpable demonstration of his unmatchable dunsery,& like the boy in the grammar school, that construed pullus equinus, a horse chicken. Thus raueth M. Collins, carping at this my construction, which any man may see I made Ironicè, and by the way of iest, to play a little vpon my Lords obscure manner of writing, wherein nothing was so clear as his blasphemy against S. Peter, which indeed moved me to treat his Lordship with less respect then otherways I would haue don, though at that time I esteemed him for no better thē D. Andrewes. But M. Collins( to the end he might the better charge me not only with ignorance in understanding the Latin, but also with falsity in changing the points, and in clipping, and dividing the words) wholly dissembleth as well my whole text, as my other more serious interpretation, whereof he maketh no mention at all, but layeth load vpon this, as if I had given it alone, and in good earnest: which putteth me in mind of what he said of me in his third Chapter pag. 146. because I reproved my Lord of Winchester for saying that carded. Bellarmin did imitate or follow jovinian, which M. Collins saith, my Lord said in iest, and therefore he calleth me a Rustique, and an arrant clown, not discerning, saith he, what is iest, and what is earnest. But if that be a true property of an arrant clown, then truly M. Collins may pass properly for one, and a kindly one, who will needs take such an evident iest( as that of mine was) for earnest and deny that of my lords to be earnest, which no man that reads it can take for a iest, but for a mere ●aunder, as may be seen in my adjoinder cap. 3. num. 22. 28.& sequent.  
26. moreover I cannot but wonder why he ●counteth it an unmatchable Dunsery in me, to make a difference betwixt medici, and medicorum filii( because I did descant a little vpon it, examining who might be the Fathers,& who the sons) for I cannot conceive, that either there can be a son without a Father, or an identity betwixt any Father& his son except in the Blessed Trinity, wherein nevertheless there is a real, and true distinction of persons, and much more in all creatures; and therfore except he can tell me of some mens sons( be they Phisitians or others) that are all one with their Fathers, he may go for an unmatchable dunce himself, to hold it for an unmatchable dunsery in me to make a difference betwixt medici, and medicorum filii, showing himself to be as wise, as the Grammar schoolboy, of whom he speaketh; for as the foolish boy took a horse colt for a horse chicken, so this silly Doctor taketh a horse and a colt for all one, and therefore if the boy had been demanded, what is pullus asininu●, he might haue said very truly, that i● signifieth M. D. Collins.  
27. But to proceed to the conclusion of this point, be censureth the relation which I make of plus ego quàm omnes, to S. Peter, as a token of my bad latin, because I do thereby understand that S. Peter was more scandalised then all the rest of the Apostles, and consequently, that I would say in Latin, plus scandalizatus, which cannot pass for currant( saith he) by the touch-stone of the more accurate Grammarians, who happily would no more say, plus scandalizatus, for more scandalised, thē plus illiteratus, for more unlearned. So he; not wholly condemning me( as it seemeth) of false latin, but of barbarism at least: nevertheless he might haue considered, if it had pleased him, that I did not use that phrase as my own, but ascribed it only to my Lord; and for as much as his Lordship was so mystical, and obscure in that sentence, that he was scant intelligible, I had no reason t● think that he did speak so accurately then, as at other times, but that it might suffice, if it were true latin though perhaps none of the best. But will M. Collins maintain it, out of his great skill in grammar, that plus scandalizatus may not pass for currant amongst the accurate Grammarians? By whom trow you, will he be content that the matter betryed? By Poets? By orators? Or by both? For my part I am content to remit it to either of both. For who knoweth not that plus is used as well by orators as by Poets for magis,& joined with verbs and participles both active, and passive? Nullum adolescentem plus amo, saith Plautus. Mer. Diligo illum plus in dies, saith Cicero ad Atticum lib. 6. Calesces plus satis, saith Terence. And that it is used with verbs passive, it is clear in Cicero ad Atticum, who saith, cave putes plus me quemquam o●uciari.  
28. Now then I would gladly know of the ●curate grammarian M. Collins what difference ●he findeth for the construction, or propriety, yea or elegancy of the phrase betwixt plus cruciari, and plus scandalizari:& if we may say plus cruciari, and plus scandalizari, why not plus cruciatus, and plus scandalizarus. And therefore Plautus in True. made no doubt to say, plus intromissus, for magis intromissus. D. Non ego saith he, nunc intro ad vos, mittor? A. qui dum? quam miles magis D. quia enim plus dedi. A. plus enim es intromissus cum dabas. So he. And I doubt not but that both Cicero, and Plautus, were as accurate Grammarians as M. Collins, and that they had the touchstone as well as he. This then being so, I hope I may also go for a Grammarian, notwithstanding these exceptions which M. Collins hath taken against my skill in grammar, whereby also it may appear, what a good grammarian, and latinist he●s, who can so little judge of latin as heer you haue seen. And to the end that the same may be yet more evident, I will acquaint you with some of his translations, whereof I haue not had occasion to speak in my reply. I omit as a trifle( thought I am sure he would not let it escape in me, without an ample,& a severe censure) that he translateth sedula for dutiful. pag. 111. in Pope Leo's epistle to the Emperour Martian in these words, Et precor,& sedula suggestione vos obsecro. I pray, and beseech you( saith he) dutifully, advising or informing, and this he translateth in this manner, to prove that Pope lo did make suite to the Emperour with acknowledgement of duty; but because he translated it truly before, saying, sedula suggestione, by diligent suggestion, I will not insist vpon it, but will let you see how well he understandeth a place of S. Augustine de civitate dei. lib. 10. cap. 1. S. Augustins words are these. Quia latinè loquendi consuetudine non solùm imperitorum, verum etiam doctissimorum,& cognationibus humanis, atque affinitatibus,& quibuscunque necessitudinibus dicitur exhibenda religio, non eo vocabulo vitatur ambiguum, cum de cultu Deitatis vertitur quaestio. &c. For as much as by the custom of speaking latin, not only of the ignoranct but also of the best learned, religion is to be exhibited both to human kindreds, and affinityes, and also to all kind of alliance, and association( by friendship, or otherways) the ambiguity is not avoyded by that word when question is made of the worship of the Deity &c. Thus saith S. Augustine, giuing to understand that the latin word Religio is equivocal, and ambiguous, signifying not only the worship of God, but also the observance, or reverent respect due to all kind of kindreds, and alliances, and to prove this, he allegeth the common use, and custom 〈◇〉 speech as well of the ignorant, and unlearned, as 〈◇〉 the best learned, who use the word in both senses: so 〈◇〉 it is to be observed here that S. Augustine ●●eaketh of the custom of the learned, and vnlear●ed.  
29. But how doth M. Collins understand 〈◇〉? Forsooth the joineth the words imperitorum ●nd doctissimorum( not to consuetudine, as S. Augustine doth, but) to affinitatibus, and ●ecessitudinibus, and saith thus pag. 369. lin. ●2. Exhibemus religionem( saith S. Augu●tine) quibuscumque, necessitudinibus, not ●nly doctissimorum, but also imperitorum. To ●ll these we perform a reverence of religion. So he; as if S. Augustine had said, or meant, that a kind of religious respect is to be had ●o the kindred, and alliances as well of the unlearned, as of the learned, which no grammar boy that could but construe latin, would haue so much mistaken, as and hath done. Besides that it is to be noted, that be ●hangeth the order of S. Augustine his words to make good his error; for whereas S. Augustine saith non solùm imperitorum, said etiam doctissimorum, he hath it, non solùm doctissimorum, said etiam imperitorum; wherein ●his difference is to be observed, that S. Augustine speaking of custom or manner of speech, had reason ●o make more account of the custom of the best learned, then of the ignorant; and therefore to pro●● that the word Religion is ambiguous, he said that not only the ignorant, but also the best learned used i● ambiguously; But as M. Collins hath placed the wor●● S. Augustine should seem to make the emphasis vpon the ignorant, as to say, that the word Religion was used ambiguously by the custom not only of the best learned, but also of the ignorant, as if the use of word●s received more authority from the custom of the ignorant then of the best learned, so as by this transposition of the words, M. Collins hath m●●e S. Augustine speak absurdly. again if we take the words impe●itorum, and doctissimorum as they lie in S. Augustine, and apply them to ●ffi●itatibus as M. colyns doth, no less absurdity will follow; for so S. Austine shall seem to haue conceived that his reader might doubt whether the affinity of the best learned were to be respected, as well as the affinity of the ignorant, and that therefore to res lieu that doubt S. Augustine said that a reverend respect was to be had to the affinity not only of the ignorant, but also of the best learned; which would haue been a very idle speech, and most unworthy of S. Augustine; for no man that reverenceth affinity in the ignorant, would doubt whether it were to be respected also in the most learned; so as the very absurdity in the sense might haue moved M. Collins to suspect his construction of the words, if he had not been as witless in understanding S. Augustines meaning, as ignorant in construing his ●atyn.  
30. The like ignorance, but with more fraud, and sheweth in correcting a translation of mine in his 〈◇〉. chapter. nu. 33. The place which I translated was of S. Augustine in his book de cura pro mortuis cap. 4.( concerning the good which the dead may receive by the care of their friends to bury their bodies near to the monuments of Saints) which I laid down in my adjoinder pag. 301. in these words. said cum talia vivorum solatia requiruntur &c. but when such comforts of the living are sought, whereby they may show their pious mind or affection towards their friends, I do not see what help the dead may receive thereby, but only this, that whiles the living do remember where the bodies of their frynds are laid, eisdem illis tamquam patronis susceptos apud Dominum adiwandos commendent, they may recommend them to the same( saints) as to their patrons, who haue received them into their protection, to be helped with God, which truly they might do, although they could not bury them in such places.  
31. Thus far I translated, and cited S. Augustines words: which M. Collins censureth thus. pag. 283. By the way, saith he, you construe apud dominum adiwandos co●mendent, they may commend them to b● holpen with almighty God, as if, apud dominum depended of adiwandos, and not o● commendent; with such pretty bosles of exquisite learning it your work embellishe● that writ against bishops. So he, showing therein his own gross ignorance, and notorious wa●● of wit, which will be most evident, if we consider the latin words laid down by me in my translation, w●ereof he doth fraudulently dissemble some part. The words are these: E●sdem illis aquam patronis susceptos apud dominum adiwandos commendent; in which words I desire to be noted, eisdem illis, as being in true grammatical construction the dative case, and necessary to be governed by commendent; so as the sense must needs be, that they may recommend them to the same saints, as to their Patrons &c. which being so, I would gladly know of this accurate Grammarian M. Collins, how apud dominum can depend on commendent, to make good sense and construction? will he say, that commendent shall govern both apud dominum, and eisdem sanctis how then shall we construe it? must we say, that they may commend them to God to the same saints? or to the same saints to God? then what construction or sense is there in the sentence? but perhaps he will say, that it must be construed, that they may commend them to ●he same Saints with God; if he say so, then ●pud Dominum doth depend rather vpon eisdem ●anctis, then vpon commendent, or rather it ●ependeth vpon some words to be understood, as ●ui sunt, or the like, As to say, that they may ●ommend them to the same Saints, qui sunt ●pud Dominum, which are with God: whereby it ●ppeareth that apud Dominum, can no way de●end vpon commendent, as M. Collins would ●ave it to do; whereas making it to depend on aduuandos, and that eisdem Sanctis be governed ●y commendent, the sense is clear, and the con●truction very good; for so it will be( as I translated it ●efore) that they may commend them to the ●ame Saints, as to their patrons, into whose protection they were received; adiwandos a●ud Dominum, to be helped with God. Can a●y thing be more clear then this? And yet you see ●he silly fellow triumpheth, as if he had utterly confoun●ed me with this instance; and therfore as he saith of and, that with such bosses of exquisite learning my wo●k is embellished that writ against Bishops, so I may say more truly of him that with such botches of gross ignorance his work it patched that writes against Iesu●ts. And yet forsooth this is the man who as M. Io●eph Hall his fellow doctor affirmeth ( Mulus ●ulum) is one of the prime ornaments of Cambridge, whose learning, saith he, wit, judgement, eloquence the world knoweth, whose works do praise him enough in the gate, from whose learned hand there never fell any thing without applause: an● finally he appealeth to al the Tribunals of learning, whether all douai haue yielded ought comparable to this mans pen; but how little honour, or rather how great injury he doth to the university of Cambridge, in making such a● ignorant fellow the prime Ornament therof, I lea●● it to the iudgement of the discreet Reader.  
32 Well then, you haue now seen how well he hath proved his imputation of my ignorance, 〈◇〉 rather how ignorant& childish he hath shewed himself even in the latin tongue, albeit there is nothing more frequent in him, then to call in question my latinity as if he were Lord of the Latin language, and th●t I could haue no greater part therof then it should please him to afford me: when nevertheless I may boldly say, that although I do not take vpon me more skill in the latin then ordinary, yet I could both speak and writ true Latin before he was born, and do n●● yet need, as I hope, to beg, or borrow any of him, for ought I see either here or in his latin book written against Father Eudaemon joannes, which i● nothing el, but a very rhapsody, as I may say, of oul● rusty, and barbarous words, and uncouth phrases, whereby his style is so obscure, and harsh that no man can red it with patience, much less with pleasure, and delight: in so much that it may justly be said of him, at S. jerome said of jovinian the here●ike, Non est contentus nostro, id est huma●o, more loqui: altiùs quidam aggreditur, parturiunt montes, nascelur ridiculus mus, quod ipse non sani esse hoins, non sa●ius iuret Orestes. Thus much concerning his third objection.  
33. There resteth now the fourth, and last of his objections, to wit my circumstance( as he termeth it) which if he did not himself explicate, it would I think pose the Reader to guess what he meant by it. Thus then he saith: Come we now to the fourth, which is his tediousness, and his talketiuenes, in very truth insupportable, I mean his lazy, heavy, and dull repetitions of the self same thing often. So and. And what repetitions think you are these, which are so odious, and insup●ortable? mary forsooth, they are the recapitulations of my Lord of Winchesters errors, oversights, falsities, and absurdities, which I do sometimes vpon occasion repeat, remitting the Reader to the places where I had before treated thereof:& the like I do with M. Collins in this my Reply, which as it seemeth will displease him highly, and put him into a pelting chafe, for he doth no more love to hear of his faults, then the dog to see the whip, or the scolding quean the cucking-stole, or the thief the gallows, but he must haue patience; for I must by his leave, be so bold, as to put the Reader in mind of them now and then, to the end he may remember them the better, and know M. Collins for a most fraudulent, and cogging companion. And this I hope may suffice for answer to his four objections against myself.  
34. here then, thou hast seen, good Reader, that the calumnious cavils of my adversary( which haue obliged me to the just defence of myself) haue already drawn me almost beyond the bounds of a Preface; and if I should proceed to discover the rest of his impertinent fooleries, this would become a treatise, rather then a Preface; and therfore I will now draw to an end, and will only say somewhat briefly to a frivolous imputation of corrupting the Fathers, wherewith he chargeth me, giuing two examples thereof: the one concerning a place of S. Augustin, which I haue answered fully in the second Chapter of my Reply, num. 37.(& therfore I omit to speak of it here) the other is touching a place of S. Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae, out of whome I alleged in my adjoinder pag. 101. these words: To show a unity, he ordained one chair: and a little after, the Primacy is given to Peter, that one Church of Christ, and one chair may be shewed. Now M. Collins saith of this my allegation thus: In Cyprians words there is no mention of chair, one, or more. The words are only these, vt unitatem manifesta●et, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem ●ua authoritate disposuit, and yet professing to English them, he couches very handsomely ●n the very hart of them, I know not what ●bout the appointing of one chair. Thus ●ayth M. Collins, accusing me as you see, to haue ●dded those words to the text of S. Cyprian,& ●et after a few lines, the silly fellow saith enough to ●eare me of this accusation, confessing that I follow ●amelius in his edition of S. Cyprian, according ●o a copy which he found in Cambron, whereof he ●aith thus. As for the Cābron copy,& Pamelius ●he finder, they are to light of credit to out●ace so many, so ancient, and so vncontro●able. Shal the Bishop be censured for allea●ing that which all haue save one( and yet ●o justly suspected as savouring of Sixtus Quintus poisoned salad)& shall not this be ●alled forgery, to cleave to one so abortive, ●nd new fangled, and forsake the rest? So and. wherein you see he confesseth that I haue the edi●●on of Pamelius for me, and that Pamelius fol●wed a copy which he found in the Abbey of Cam●ron; so as if there were no more to be said in my ●●fence but this, it might suffice to clear me from ●rruption, and forgery, seeing that I follow an editi● received, and publicly bought and sold throgh●●t christendom.   


against the veneration, reservation, digging up;& carrying about of holy relics is throghly examined, and his incredible impudence, fraud, and falseho●● therein discovered by the manifest abuse of S. Ambrose, Sozomen, Theodoret, S. Chrysostome, Optatus, S. Gregory the great, S. Gregory of Towers, Origen, Victor uticensis, and S. jerome. pag. 419.  
Chap XII. My Lord of Winchester being charged in the adjoinder with inexcusable falsity in the manifest abuse of S. Augustine, is abandoned by his Champion M. Collins; in whom also 3. notable frauds are discovered touching one sentence of the same holy Father; and that he hath shamefully ●clyed and Bellarmine. Lastly the veneration& ●anslation of holy relics and the custom to carry ●●●m in procession is clearly proved out of S. Augu●●ine. pag. 504.  
The Conclusion to the university of Cambridge. pag. 539.  
An Appendix touching a place of S. Ephraem alleged by my Lord of Winchester, against prayer to Saints, debated with M. Collins in the 7. ●hap. num. 50.& sequent. pag. 545.    

A Declaration of the first point to be debated. M. Collins his gross or rather malicious construction of gerere personam. His notorious want of memory, wit,& conscience. CHAP. I.  
THE first point that I mean to debate with M. D. Collins shal be the very first of my adjoinder, concerning the Primacy of S. Peter, which is also the first of the three controversies, which he promiseth in the title of his book to discuss. And I doubt not but to make the catholic Verity in this point so evident,& by the way to discover so many absurdities, lies, fraudes,& falsities of his, that my Obmutesce shal ●ave no less effect with him, to put him to silence, thē his Epphata hath had with me, to make me speak, when I was, and meant t● be, silent. Now then to come to the matte● Whereas my Lord of Winchester affirmed, that S. Peter had no peculiar increase of authority given him by the words of our saviour, Pasce oves meas, and for proof thereof alleged S. Augustine thus: cum Petro dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, pasce oves meas: when it was said to Peter, it was said to all, feed my sheep; I charged his Lordship with a lame and fraudulent allegation of S. Augustines text in these words, pag. 4. num 3.  
2. To the end thou mayst( good Reader) see& note with what fidelity,& conscience this man allegeth the Fathers, I will lay down the place of S. Augustine more amply then he hath done, whereby thou shalt discover his notable fraud. S. Augustine in the place alleged saith thus: Non enim sine causa inter omnes Apostolos &c. For not without cause doth Peter sustain the person of the catholic Church amongst all the Apostles; for to this Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given, when they were given to Peter: and when it is said to him, dost thou love me, feed my sheep, it is said to all; and therefore the catholic Church ought willingly to pardon her children when they are corrected, and strengthened in piety, seeing we see that to S. Peter himself bearing the person of the Church, pardon was granted, both when he had doubted vpon the ●●a, and when he had thrice denied his master ●c. Thus saith S. Augustine, declaring that ●●sceoues( which our saviour said to S. Peter) was said to all the Church, because S. Peter 〈◇〉 are the person of the Church, which he did ●y reason of the supreme authority that he ●ad over the Church; or else why should ●ather he, then others of the Apostles be said ●o represent the whole Church, but because and was head or supreme governor therof? which we may learn even in Cicero, who ●ayth, that, Est proprium munus magistratus &c. It 〈◇〉 the proper office, or duty, of the magistrate to vn●erstand that be beareth the person of the city. So he, speaking of the chief, or suprem magistrate.  
3. Whereby it appeareth, that whatsoever is given to the King, as King, and ●ead of the Commonwealth, the same is gi●en to the commonwealth whereof he bea●eth, and representeth the person: and so in ●ike manner what was given to S. Peter as ●ead of the Church, the same was given to ●he Church which he representeth. For which cause also S. Cyprian saith, that Ec●lesia est in Episcopo, the Church is in the bishop; and the reason is, because the bishop is head of the Church:& as this is true ●n every particular Bishop, in respect of the particular Church, which he governeth; 〈◇〉 also it is most truly verified in the supreme, and universal pastor, in respect of the whole Church, whereof he his head. Thus far I, in my adjoinder; whereunto I added three places of S. Augustine to the same purpose, which I will lay down hereafter with M. Collins his answer, when I shall haue first said somewhat to his answer to this. wherein I must desire thee ( good Reader) to note two things very remarkable in this very first encounter, that thou mayst the better discover his impe●tinent, and fraudulent dealing in the rest.  
4. First then, thou shalt understand that in answer of this which I haue laid down, and of those three places of S. Augustine, before mentioned he spendeth at least 40. pages, and through his whole discourse doth wilfully, and witting pervert the sense of my words. For whereas I allege out of S. Augustine, that S. Peter bare the person of the Church, and do expound the same, that he represented the Church, giuing also the reason therof, viz. because he was head, and supreme governor of the Church; M. Collins dissembleth wholly what I say about the representation of the Church, and maketh me to understand gerere personam Ecclesiae, to signify regere Ecclesiam, to govern the Church; ●heras I make the one to be but a consequent the other, viz that he representeth the church, because he was head of it. To this purpose therefore M. Collins saith, that with and, to bear the person of the Church, importeth as ●uch as to be endued with suprem authority over the church. And again pag. 4. that I expound the ●earing of the person, by Tullius office, to beno o●er, thē to be made supreme Magistrate; and after ●gayne pag. 7. he saith thus. I affirm, saith he, ●at gerere personam, is to resemble the Church, or to and for the Church not to be made chief Magistrate 〈◇〉 the Church, as you would face vs. And pag. 16. ha●ing said out of S Augustine, that Petrus infir●os Ecclesiae significat, he addeth, is this also to be cō●rued by Tullius office, or government? or doth not 〈◇〉. Augustine speak yet significantly enough, without and turn the Iesuites dictionary? And after again ●ag. 17. he saith that, gerere personam, must be ●●nstrued as S. Augustine doth, by figurare,& sig●ificare, and not by regere, a word not once used by S. Augustine in that sense. And lastly to omit di●erse other places to the same purpose, he ●ayth, that I think gerebat personam, to be as ●uch, as tenebat regimen, pag. 20 num. 17.  
5. I haue alleged all this out of so many different pages of his, that you may see ●ow idly he iangleth all this while, fighting with his own shadow whiles he ●●loweth his own false sense, and misco●struction of my words, by the which it evident, that I understand gerere personam E●clesiae, in S. Augustine, no other way then 〈◇〉 represent or signify the Church; albeit I a●● withall the reason thereof; making the one as I haue said, a consequent of the other, viz because he was head thereof: and not confounding them as he would make his read believe, to frame matter for himself to impugn, as you shall further see after a whil● when I shall haue represented unto you 〈◇〉 ridiculous grammatical conceit of his, together with his bad memory and wor● lucke about the phrase gerere personam. Thu● then he saith pag. 5. num. 5.  
6. In Tully it is gerere, in Saint Augustine gestare personam Ecclesiae. Is there no difference, think you, between these two? What, if 〈◇〉 be of things figurative, another of things essential? 〈◇〉 you blame me as too critical for distinguishing b●tweene gerere, and gestare; gerimus magistr●tum, gestamus vestem, either Scenicam, 〈◇〉 some other, gestamus& personam. I mean 〈◇〉 now personam in S. Augustines sense, least 〈◇〉 Peter be further of his supremacy, then you are 〈◇〉 ware. And though Augustine in some place may s● gerere personam, even of Peter in this case, y● neither in that place which you now allege de ago● Christiano cap. 30. for one gerebat, you shall and five gestabats in S. Augustine. I believe ge●re, portare, sustinere, figurate, all these, ●ay remember gerere, though I deny not, yet it ●nes so seldom, as I may truly say, I scarce remember. 〈◇〉 far he.  
7. Wherein you may note what a nice ●fference this man hath made here bet●eene gerere and gestare, only to show his skill 〈◇〉 grammar, for I cannot tell to what other ●●rpose it may serve: for albeit in alleging Augustines words in that place I haue gerere ●●steed of gestare, yet is it evident that the sense all one,& that I take it in no other sense, ●●en M. Collins himself doth; which is to present, or figure the Church. But in that ●hich followeth in him concerning how ●ft gestabat, and gerebat may be found in S. ●ugustine, thou mayst note( good reader) that is belief is no better then his memory,& ●oth very bad. For whereas he saith he belie●eth, that for one gerebat, we shall haue five ●●stabats( of the which nevertheless he allead●eth but two) I do not believe, but know, ●nd can show him, at least, six gerebats for ●is two gestabats, as, if his memory had been ●ught worth, he might haue partly remem●red in that which he both saw alleged by me, and alleged also afterwards hi● self, and partly might haue noted in oth●● places or S. Augustine, if he had red him so ●●ligently as he would seem to haue done.  
8. For first he saw alleged by 〈◇〉 pag. 5. num. 5. these words. Cuius Ecclesiae P●trus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum ger●bat figurata generalitate personam. Which word he also allegeth himself afterwards pag. 20. num. 17. besides that he produceth another place out of S. Augustine pag. 13. in these words: Cuius populi diximus Iudam in figura gess●sse personam, sicut Ecclesiae gessit Apostolus Petru●, where you see gerere personam is twice, which he could not haue forgot, if he had but a● much memory as a goose, seeing he alleged it himself: whereunto I add, that S. A●gustine in his exposition vpon S. Iohns gospel tract. 118. having alleged these words o● our saviour, Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, addeth, Et hoc cum omnibus tanquam personam gere●● ipsius unitatis accepit; and again vpon the 30 psalm concione 2. he saith. Hoc agit Ecclesiae, c●ius personam gerebat Petrus, quando ei de caelo submiss●● est discus. Lastly in his treatise de Baptismo co●●● Donatistas lib. 3. c. 18. he faith, that the apostles personam gerebant Ecclesiae, when Christ said unto them accipite Spiritum Sanctum; and I doubt not but if I would haue taken the pains 〈◇〉 search for more gerebats, I might haue found ●ore, for these occurred to me by chance, ●arching for somewhat else, and vpon other ●ccasions. Therefore I leave it, good Reader, ●o thy consideration, what credit this man ●eserues, when he pawneth either his beiefe, or his memory, seeing both are so bad ●s you see. whereof I may add yet this further proof, that he himself pag. 30. calleth ●erere personam, the wonted phrase of S. Augustine, ●aying that in the 20. cap. of that book ( viz. de ●●gone Christiano) S. Augustine sufficiently shows what he means by his wonted phrase of gerere personam. So as you see how weak not only his belief and memory is, but also his wit, seeing he so contradicteth himself, as to affirm that gerere personam is so seldom in S. Austine, that he scarce remembreth it,& nevertheless allegeth it himself thrice,& calleth it afterwards his wonted phrase; therfore were it not better for him to be dumb, thē to talk so idly?  
9. But now to proceed with the rest of my text concerning this matter; having said in my adjoinder, that S. Augustine affirmed, that S. Peter bare the person of the Church( that is to say represented the same) because he was head of it; I proceeded to the further proof thereof thus. That this was S. August. meaning it is evident by his own doctrine in other places, where he sheweth plainly tha● S. Peter bare the figure or person of the church in respect of his primacy, Cuius Ecclesiae( sayt● he) Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui prima●●● gerebat figurata generalitate personam &c. Of which Church Peter in respect of the primacy of his Apostleship did bear the person figuring, or representing the generality therof; for if we respect what did belong properly to himself, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian,& by a more abundant grace Vnus, idemque primus Apostolus; one and he the chief Apostle: but it was said unto him Tibi dabo claves &c. I will give thee the keys, he signified, the universal Church. Thus saith S. Augustine, teaching evidently that S. Peter bare the person of the Church by reason of the primacy of his Apostleship, that is to say, because he was the chief Apostle, which the same holy Father signifieth more plainly in another place, saying: Cuius Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personam propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit: of which Church he is acknowledged to haue born the person, for the primacy which he had amongst the disciples. And to the same purpose he saith also elsewhere, Petrus à petra cognominatus &c. Peter taking his name from the rock, was happy bearing the figure of the Church, having the principality of the Apostleship. Lo then for what cause S. Augustine saith, that when Christ ●ave to S. Peter the keys of heaven, and Pa●●orall authority to feed his sheep, he gave ●●e same to all the Church, viz. because S. ●eter having the principality or primacy of ●he apostolical dignity, and being conse●uently chief pastor,& head of the Church, ●id bear,& represent the person or figure of ●he whole Church. So that you see the place which M. Andrewes bring●th out of S. Augu●tine against the primacy of S. Peter, maketh ●otably for it, if it be considered with the ●ircumstances thereof, which he cunningly, ●nd craftily concealed.  
10. Thus far the adjoinder, wherein I wish to be noted, first how evident it is that I do by these 3. places of S. Augustine confirm the sense I formerly gave of gerere personam Ecclesiae, to be no other but to represent, or signify the Church as a figure; and therefore in the introduction to the said places, I say that S. Augustine sheweth plainly in other places that S. Peter bare the person, or figure of the Church. To which purpose I allege S. Augustines words thus. Whereof( that is to say of which Church) S. Peter did bear the person, figuring, or representing the generality therof. And in the 3. place thus: That he did bear the figure of the Church. And afterwards in the conclusion of the whol● discourse, I expound to bear by represent and person by figure, saying that S. Peter di● bear, and represent the person, or figure o● the whole Church. Now then can any thing be more c●●are, then that I do not take gerere personam Ecclesiae, to signify regere Ecclesiam, to govern the Church? What meaneth then this poor man to trouble himself so much as he ●oth to find out, and allege diuers other places in S Augustine, where he teacheth that S. Peter did signi●y the Church, and bear the figure of the Church as though I denied it, when I did show and prove it expressly by S. Augustine? Nay what conscience hath he to charge, me as he doth, with quoting this place, and these words of S. Augustine against the light of Conscience?  
11. For thus he saith to me pag. 9. lin 7. But for quoting of places against the light of Conscience, was ther ever any wretch so taken {αβγδ}, so 〈◇〉 the very manner, as you are in the construction of gerere personam, which S. Augustine expounds by gestare figuram, or portare figuram? You would fain extend to boundless jurisdiction; and if gerere, and gestare were granted to be all one, is there 〈◇〉 difference between figura, and persona, as persona is put for maiestas reip? Will you put figura in that sense too? So he. As if I did take persona for the majesty of the common wealth, and not ●r a figure of it, as I do expressly. Who then the wretch that quoteth places, and parti●lerly this against the light of Conscience? ●or he? nevertheless I would not haue him ●inke that when I do expound persona by fi●ra( as S. Augustine doth) I do deny, that he ●ho doth bear the person,& figure of the ●mmon wealth doth also represent the ma●sty of it; for he that representeth the whose ●mmon wealth representeth al that is in it, ●r properly belongeth unto it, be it majesty, ●uthority, jurisdiction, prerogatives, priui●dges, or what else soever is properly the common wealths, the same being al virtually in ●●e governor, and derived from him, to e●ery member of the common wealth, according to their several functions, and offices; ●hich shal be further treated and explicated hereafter cap. 2. num. 7.& 8. Item. cap 4. num. 〈◇〉& 10. And in the mean time S. Augustine ●oth signify this sufficiently, when he saith that S. Peter bare the person of the Church ●●opter primatum quem in discipulis habuit: in respect 〈◇〉 the primacy which he had amongst the disciples, as ●ppeareth in the 3. places alleged out of ●im before, which therfore we will now consider how M. Collins answereth.  
12. For albeit I resolved at the first to answer him as I may say in gross, that to say, to discover only some such notab●● frauds, and extravagant follies, as might s●ffice to show how unworthy he is of a mo●● large, and particular answer; yet considering that for the clearing of this controue●sy, concerning S. Peters primacy, it importe●● very much to take from our aduersaries the● ordinary evasion to make the Apostles equ●● compartners with S. Peter of the authority 〈◇〉 the keys, and Commission to feed Christe● sheep; and seeing that M. Collins in this hi● defence of my Lord of Ely laboureth tooth 〈◇〉 nail( employing all that little wit,& poor● talent that he hath) to prove that S. Augusti●● for this point is wholly theirs( to which purpose he is so copious,& prodigal in the allegation of him, that sometimes he citeth almost whole pags out of him to no purpose insulting against me, and charging me also otherwhiles with the scant, and lame allegation of him) I will therefore take a little pains to trace his footsteps for some pages and to examine all that he bringeth out of S. Augustine( of any moment) in answer of the places alleged by me, or to fortify my Lord of Elyes doctrine touching this point. And this I will do the rather, because I shall thereby discover so much trumpery, and treachery in him, as may suffice, not only to ●tify my own allegations of S. Augustine 〈◇〉 this matter, and to show how weak,& ●y a champion my Lord of Ely hath chosen 〈◇〉 defend his cause; but also to make it eui●nt to the reader what a world of absurdi●es, falsities, and follies would be found in ●m if I would take the pains to examine, ●d answer every thing in particular, ●roughout his idle, and worthless work, ●hich is nothing else but a very pack, and ●dell of fraud, and folly; as I doubt not ●t it shall evidently appear by that which ●lloweth.   

M. Collins his answer to a place of S. Augustine,& his 6. notes vpon the same are examined, and confuted. And by the way his notable folly, fraud, contradictions, and shameful abuse as well of S. Augustine& Origen, as of his adversary, is discovered. CHAP. II.  
THE first of the 3. places which he undertaketh to answer is the second in my Adioinder, cited by me out of S. Augustine his Commentary vpon the 108. psalm briefly thus. Cuius Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personam &c. Of which Church he( Peter) is acknowl●dged to haue born the person, for the primacy which he had amongst the disciples. Now M. Collins to g ue me a great blow( as he pretendeth) and t●●●●●ore the place vpon me, citeth it pag. 10. num 7. much more largely thus. Sicut quaedam dicuntur quae ad Apostolum Petrum propriè pertinere videntur &c. As some things are laid, which may seem properly to belong to the Apostle Peter, and yet haue no clear sense, but when they are referred to the Church, whereof he is known to haue represented the person figuratively, for the chiefdome that he had among the disciples( as that is for one; To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and if there be any like:) So Iudas sustaynes after a manner the person of the Iewes, Christes enemies, who both then hated Christ &c. This far M. Collins allegeth S. Augustine, and then saith thus. here is somewhat that you catch at, but more that wee may retort vpon you; you catch very greedily at propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit, which we never doubted, but S. Peter had a place of some priority in the qui●e apostolic, and it may be, for that our saviour the rather choose him to represent his Church, more zealous then the rest, more ancient then the rest, whether to figure the faith or the eternity of the Church, thone in this world, tother in the next, and for what endowments else you can devise: for some no doubt; and if it be secret, is it therefore none? Will you call Christ to account for every thing, and unless we can answer for him, will you condemn him? So he; trifling as you see above measure.  
2. For what answereth he here to any purpose to the place of S. Augustine, otherways then either to deny his assertion, or else to doubt of the verity of it; for whereas the Father affirmeth that S. Peter represented the Church propter primatum, for his primacy, or by reason of his primacy; M. Collins granting that he had some priority in the apostolic quiter, addeth, that it may be for that our saviour the rather choose him to represent his Church; so as it may be also he did not; and that S. Augustine was deceived; and that there might be ●ome other causes of it, namely those, which M. Collins hath drawn out of the depth of his profound brain; to wit, because S. Peter ●as more zealous,& more ancient then the rest &c. or for what endowments el● of his the reader can devise: yea he maketh no doubt but that there was some cause though perhaps it was so secret that we cannot searc● into it, except we call Christ to account, ●ea and condemn him for it. And therfore having also given afterwards another reason, or cause why S. Peter was chosen to represent the Church( to wit to figure unity) he addeth that perhaps it was the secret of our saviours breast; and then concludeth, and are you so little acquainted with the liberty of Gods actions, or reserve you nothing for our knowledge in the world to come? This to your objection. So he: wherein you see what small account he maketh of the authority of that famous Doctor,& most learned Father, seing that notwithstanding the reason which he yieldeth, this poor pedantical Doctor holdeth it to be so uncertain, that it may be doubted whether the true reason therof will ever be known in this world; but for as much as he laboureth afterwards to shape us a better answer by way of certain remarkable notes which he recommendeth to his reader to be considered, I will take a little pains to examine them, not doubting but to discover withall as well his folly, as his fraud,& impudence in alleging, glozing,& expounding the Fathers.  
3. Now then he maketh vpon the aforesaid place six notes, which I will lay down in his own words, and answer as briefly as conveniently I may. His first note is this, pag. 12. num. 8. Now mark, saith he, what we gather out of S. Augustines text. First some things there are seeming to belong to Peter, which can make no clear sense, but when they are construed of the Church. This is flat against you, that would haue Peter such a figure of the Church forsooth as yet to occuppy a certain place of his own,& what is g●uen to Peter should be given to the Church, and what to the Church, the same to Peter. But some things says S. Augustine, are said to Peter, which can haue no pregnant construction, but of the Church. So he. Wherein you see, he mentioneth, and taxeth as an error, that we would haue Peter so to represent the Church, as to occupy a certain place of his own, and that what should be given to him, or to the Church, should be given as well to thone, as to tother. This I say he taxeth as an error, and would persuade his reader that it is confuted by this text of S. Augustin, whom he affirmeth to teach, that some things are said to Peter, which haue no pregnant construction, but of the Church: which last words, but of the Church, he hath put in a different letter, as S. Augustines, whereas they are but his own falsification thereof, excluding thereby S. Peter, wholly from al participation of the promise of the keys, which S. Austine neither saith, nor meaneth, except we will also haue him to exclude all the Apostles from receiving the holy Ghost, and the power to retain, and remit sins.  
4. To this purpose it is to be understood that S. Augustine lib. 3. de baptis. cap. 18. ●ayth of all the Apostles, that( when our saviour said unto them, Accipi●e Spiritum sanc●um &c. receive the holy Ghost, whose sins you forgive they shalbe forgiven &c.) gerebant personam Ec●lesiae: They bare the person of the Church. That is ●o say, they represented, and figured the Church, and consequently( according to S. Augustines doctrine) received the holy Ghost, ●nd the power to retain, and remit sins ●or the Church. Will now M. Collins say, that they received not this power for themselves, but only for the Church? or that our saviours words can haue no pregnant, or clear construction but of the Church? I think he will not be so absurd,& yet if he maintain his gloss vpon S. Augustine touching S. Peter he must say so; for S. Augustine said of S. Peter, that which you haue heard for no other reason, but because S. Peter bare the person of the Church, and therefore the like is to be said of all the Apostles, seeing that they also in receiving the power to remit sins, bare the person of the Church. So as if M. Collins will deny the power of the keys to S. Peters own person,& allow it only to the Church, because he represented the Church, the same must needs follow concerning the rest of the Apostles for the same reason. lo then, how M. Collins bestirreth himself,& layeth about him ●ike a mad man( light where it will) striking all the Apostles at one blow instead of S Peter; and no marvel, seeing you shal see him anon as bold with our saviour himsel●e, cap. 3. num. 7. 8.& 9.  
5. But now I am sure he will ask me here, whether all the Apostles did bear the person of the Church propter primatum, for the primacy? And if it were so, where then was S. Peters primacy above the rest? To answer to this, he is to understand, that albeit every one that representeth a city, Commonwealth or kingdom, is not necessary governor thereof( as shalbe declared hereafter more at large cap 3. num 9.) yet the same may be well granted of the Apostles without any derogation to S. Peters primacy. For there is no doubt, but that they were all of them gouernours of the Church, and consequently did represent it, and therefore received the power to remit sins for the Church, yet without prejudice to the primacy of thei● superior, who did bear the person of the church in a more eminent manner, as being head not only of the rest of the Church, but also of the Apostles themselves; which S. Augustine signifieth plainly enough, even in this place now in question, where he saith, that S. Peter bare the person of the Church propter primatum quem in discipulis habu●t; for the primacy which he had amongst the disciples. And in his book de Baptismo contra Donatistas, lib. 2. cap. 1. he saith of S. Peter, that in him primatus Apostolorum praeeminet excellenti gratia: The primacy of the apostles is praeeminent with an excellent grace And therefore as they rep●esented the Church for the power, and domination which they had over it, so did he represent the same much more eminently for the primacy which he had as well over them, as over the rest of the Church.  
6. But for as much as S Augustines meaning in the place now in question betwixt M. Collins and me, may best be understood by the circumstances therof, and especially by the drift, and end which he had therein, it is to be considered that S. Augustine expounding the 108. psalm, which was a prophesy, or prediction of the malice of the Iewes against our saviour Christ(& especially of the traitor Iudas) applied it to the wicked generation of the Iewes; I mean that he applied to them, not only that which was evidently spoken of them in that psalm, but also that which was properly, and expressly said of Iudas himself, as namely that verse; Fi●nt dies eius pauci,& episcopatum eius accipiet alter: Let his dayes be but sew& let another take his bishopric( which words of the psalm are interpnted in the Acts of the Apostles expressly of Iudas) so that S. Austine to show the probability of this his ●x●o●● son confirmed it by the like interpretation made elsewhere by himself of certain speach●s addressed to S. Peter, which albeit they m●● seem to belong properly to him( that is to sa● to be so proper to him as not to haue a●y further relation to any other,) yet they cannot haue, saith S. Aug. their clear sense, but when they are referred to the Church, whereof he is acknowledged to haue born the person in a figure, by reason of the primacy which he had amongst the disciples. And this S. Augustine exemplifieth by, Tibi dabo claves regnicalorum. Which words being spoken by our saviour to S. Peter himself expressly, and directly, it were absurd to think that S. Augustine would not haue them to be understood at all of him, but only of the Church, as M. Collins doth interpret him.  
7. To this purpose it is to be noted that S. Augustine saith not, that they can haue no clear construction, but of the Church, as M. Colli●s falsely affirmeth, but that they haue not a clear sense but when they are referred to the Church, signifying only thereby that albeit they were spoken to S. Peter, and meant of him, yet they had a further relation then to him alone, to wit to the Church, of which he represented the person in respect of his primacy; for albeit a thing be properly spoken of a man, yet it may haue a further relation to some other man, or to something else, without prejudice to the propriety thereof; and to make this clear in this case, it is to be understood that S. Peter did bear here two persons, thone true, and proper, which was his own natural person, and tother figurative, which was the person of the Church( whereof he was head,)& therefore these words which were spoken directly to him were spoken with respect to both, to him first, immediately, and properly, and to tother( to wit to the true Church) secondarily and by way of reference, and relation, because he represented it; which he did two ways, thone as every King, or absolute Prince representeth the kingdom,& commonwealth which he governeth, in which respect the author of the Questions of the n●●, testament in S. Austines works saith of S. Peter quaest. 75. salvator cum pro se,& Petro dari jubet &c. When our saviour commandeth that the tribute should be payed for himself, and for Peter, he seemeth to haue payed for all; for as all the causes of superiority were in our saviour, so after our saviour, all are contained in Peter; for he made him their head, that he might he pastor of our lords flock. So saith this ancient author. And a little after: Christ( saith he) praying for Peter, prayed for all the Apostles, for the people is either corrected or commended in the governor. So he; giuing the reason why, and how our saviour praying, and paying for Peter, prayed and payed for all the Apostles, viz. because Peter being their head, represented them all: and the like is to be said of any supreme governor, in respect of his subiects, and whole commonwealth during his own light, and government.  
8. But now S. Peter did represent the Apostles, and the whole Church in another respect,& in a peculiar manner, not common to all heads but to him only, that is the first created& instituted governor of some new Kingdom or community, to whom the authority which is given him, is given( not only to himself for his own time, but also) to the whole kingdom, or community for the time to come, yea so long as the said kingdom shall stand. As for example; If an Emperor should erect some part of his estate into a kingdom, and create a King therof, it is evident that all the power, and authority which the Emperour giveth to this new, and first King, is intended, and given both to him, and to the kingdom erected in him, seeing that the said power, and authority is to be exercised by him and all his succ●ssors, and other their instruments for the good, and benefit of the said kingdom;& therefore the words, writings or ceremonies used in the creation of such a King, or directed to his person, to signify the regal power, and authority given him, is to be understood properly of him, yet with a relation also to his successors, for all future times, and consequently to the whole kingdom, for the benefit whereof he is created King. And this is the true case now in question betwixt M. Collins and me, concerning S. Peter, whom our saviour ordained the first head, or( b● M. Collins leave) the first Monarch of his Church, that is to say, of the Ecclesiastica●l Monarchy; in respect whereof S. Augustine sa●th, that some things were spoken by our saviour to S. Peter, which haue not their clear, or full sense, but when they haue a reference, or relation to the Church which he represented, and for the benefit whereof he received the power of the keys,& commission to feed the flock of Christ; which power, and commission was not given him for himself alone, but for the sake& benefit of the whole Church,& therfore it was not to die, or end with him, but to continue in the laid Church, and to be administered for the good thereof by his successors, until the end of the world.  
9. But now M. Collins will say perhaps that he hath rejected, and confuted this similitude before pag. 6. nu. 6. The truth is, he hath said somewhat of it, but so little to the purpose that he hath thereby rather confirmed, then con●uted it. He impugneth it with t●o reas●ns; thone because it is prejudicial to the sta●e of temporal Princes, giuing as much authority to the people, as to the Prince, and therfore he saith that secret might haue rotted in my breast. And tother, because I am as rude saith he) with our own doctors, as rash with Princes crownes, making general Councells quarter-Maysters with the Pope:& by this occasion he also glanceth at the Councells of basil and Constance,& the opinion of some catholic doctors, who hold that a general council is above the Pope. But if it please D. Collins to consider the matter a little better, he shall see, that neither temporal Princes, nor the Popes loose any part of their authority by this similitude; for when I say that what is given to the King, as King, is given also to the Commonwealth; I do not mean by the Commonwealth a body without a head, but the body with the head, that is to say, the commonwealth together with the Prince,& subordinate to him, so that the authority,& power which is in the head, is deri●ed from him into the several members, and partes of the body, according to their several functions, and mynisteries, whereby the said authority may well be said to be the common wealths, because it is given to the Prince( as I haue signified before) for the benefit of the Common wealth, and to be exercised therein, yet still depending of the Prince, and flowing into the Commonwealth from him; what then doth the temporal, or spiritual Prince loose by this? doth this make the people either quarter-maister with the King, or the council with the Pope? seeing that it doth not follow of my similitude, that either the council hath any authority over the Pope, or the parliament over the King, but both of them may, and do( for ought I say to the contrary) remain always subject to their head, in such sort, that they cannot make so much as a decree without his consent, as we see by experience in our parliaments; and the like is also to be said of general Councells. And this being so, you may se how idly he tatleth of the Councells of Constance, and basil, and the doctrine of some catholics, which teach that the council is above the Pope, and therfore I let it pass as nothing to the purpose, and drawing us to another question needles to be treated in this place.  
10. Now then to return to S. Augustines words vpon the 108. psalm: whereas M. Collins maketh him teach, as you haue heard, that the words, Tibi dabo claves, spoken to S. Peter, were not to be construed of him, but of the Church, the same may be easily confuted, even by the comparison itself, which S. Augustine maketh there betwixt things spoken of Iudas, and other speeches directed to Peter, saying that not those things only, which are said in the 108. psalm clearly enough of the wicked Iewes, ●re to be understood of them: Verumetiam illa( saith he) quae proprie de ipso Iuda dicuntur expressiùs: Which are properly and more ex●resly said of Iudas himself. And to confirm this, he compareth the same with, Tib● dabo claves, spoken to S. Peter. And therfore S. Augustine his intention being to show by that example that these things which were spoken properly of Iudas might be conveniently understood of all the wicked Iewes, the substance, and force of this comparison must needs consist in this, that as certain things spoken to S. Peter, to wit, Tibi ●bo claves, and, pasce oves meas, and, Tu es Petrus ●c. were meant, and are to be understood ●roperly& expressly of S. Peters own person yet with relation to the Church, which he ●epresented): So also those things, which ●n the 108. psalm are said properly, and ex●resly of Iudas, may haue relation to the wicked Iewes, whose person he bare in some ●ort, to wit, as their captain, or head in respect of his exorbitant malignity, and im●iety. So as to make S. Augustine his compa●ison, and argument good, these things which were spoken to S. Peter, and withall were referred to the Church, must needs be ●s properly, and truly understood of S. Peter himself, as these other spoken of Iudas, were ●o be understood properly, and truly of him, ●hough withall they were to be referred to ●he wicked Iewes; for otherwise the comparison& argument grounded thereupon should fail even in that, wherein the greatest force of it should consist, which were absurd, and most unworthy of the most excellent iudgement, and learning of that most worthy, judicious, and learned Father.  
11. Thou seest then( good reader) how absurdly M. Collins seeketh to draw out of this place of S. Augustine his own idle fiction, viz. that these words of our saviour to S. Peter Tibi dabo claves, and the like, can haue no pregnant construction but of the Church; whereas S. Augustine teacheth the flat contrary by this example and comparison. And M: Collins to deceive the unwary reader setteth down part of his false gloss in a different letter, as if it were S. Augustines own words,& text. Thus much to his first note.  
12. The second is this pag. 12. Secondly, saith he, amid those somethings( which are spoken of S. Peter) is Tibi dabo claves; S. Aug. useth this very example, which you would fain haue to be engrossed by Peter; as if the keys had been personally delivered to him, and in his own right, which S. Augustine denies. So M. Collins: wherein are two manifest untruths( not to call them lewd lies, to avoid words of reproach:) one is, that we would haue the power of the keys engrossed b● S. Peter, and delivered unto him, not only personally, but also in his own right, whereof you haue seen the contrary in all my former discourse concerning this matter, whereby it is clear that we teach, that albeit the power of the keys, and the Commission to feed Christ his sheep, were given t● S. Peter p●rsonally( that is to say, to his own person to be used by him) yet not to be engrossed by him, or so delivered unto him in his own right, as to exclude others, but to be exercised by him, and his successors, and others subordinate to them, for the behoof, and benefit of the church; and therfore given both to him, and to the church in his person. This then being our doctrine the reader may consider how false it is, which M. Collins affirmeth here of us, viz. that we would haue all the power of the keys engrossed by S. Peter, as if the church had no part therein, nor right thereto. The second untruth in his second note is, that S. Augustine denies that the keys were personally delivered to S. Peter; whereas S. Augustine teacheth even in this place, that Tibi dabo claves was spoken properly to S. Peter himself, though with relation to the Church, as I haue shewed in the last paragraph.  
13. In his third note he saith thus: Thirddly, Siqua alia, if there be any more, there may be more, then as Pasce oves meas, no doubt this must be one, by his own exposition before de ago Christiano. cap. 30. So he, Giuing to understand that aswell pasce oves meas, as tibi dabo claves, can haue no pregn●nt construction of S Peters person but of the church only; and this he groundeth also vpon S. Augustine his doctrine in the same place; but how falsey, you haue seen evidently already in Tibi dabo claves, and therfore may easily discover the like falsity, and his vanity, and folly with all, in this his other instance of pasce oves meas, which we grant indeed to haue the like construction to Tibi dabo claves; that is to say, that it was spoken personally to S. Peter and in his person to the whole church which he represented propter primatum, by reason of his primacy; which is S. Augustine his express doctrine, as you haue seen; so as M. Collins his third note is as fond,& fraudulent as the 2. precedent, being al three grounded vpon the false foundation of his own frivolous gloss.  
14. His fourth note vpon S. Augustines words is, that Peter bare indeed, saith he, personam Ecclesiae; but in figura, which you pared of; not by power of his place, or authority permanent; but could out before the rest by our Lord for that end to signify unity. So he. wherein you see he taxeth me by the way, for paring out these words, in figura, when I alleged some part of this place of S. Augustine which I omit to answer now, meaning to say somewhat thereto anon in the end of this chap. num. 37.& for the present do request thee, good reader, to note, how this his note contradicteth S. August. or rather maketh S. Augustine contradict himself in this very place now in question, wherein S. Augustine saith expressly that Peter bare the person of the church in a figure, propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit, for the primacy winch he had amongst the disciples: wh●ras M. Collins by this gloss maketh him say, or mean at least, that S. Peter di● bear indeed the person of the church in figure, but not by the power of his place, and if this be true, how did he bear the person of the church propter primatum? for what place had he more then the rest of the Apostles, but his primacy? if then he bare the person of the church for his primacy( as S. Augustine express●y affirmeth) how then is M. Collins his gloss true, that he did not bear it for his place, or( as he saith more obsurely) by the power of his place? Was his place of primacy vo●d of power? yea saith M. Collins, he had a priority, a superiority, or a primacy of place, order, and excellency, but not of power, authority, and government.  
15. But this is most absurd, seeing that it is clear, that he had his primacy in respect of the keys, and commission to feed Christs flock given him for the Church, and to the church in him, as S. Augustine teacheth; or( as Tertullian saith in Scorpiaco) to him and to the church by him; Memento( saith he) claves caeli hic Dominum Petro,& per cum Ecclesiae reliquisse. Remember that our Lord left the keys of heaven heer to Peter,& by him to the church. To which purpose Optatus also saith lib. 7 cont. Donat. that Peter, solus accepit claves caeteris communicandas: received alone the keys to be communicated to the rest of the apostles, whereby Optatus giveth to understand that Peter being Apostolorum caput, the head of the Apostles( as he calleth him expressly lib. 2.) was to communicate to them the power of the keys, which he had received alone, yet not for himself alone, but for himself, and them; and therfore not as a proxy( as M. Collins absurdly affirmeth pag. 81. in answer to this place of Optatus) but a● caput, a head, from whence the power is to be derived, and communicated to the body, and to the several partes therof. If therfore ther be any authority in the whole church by reason of the keys, and commission given to Peter, the same must needs be principally in him, to whom they were given as Primate, or head for himself,& by him to the church.  
16. In which respect S. Augustine saith also, in his treatise of baptism against the Donatistes lib. 3. cap. 17( which M. Collins himself allegeth pag. 4. num. 10.) that God gave potestatem Petro in typo unitatis, power unto Peter in the type, or figure of unity; that the same which he loosed in earth, should be loosed 〈◇〉 heaven. And again in his tract. 123. in E●n. joan. speaking of the pastoral commission ●uen to S. Peter all pastors, by the words ●sces oves meas, he expoundeth pascere by docere, ●regere, to teach,& govern; saying, Quibus oves ipsas ●scendas, hoc est, docendas, regendasque committit. ●o which( Pastors) he committed the sheep to be fed, ●at is to say, to be taught and governed. Thus saith 〈◇〉 Augustin, teaching evidently that our Saui●ur giuing S. Peter commission to feed his ●eep, gave him authority and power to ●ouerne; whereupon it followeth that the ●lace of Peters primacy, or the primacy of ●is place cannot be separated from his po●er, and authority given him altogether ●y the keys,& commission of pastor. For ●lbeit all the Apostles,& the whole church ●eceiued the same power, and commission in ●im, and by him, yet in respect of his primacy the same must needs be principally, ●nd eminently in him; which S. lo teacheth ●xpressly, yielding also the reason thereof, ●aying serm 3. in assump. suae ad pontiff. that God would haue the mystery of the charge( of preaching universally) so to belong to the office of all the Apostles, that he placed it principally in Peter, the chief of them to ●hend that he might dilate, or spread abroad his gifts, as into all the body, ad ipso quasi quodam ●api●e, from him as from a certain head. Thus sa●th S. lo, of whole worthiness,& great authority in Gods church, I shal haue occasion 〈◇〉 say somewhat hereafter cap 6. num 38.  
17. Fu●thermore M. Collins saith in his 4. note that S. Peter was cul● out by our Lord before the r●st, to represent hi● church, to sig●i●y unity, which as you haue heard, he affirmeth also in diuers other places, grounding himself vpon S. Austine& thereupon denieth that S. Peter bare the figure of the church, by the power of his place, or authority permanent, which is as much in effect, as to deny that he represented the church propter primatum, for his primacy; which n●uerthelesse you see is S. Augustine his express doctrine, and utterly overthroweth M. Collins his gloss. Besides that, what a simplo, and absurd manner of arguing is this, to deny, or impugn one truth by another, as though two truths, or al truths could not stand together, or that diuers considerations, causes or motives might not concur to produce one effect? What catholic denieth, or doubteth, that for the love of unity, and the necessity therof in the church, our saviour did choose one head of the Apostles, and of the whole church( and consequently to bear the person, and figure of the church) not onely to show the unity therof, but also to cause, and to conserve unity therein; as I haue proved in my adjoinder out of S. Cyprian,& S. jerome. How absurdly then doth M. Collins argue thus in effect? Our saviour choose S. Peter to be the chief Apostle( or to haue the primacy of the Apostles) to signify unity, ergo for nothing else, but to stand for a bare cipher, or figure, and not to haue any power, or command for the government of the Church?  
18. But how doth this follow? Nay how evident is the contrary? to wit, that our saviour had so great respect, and love to unity, that for the conservation therof in the church it seemed to his divine wisdom most necessary to give to one( viz. to S. Peter and his successors) most ample power, and authority to command, ordain,& punish, without the which neither schisms, nor heresies can either be prevented, or remedied, nor consequently unity conserved; and this I say, is so evident, that my L. of Winchester denieth not Apol. cap. 8. pag. 219.( in answer to the place of S. jerome above mentioned) that one( to wit S. Peter) was chosen head amongst the Apostles to avoid schism; yea and granteth that he had so much power given him, as might suffice for tend, for the which h● 〈◇〉 second ●●ed; whereupon ●●duced ●●ny Adi● r cap. 3. num. 〈◇〉 b● a necessary conseq●●●●, all that power,& authority, which we aclowledge to be in S. Peter, and his successors. Thus then you see that the reason of unity, with the which M. Collins impugneth S. Peters primacy doth nothing prejudice it, but rather notably confirm it. Thus much to his fourth note.  
19. In his fifth he saith thus. Primatus, saith he, was not the Primacy of Magistracy, even that declares that he says the keys were promised to him propter primatum. So that first the primacy, and then the keys, and his primacy amongst the Apostles was a motive cause to promise him the keys in the name of the Church, whereas else Primatus,& the keys had gone together, and as soon Primatus, so soon the keys; but now they are promised him for some speciallty in him, not for office then, as you would haue it. Thus far M. Collins, who having granted, as you haue heard before some kind of primacy in S. Peter, seeketh to exclude him here from all primacy of government, or magistracy( as he termeth it) and to that end he supposeth one thing,& affirmeth another, neither of them ever meant by S. Augustine. He supposeth that S. Peter had his primacy before he represented the Church,& affirmeth that the keys were promised him propter Primatum, whereupon he argueth as you haue heard. But his supposition is flat against S. Augustines meaning in this place, who saith, that gessit personam Ecclesiae propter Primatum: He bare the person of the Church for his Primacy( or in respect, or by reason of his primacy,) whereof the natural and clear sense must needs be, that he represented the Church, because he was Primate, or chief of the Apostles; wherein the cause, and the effect are signified to concur, as the King representeth the Commonwealth, because he is King or Head therof, and not because he being made King, is afterwards deputed to some such office of representation; but being King, he doth consequently, and by nature of his Regal office, and dignity bear the person of the Common wealth, that is to say, he doth contain,& comprehend in himself the whole authority, dignity, majesty,& power of the Commonwealth, which floweth from him, as from the head into al the members,& parts of the political body.  
20. This coniunction,& concurrence of these two( although it is clear enough in this place whereof we now treat) yet may be confirmed by another place alleged by me before out of S. Augustine serm. 13. de verb. Dom. where he saith, that Peter taking his name from a rock was happy, bearing the figure of the Church, having the principality of the Apostleship. Which manner of speech expresseth a concurrence of three things. The first, that he was made the foundation of the Church, which is signified by the change of his name taken from a rock( alluding to the words and promise of our saviour Matth. 16. Thou art Peter,& vpon this rock will I build my Church) The second is that he represented the church. The third, that he had the principality of the Apostleship. And of those three things, the two later are necessary consequent of the first; for being the foundation of the Church he was consequently the head therof; and being head of the Church, he represented the whole body thereof, and consequently was Prince, and chief of the Apostles: so as all those do so necessary include one another, that they cannot be s●parated.  
21. And that S Augustine his meaning was that S. Peter bare the person of the church because he was the foundation, or head of it, he signifieth evidently enough in his commentary vpon the 30. psalm concio. 2. where discoursing vpon the words spoken to S. Peter in the acts of the Apostles, macta& manduca, he applieth the same to S. Peter, and the Church, Cuius personam( saith he) gerebat Petrus &c. Whose person S. Peter did bear, when the dish full of all kind of beasts was let down unto him from heaven; and then he addeth further, that our Lord did therein prefigure his Church that it should devour,& convert all Nations into her own body; and that therefore he said: Ecclesia, hoc est, Petre( quia supper hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam) macta& manduca. O Church, that is to say Peter( because vpon this rock I will build my Church kill& eat. So he. Wherein you may see that he calleth Peter the Church, or rather the Church Peter, because he bare the person of the church, and yieldeth thereof this reason, because C●rist said unto him: Vpon this rock will I build my Church Signifying that he represented the Church, because the same was founded vpon him, that is to say, because he was made head of the Church( for as I haue said before, the foundation in a building representeth the head in a political body, or Commonwealth;) whereupon it also followeth, that the representation of the church and the primacy therof were inseparable in S. Peter, the one including the other. And therefore M. Collins his supposition that the one was before the other, is both frivolous, and false, and most repugnant to the meaning of S. Augustine.  
22. No less frivolous, yea and fraudulent also is his affirmation, which I noted before concerning the separation of Peters primacy from his receiving the keys, saying, that the Primacy was the motive cause why the keys were promised him. First the primacy, and then the keys, whereas else the Primacy, and the keys had gone together, and as soon the primacy, so soon the keys. So he. And then he concludeth, that the keys were promised him, not for his office, but for some speciality in him. Al which he groundeth vpon the place and words of S. Augustine before alleged. But I would gladly know of him, where he findeth in those words,& in that place, that the keys were promised to S. Peter, for his primacy. That which I find there, and al that can be found is, that S. Peter represented the Church, or bare the person of it for his primacy, which signifieth plainly, as I haue shewed already, the concurrence of S. Peters bearing the person of the Church with his primacy( as of a necessary effect with the cause) but of promising the keys,& much less of giuing them before, or after his Primacy, sooner, or later, there is not so much as one word in that place of S. Augustine; and therfore he may be ashamed to say, as he doth, to wit, that S. Augustine saith: The keys were promised him, propter Primatum, seeing that he neither saith, nor meaneth it. And his conclusion is not only as false, as his premises, but also ridiculous. For he saith: But now( the keys) are promised him for some speciallty in him, and not for office then, as you would haue it. So he, distinguishing, as you see, betwixt some speciality in S. Peter, and his Office, and concluding that the keys were promised him for the one, and not for the other.  
23. But good M. Collins, resolve us heer what difference you make betwixt that speciality in S. Peter, and his office, which according to your premises must needs be all one; for you said before, that S. Augustine says, The keys were promised to him, propter Primatum, for his primacy; and now you conclude that the keys were promised him for some speciality in him; and therefore that speciallty must needs be his Primacy, if you will agree with S. Augustine, and yourself; and if his Primacy was his speciallty, what else was his office, for the which you say, I would haue the keys to be promised him; truly for my part I can imagine no other special office in S. Peter, but his Primacy, yet I must tel you good sir, that you mistak me much, if you think, as it seems you do, that I would haue the keys promised to S. Peter for his office, that is to say, for his Primacy( supposing as you do, that he had his office before the promise of the keys,) for in my poor understanding he was no officer before the keys were both promised, and delivered him; so as you haue, I will not say belied both S. Augustine, and me, but truly you haue mistaken us both very much. This may suffice to the fifth note.  
24. The sixth, and last note is this. As Iudas ( saith he) sustained the person of the wicked( ●ost ●uit, a more powerful word then gestauit, and much more then significauit, which is said here of Peter, and yet but quodam modo, so shye is S. Augustine, so far from the jurisdiction, you build vpon ●ullyes offices) so Peter of the Church, as Iudas of the one, so Peter of the other, saith S. Augustine, which was no authoritatiue primacy, you may be sure except Iudas shall haue a generati● on of successors now as well as Peter, and which is more damnable of holy Scriptures institution So far M. Collins, with a great deal● of more trumpery ●ollow ng, wherein he disgorgeth himself of a great ●art of his malice against the Pope, which I omit as not worth the answering, seeing the force of his argument consisteth in that, which I haue here laid down already.  
25. Now then to say somewhat thereto, I let pass his idle parenthesis concerning sustinuit, gestauit, and significauit, tending only to fortify his perverse, and wilful misconstruction of my Text, touching S. Peters bearing the person of the Church, whereof I haue sufficiently treated, and discovered his malice, and fraud therein cap. 1. num. 4.& 5. whereto I remit my Reader; and will now examine the force and weight of his argument, which is, that according to S. Augustin, Iudas did bear the person of the wicked Iewes, as Saint Peter bare the person of the Church. And therefore if S. Peter by reason of his representing the Church, had a Primacy of power, and authority over the Church, Iudas must haue also the like primacy, and power over all the wicked jews; or if Iudas had no such primacy, then neither hath S. Peter any such.  
26. But who would not wonder to goody such an argument proceed from a Doctor of divinity? For what petty Sophister knoweth not the nature of an argument drawn from a similitude or comparison? To wit, that it holdeth not in all points, ●ut in that, or those points only for the which the similitude, and comparison was made? Otherwise because Christ is compared to a lion in the scripture Apoc. 5. he must be like a lion in al things; and being compared also to a lamb joan. 1. he must be in 〈◇〉 things like a lamb: whereupon it woul● follow that these two beasts being of mo●● contrary nature, and condition the one t● the other, Christ being in all things like t● them both, must be most unlike, or rathe● contrary to himself; and seeing that no● only Christ, but the divell also is likene● to a lion 1. Petr. 5. Christ must be like th● divell. Do you see what would follow o● M. doctor Collius his logic? In like manne● argued they, who as we red in S. Augusti●● serm 35. de verb. Dom. sought to prove by the● parable of the wicked Steward, luke. 16. tha● it is lawful to rob or steal with intention to give alms, because the Steward is commended for purchasing friends to himself with his Lord, and maisters goods; whera● our saviour propoundeth that similitud● only to incite us to be as diligent, and industrious in procuring our salvation by the good employment of our own goods in alms,& pious works as the wicked Steward was to make friends by the fraudulent employment of his Maisters goods. And he that would apply this parable to other purpose might ground thereupon a most dangerous doctrine to teach Stewards,& officers to cousin their maisters. And therfore Theophilactus vpon this parable saith notably well thus: Non oportet omnes &c. we must not over curiously search into all partes of parables, but so far forth as they serve for the purpose; for the rest are to be passed over, as serving onely for the composition, and connexion of the parable. Thus saith Theophilact.  
27. To declare therfore in what this similitude, and comparison betwixt S. Peter, and Iudas holdeth; it is to be understood that S. Augustine compareth them onely in two things: the one in that, as Peter bare the person of the Church, in a figure propter primatum, for his primacy amongst the Apostles, so did Iudas bear the person of the wicked Iewes quodam modo( saith S. Augustine) after a certain manner; giuing to understand thereby, that Iudas did not so properly figure, and represent the wicked Iewes as S. Peter figured and represented the Church, but onely quodam modo, in a certain manner: as who would say that Iudas being, as it were, the captain and ringleader of Christes enemies( in respect of his exorbitant, and excessive malice, wherein he surmounted thē all) might therfore be said to haue a kind of primacy or superiority amongst them, and so to bear their person, or to represent them, as S. Peter did truly bear the person of the Church, in respect of the true, and real primacy which he had amongst the disciples of Christ.  
28. The other thing, wherein they are compared is, that as certain things which were spoken to S. Peter, and did properly belong to him, can haue no clear sense, but when they are referred to the church, so in like manner some things which we red in the 108. psalm concerning Iudas, and are properly spoken of him, may be conveniently understood also of the wicked Iewes, as having relation to thē;& in this later point consisteth the chief force of S. Augustins comparison betwixt S. Peter, and Iudas; and therfore, it were most absurd to infer a p●rity betwixt them in other things, not intended either at all, or not so principally by S. Augustine; as namely betwixt S. Peters real, and true Primacy( which S. Augustine acknowledged him to haue had amongst the Apostles) and that kind of Captaynship( as I may term it) which may be imagined in Iudas( for really he had none) amongst the wicked Iewes; so as, albeit there may be some comparison in respect of the Analogy, or proportion, which we may conceive betwixt them; yet a real, proper, and true parity, or equality there can not be otherwise then in imagination.  
29. Furthermore if M. Cellius will stand to his argument he must needs aclowledge that Iudas had primatum loci,& ordinis, a primacy of place and order amongst the wicked Iewes, seeing my Lord of Winchester and he do grant the same to S. Peter; to which purpose they must also imagine some real election of Iudas to that primacy, and that the wicked Iewes made their assembly, wherein Iudas was to haue the first place, as S. Peter by their concession was to haue in synods, or councils of the Apostles: for this must needs follow if their argument be good against us; seeing that this comparison, maketh as much against S. Peters primacy of place,& order( which M. Collins granteth) as against the primacy of power which wee aclowledge in S. Peter,& he denieth. lo then what a learned doctor we haue here of M. Collins, who with his potent argument overthroweth himself as much as his adversary.  
30. But for the more full and clear confutation of this cavil of his( albeit this which I haue already said might suffice) I will lay down another objection,& argument of his, of the same nature, which he urgeth mightily afterwards, spending therein 4. or 5. whole pages; the answer whereof, I hope, will not onely satisfy the Reader for both objections, but also stop M. Collins his mouth, seeing that as well the answer as the objection shalbe taken out of himself, who some leaves after this his argument grounded vpon S. Augustin his comparison of Iudas with S. Peter, bringeth the very like out of him also, vpon a comparison which he maketh betwixt S. John the evangelist& S. Peter, comparing S. Peter to the temporal life, and S. John to the eternal, making them figures therof, and to represent, or signify the same, as you haue heard he said before of S. Peter, that he signified, or represented the church.  
31. Of this point M. Collins saith thus pag. 24. num. 19. I am a fraide ( saith he) of giuing the Reader a surfet in a case so evident but yet I must not omit this one passage that sollowes in the for said tractate of the Father vpon S. John, because our adversary hath quoted it. He says then, that as there is a twofold state of the church, one in misery, and in exile, another in glory, in royalty, in bliss, so Peter was made a figure of the former, John of the later, by our saviour Christ: so as n●t onely joannes a●e●onitur Petro, John in the one of these is preferred before Peter( as S. Aug. words are) but simply John surpasseth Peter, as much as the life that wee shall led in bliss, excelles this miserable that wee here live; for thereafter as the lives are, so are the figures of them both, which are here said to be the two apostles, Peter of the militant church, John of the triumphant, as hath been shewed. But shall wee say trow you, that John is a Monarch in the triumphant, or bears any rule, or regiment amongst the blessed, where the son himself resigns his kingdom, or submits it at least to God the Father. 1. Cor. 15? or i● John hath no such monarchy by virtue of his figuring and representing that state; why then should Peter claim any in earth because he stands for a figure of the militant? Thus saith M. Collins, and then layeth down a good part of S. Augustins discourse still urging it to the same purpose that you haue heard, and maketh also an ample comment vpon it; impugning, and rejecting S. Peters supremacy over the church militant, because S. John hath no supremacy ou●r the church triumphant.  
32. And not content with this, he resumeth again afterwards the same comparison betwixt S. John and S. Peter, out of Origens second homily in diuersa; but with much more fraud, as shall appear after a while. Thus then M. Collins saith in his 5. cap. pag. 203. Are you advised ( saith he) what privileges Origen heaps vpon S. John there, not inferior to Peter, not to any? for it is not for nothing that John still crosses Peter: though th'one set out former, yet th'other arrived first at his journeys end. joan. 20. cvi donatum est( says Origen) quod tibi donatum est? O beate! To whom was it ever given, that which to thee hath been given? O Thou blessed creature! Dic quaeso cvi talis,& tanta donata est gratia? I pray thee tell me, To whom was ever such& so great grace conferred? fear ye not least he deface the virgins garland, not onely Peters? and as Peter is a rock by interpretation( as you tell us) so John( if we beleeue Origen) latinè quod donatum est, as if a pack of gifts were couched in him, and the speciallest gift that ever befell a man( either the Monarchy, be like, or above the Monarchy, another one in degree, to whom that may befit {αβγδ}, you know the place. So he. With a great deal more which I omit, not to tyre thee, good Reader, and myself with such impertinent stuff, as you will find this to be, when you shall haue heard what he fraudulently dissembleth in this very place.  
33. But first I can not but note heer, by the way, how this poor man is overtaken, no less in his comparison of S. John with S. Peter, then in the former of S. Peter with Iudas; seeing that his argument, if it be good against S. Peters supremacy, or( as he calleth it) Peters monarchy in the church militant, it overthroweth also that primacy of place, which he granteth to Peter except he will say that S. John hath the first place in heaven, which I think he will not be so bold to determine, or so impudent to say that S. Augustine had any such meaning.  
34. But to proceed to what I intended, thou shalt understand, good Reader, that M. Collins afterwards speaking of another matter in his 6. chap. pag. 224. doth open the way, and give a good occasion to find out the resolution of this doubt; for having cited a place of S. Augustine out of this Treatise of his vpon S. Iohns gospel, in confirmation of another place of Origen, taken out of his second homily vpon the same gospel, he saith thus: The very same hath S. Augustine, almost totidem verbis, vpon the same Text of S John tract. 44. that you may know one Father borrowed of another, specially the Latin of the greek. So he, wherein he saith true,& very well to our purpose; it being very evident that S. Augustin in this his comparison of S. John with S. Peter,& of the two different lives, which they represent, imitateth Origen in his homily vpon the gospel In princio erat Verbum, which is the same homily out of which M. Collins taketh,& urgeth the foresavd comparison; wherein nevertheless this difference is to be observed, that Origen treateth of the active, and contemplative life,& S. Augustine of the temporal and eternal life.  
35. Now then Origen will give us good light what was his meaning, and consequently S. Augustines, who doth imitate him in the comparison betwixt S. Peter and S. John. Therfore Origen having( in the place which is alleadge●, and v●gen by M. Collins) proposed S Peter as the figure of faith, and action; and S. John as the type and figure of contemplation, and the understanding, and having compared them together in such sort that he giveth far greater advantage, and pre-eminency to S. John, explicateth himself notably, and cleareth all this difficulty, saying: Nemo nos existimet &c. Let no man think that we prefer John before Peter. Who would so do? For which of the Apostls was higher in dignity then he, who is, and is called, Vertex eorum, their head? So Origen. And a little after: Non praeferimus Petro unwelcome &c. &c. We do not prefer John before Peter, but compare contemplation with action &c. for we do not now consider the dignity of these apostolical persons, but do search for a notable difference of the divine M●steryes. Thus saith Origen● Wherein you see he is so far from derogating any thing from S. Peters primacy by his comparison, that he doth plainly aclowledge it, and utterly disclaim from al meaning, and intention to impugn, or contradict it: whereby M. Collins may well understand, if it please him, that S. Augustine might also make the like use of this comparison that Origen doth, without any prejudice to the primacy of S. Peter.  
36. What conscience then hath he, who seeing this in Origen( as he must needs do, when he could out of him so many sentences as you haue heard him allege out of the same place) would nevertheless so seriously, and vehemently urge, and exagerate this comparison, flatly against the meaning and intention of the Author? How can a man trust any allegation of his, further thē he ●ryeth it, seeing he is so false, and fraudulent as you see? Therefore, to conclude concerning his sixth note, thou seest, good R ader, how conform it is to the former, all of them notably discovering the folly, and fraud of the Author, who, as you haue heard, argueth most simply, corrupteth,& perverteth most impudently as well S. Augustines text, and meaning, as mine, contradicteth himself shamefully,& finally with a ●●ared conscience dissembleth Origens clear, and express words, which do wholly overthrow the inferrence,& argument that he draweth out of him in the same place.  
37. And now to say a word, or two( as I promised) concerning his imputation of fraudulent dealing to me in the allegation of S. Augustines text( because for gestauit I had gessit,& pared off, as he saith, the words in figura) truly I think he would haue been ashamed( as little shane as he hath) to haue objected this to me, had he not first wholly dissembled my text, and perverted, and falsified my meaning touching the sense of gerere personam Ecclesiae in S. Augustine, which as I haue amply shewed in the beginning, I do expressly expound to represent, and signify the Church, taking persona for figura; so as no difference can be imagined in that place between gerere and gestare, nor any want of the words in figura. Albeit alleging onely a piece of the text for breuityes sake, I left out these words as needles, being necessary understood, and included in the word persona( which I translated sometimes person, or figure) and was also otherwise sufficiently signified, and expressed by me in all that discourse. Which if thou dost not remember, good Reader, I beseech thee to tak pains to review it in the first cap. num. 4.& 5. and thou shalt see how notably he hath sought to cousin thee, and abuse us both: and therefore, I say unto him with the Psalmist: Erubescant impij, deducantur in infernum, muta fiant labia dolosa: Psal. 30.   

M Collins his answer to another place of S. Augustine is examined. Three reasons which he urgeth against the primacy of S. Peter are proved to be most ridiculous; the first being nothing to the purpose, and the other two being as forcible against our saviours Supremacy, as against S. Peters. CHAP. III.  
master D. Collins will now take in hand pag. 14. num. 10. another place, which I alleged out of S. Augustine to prove that S. Peter did bear the person of the Church in respect of his primacy and his meaning is to retort it vpon me, or at least to show that it availeth me nothing. You quote further ( saith he) S. August. in his 13. serm. de verbis Dom. secundum Matth. out of which you haue these words: Petrus à petra cognominatus &c. which moreover you English thus. Peter taking his name from a rock was happy, bearing the figure of the church having the principality of the Apostleship of which anon, as it serves your turn. In the mean time you may see what variety of words S. Augustin● hath to set out the meaning of his gere●e personam, both here, and else where, though here he doth not use so much as the word personam, but figuram only, which is a great deal less, or rather makes all besides, to be just nothing. So be. And then after scrapeth together a great many of places out of Saint Augustine, to prove that gerere personam, doth signify in him only to figure, signify, or represent, which he prosecuteth for five or six pages together speaking to me diuers times by the way,& telling me of my construction of gerere personam out of ●ullies Offices, by regere, and potiri rerum, as though I had said so; whereas this place itself maketh it clear, that I take persona for figura, seeing that I allege it to prove that S. Peter did bear the person of the Church, albeit there is no memtion there of persona, but of figura, used instead of it, which therefore I must needs understand for persona, or otherwise the place should serve me to no purpose; and so prolix, and tedious is this idle Doctor in this discourse, that he is fain afterwards to excuse himself to his Reader pag. 17. num. 12. saying: We and too long vpon this place, but discover one of our dis●●uerers tricks, and discredit all. So he. And do ●ou see how he hath discredited me hither●o? Or rather how he hath disgraced him●elfe, discovering his own falsity, and folly?  
2. But what saith he now in conclu●ion to the point, that is in controversy betwixt us, for the proof whereof I produ●ed that place of S. Augustine? Truly he shoo●eth at it, ●s I may say three bolts; I will not ●all them fools bolts( because he is they say 〈◇〉 Doctor of divinity) but I may well say that never wise Doctor shot so much at random, or more foolishly thē he, as it shal evidently appear. Thus then he saith pag. 16. ●lleadging these words out of S. Augustin: ●l●um videte P●trum, qui tunc erat figura nostra. Consider saith he) that Peter, who was then our figure bare not our person, that is, bare rule over us, ●●e never living in S. Peters time, and his regency being expired before we were born, but( as I haue said often standing for the Church by the way of type and figure, and so he represented for us, and for the Church until the worlds end, whereas he could govern no more, then lived in his own dayes. Thus he. Full wisely, as though we held that S. Peter doth govern the Church still in person: for what else proveth, or concludeth he here, but that neither we lived in Peters time, no● he in ours; and that he doth not personally govern us now, which no man denieth. And therefore I think never any wise ma● shot a boult further wide from the mark, then M. Collins hath done here.  
3. For how doth it follow of all this, which he hath said, that S. Peter whiles he lived, was not supreme head,& governor of the church, or that his successors do not lawfully govern us now, by the virtue of that power, and authority which they received then in him? Do not kings at this da● lawfully exercise that regal power, which was given them in their first predecessor( albeit he himself could not personaly govern more those which lived in his own time) and the reason why his successors do still lawfully govern, is, as I haue sufficiently declared before, because he being the type and figure, as well of his successors, as of his whole kingdom, received the regal power both for himself, and for them. And the like is evident ●n S. Peter, whose authority is justly acknowledged in his successors, because when the Ecclesiastical Monarchy was first erected in him, he was their t●pe, or figure, or bare their person by reason of his primacy, as S. Augustin affirmeth, and therefore received his authority both ●or himself, and for them.  
4. This the Bishops of the council of Chalcedon acknowledged in their acclama●ions to the letters of Pope lo. Act. 2. Petrus( say they) per Leonem locutus est, Peter hath spoken by lo. And for this cause S. Augustine saith to the Donatists of the succession of the Roman Bishops: Numerate sacerdotes, vel ab ipsa Petri se●de,& in illo ordine Patrum, quis cvi successit videte; ●psa est Petra, quam non vincunt superbae inferorum ●ortae. Count the Priests even from the seat of Peter and see who haue succeeded one another in that row of Fathers; That is the rock which the proud gates of ●ell do not overcome. Thus saith S. Augustine ●n Psal. contra part. Donat. applying to S. Peters ●uccessors that which was spoken personally ●o him, because he bare not only his own person, but also theirs, which will yet more evidently appear by my answer to M. Collins his next objection taken also out of S. Augustine. Thus then he proceedeth.  
5. again, saith he, pag. 16. to urge significat against this mans magnificat, which he sings to Peter, but afore he know what it means, In eo quod dixit Petrus; Tu es filius Dei vini, firmos significat( saith S. Augustine:) In eo quod trepidat &c. infirmos Ecclesiae significat. Is this to be construed also by Tullyes offices, of government? or doth not S. Augustine speak it s●gnificantly enough without we turn the jesuits dict●●nary? doth a magistrate signify the city which he governs: or was Peter at one time governor of t●● strong, namely when he believed and confessed Christ; and another time of the weak, namely when he sta●gered? How then was he ever universal Gouernou●● For when he dou●ted he confessed not, and when 〈◇〉 confessed he doubted not; so never was he Gouerno●● of the ●od● altogether, never did he gerere personam in that sense. I think you see cause to repe●● your con●●●uction, unless you be weary of universal dominion. T●us shooteth M. Collins his second b●●, as wide as the former. For whereas he vrg●th his significat against my magnificat( as he termet● it) you haue heard sufficiently be●ore how shamefully he perverteth my meaning,& you see how he iangleth now, harping stil vpon the same false string. And as for his argument against S. Peters universal dominion, it is right worthy of such an acute Doctor, as M. D. Collins, having as much force against the universal dominion of our saviour Christ, as S. Peters.  
6. I doubt not but that his Doctorship will aclowledge our saviour to be head of his Church; and if he so do, he may learn out of S. Augustin( vpon whom he seemeth wholly to rely for this question) that the head may not only be a figure of the body, but also signify different partes thereof for different respects, which S. Aug. teacheth expressly of our saviour Christ in his exposition of the psalms 21. and 68. Vpon the ●ater he saith thus: Christus non solùm caput said ●orpus est; ex ipsis verbis agnoscimus. Christ is not on●y the head, but also the body; we know it by his own words. So saith S. Augustine, calling our saviour the body as well as the head, because he was a figure of his body, the Church: in which respect he saith a little after. Vnde ●amquam aliquid invitus patiatur sic clamat? whence cometh it that he crieth out so, as if he suffered somewhat against his will? Nisi quia caput, membra sua praefigurat. But because being head, he doth prefigure, or signify his members. And again a little after. Praefigurans ergo& transformans in se nos ipsos, hoc ●it, Saluum me fac Deus: Prefiguring therfore, and ●ransforming us into himself, he saith thus, save me O God &c. So he; who also vpon the psalm 21. saith, that Christ hanging vpon the cross did keep personam veteris hominus; The person, or figure of the old man, That is to say, of our corrupt nature. And afterwards: Corpus suum( saith he) gerebat, id est, Ecclesiam: He bare ●is body, that is to say, the Church. Which was in effect as much as if he had said gerebat perso●am Ecclesiae, he bare the person, or figure of the Church. Finally to omit other places he saith vpon the same psalm, that Christ did signify both the weak, and the strong in his Church. Ossa sua sirmos suos dicit; he calleth 〈◇〉 bones his strong-ones; Ventrem suum dicit infirmos i● Ecclesia sua; His belly he calleth the weak in his Church. Thus saith S. Augustine. But whether our saviour signified the strong and weak as head of the Church, or for some other particular respects, I shall haue occasion to declare after a while in my answer to M. Collins his third argument, num. 9.  
7. In the mean time we see according to S. Augustine that not only S. Peter, but also our saviour himself represented and signified the whole Church, whereof he was head, as also the diuers members, and partes thereof, to wit the weak, and the strong. Will then M. Collins ask us now of our saviour, as he doth of S. Peter, whether he could signify the Church, which he governed? And whether he was at one time governor of the strong, and another time of the weak? and lastly then how he could be an universal governor of his Church? I hope he willbe better advised,& learn by this, that as our saviour Christ was& is the universal governor of his Church, though he represented the same, and signified also the weak, and strong therein: so also S. Peter might be universal governor of the Church under Christ,& bear the person, or figure therof propter primatum( as S. Aug. saith) albeit he figured sometimes the weak& sometimes the strong. Therfore I may well say to M. Collins of our saviour, as he said to me of S. Peter pag 16. I think you see cause to repent your construction, or argument, except you be weary of Christs universal dominion.  
8. But now let us see him shoot his third boult taken also out of S. Augustines quiver, and I warrant you as well, and as wisely shot as the two former; for whereas S. Augustine in his tract. 123. vpon the gospel of S. John saith thus; That all we, which are endued with this hope, may know that by the seauenfould number of the disciples, which were present at our saviours repast after his resurrection by which number our whole company may seem here to be figured) we are both partakers of that mystery, and fellowes in that bliss; M. Collins observeth in these words of S. Augustine pag. 18. num. 13. First that figurari is there also used by him in the former sense; and then addeth that, As ere-while Peter figured the Church, so now those 7. disciples figured the universality of Gods people, that is, the Church, and yet I hope they are not made thereby regents of the Church. So he. And then after an impertinent, foolish and false digression against the jesuits( which I purposely omit, as not worth the setting down, and much less worthy the answering) he concludeth thus pag. 19. The seven figures here are not seven gouernours, no more then is. Peter figuring the Church, or bearing the figure of the Church, or whatsoever else soundeth that way. So he; imagining belike, that we hold all figures of the Church to be governors of the Church; for otherwise he proveth nothing against vs. And truly he might haue added examples, and instances enough of this kind, out of the Scripture●,& Fathers as out S. Austine vpon psalm 21 where he saith that the woman, who entred with the ointment, when Christ was feasted in Symons house, portabat typum Ecclesiae, Did bear the type, or figure of the Church; yea, and that the lynnen-cloath that was let down from heaven to S. Peter, with four corners, was also a type, and figure of the Church: whereupon he may conclude as wisely, as he hath done here, that because, neither the woman, nor the linen cloath were gouernours( though they were figures therof) therfore neither S. Peter, no nor our saviour Christ himself was governor of the Church, albeit they did both of them represent it, and consequently were figures of it.  
9. But he is to understand that although all heads of cities, or commonwealths do represent the same, yet all that represent them, are not heads therof; for ●o every Proxy, or Deputy in a parliament for a city hold be governor of it: and as ●ome senseless thing may in respect of ●ome propriety, which it hath, be a figure of the Church; so may also a man in some one, or a few things figure and represent it, and yet be no governor of it. And therefore not only S. Peter, but also our saviour himself might some way figure, and represent the Church, not as heads therof, but for some particular respects, relation, or resemblance, which may be noted betwixt them, and the Church; as when our saviour, and S. Peter are said by S. Augustine to figure the strong, and the weak in the Church, they might be said so to do, for some particular actions of theirs, which might haue relation to the strong, or the weak; whereby nevertheless they were not excluded from bearing the person of the Church propter primatum, which S. Augustine acknowledgeth in S. Peter, and M. Collins. I am sure, will not deny of our saviour. Whereby he may perceive how wisely he hath argued, denying the supremacy of S. Peter, because the 7. disciples were not gouernours of the Church, albeit they were figures of it, as well as S. Peter; which reasons make as much against our saviours supremacy, as against S. Peters. So as thou seest( good Reader) what a good archer this doughty doctor is, seeing that of three bolts which he hath shot, the first fell clean wide from the mark, and the other two so far over, that instead of S. Peter, at whom he shot, he hath hit out saviour Christ, and wounded him deeply, depriving him of his Primacy, and government of the Church, if his argument be good against S. Peter.   

M. Collins his answer to a third place of S. Augustine is confuted, with the disco●●ry of his foolish, and false gloss vpon it, and his childish ignorance in impugning still our saviours Supremacy, no les● then S. Peters. CHAP. IIII.  
THERE remaineth yet to be discussed one of the 3. places alleged by me out of S. Augustine tract. 124. to prove that S. Peter bare the person of the Church Propter primatum, In respect of his primacy. I ●lleadged it thus; Cuius Ecclesiae Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum figurata generalitae personam &c. Of which Church Peter in respect d the primacy of his Apostleship did bear the person figuring or representing the generality therof Fo if we respect what did belong properly to himself, and was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, and by a more abundant grace vnus idemque primus Apostolus: One and he the chief Apostle. But when it was said to him, Tibi dabo claves, I will give thee the keys &c. he signified the whole church. Thus far I alleged S. Augustines words. Now M. Collins discourseth very amply vpon this place, making, as it were, three notes, or observations thereupon, which I will lay down, and answer by the way, as they come to hand. Thus then he saith pag. 20 num. 17. Come we now to the 124. tract. out of which he urgeth this Roc agi● Ecclesia spe beata in hac vita aerumnosa, cuius Ecclesiae Petrus propter Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate person●m; which the ●asier to clear we may sort out by parcels that whic● makes for them; first gerebat personam, which his m●● thinks to be as much as tenebat regimen, his of that before. To omit how it is qualified with figirata generalitate, his bearing the person being but figuring, signifying, and representing still with S. A●gustine which is short of Magistracy. So he; singi●g, as you see, his old song being nothing else but false descant vpon my plain song of gear personam, which is plain enough, if and out of his perverse,& malicious humour had not perverted, and corrupted it, as you haue seen so sufficiently before, that this needeth no further answer.  
2. He proceedeth thus pag. 21. Secondly( saith he) propter Apostolatus sui primatum, whi h the better to conceive, hear we further S. Augustine, hear you too good sir, that accuse the Bishop o● laming places, as if no man were such a legal reciter of them as you self. Quod enim ad ipsum prop●●e pertinet( speaking of Peter) natura vnus homo erat, gratia vnus Christianus, abundantiore gratia vnus idemq́ue primus Apostolus. said &c that is, for as concerning himself Peter was by nature but one m●n, by grace one Christian man, by a greater measure of the same grace one, and a prime Apostle. But &c. you w●ll say perhaps, that this is a third kind of advantage, and authority more then ever you were ware of for Peter, Vnus idemq́ue primus Apostolus: But there is more in it then so. S. Augustine knows but three steps of condition here, in Peter: a man, which he was by nature, a Christian which by grace, but by height of grace, by excess of grace, an Apostle; yet vnus Apostolus, but one Apostle, not virtua●● as you would haue it, the whole choir, or college of them. Our saviour was not so poor as to haue but one Apostle, says Irenaeus lib. 3. against them that taught Paul was the only man. So far off was Peter then, that scarce be was thought to be one of the number. Indeed twelve as I shewed you before, for great cause: but concerning Peter, vnus Apostolus( says S. Augustine) but one Apostle. As for the prime we ●raunt you, as you haue been often told, and( to content you the more) more then in one regard of primacy; An excellent sloure he was in that garland, what would you eis! Thus saith M. Collins: wherein thou mayst note, good Reader, a great deal of impertinent stuff.  
3. For what can be more idle, yea& false then his note vpon Vnus Apostolus, wherein he seemeth to charge me, or rather all catholics to hold& teach that S. Peter was virtually the whole choir, or college of the Apostles; in such sort, as that he was the only Apostle, and that the rest were not Apostles as well as he, for else why saith he, that indeed there was 12. and allegeth also out of Irenaeus, that Christ was not so poor as to haue but one Apostle, which( saith M. Collins) Irenaeus said against those, that taught Paul was the only man. But did ever any catholic hold that Peter was the only man, in that sense? that is to say, the only Apostle? or that there were not 12. Apostles? or that every one of them was not as truly an Apostle as S. Peter? we hold indeed that he was the head of the Apostles, and of the whole Church, and that therefore he had virtually in himself the authority of them all( as the head hath virtually all the power, and authority contained in the body) and so we also teach concerning the Bishops of Rome, ●uccessors to S. Peter, that being heads of the Church, and of all the Bishops therof, they haue virtually in themselves the authority, and power of them all; yet not so, but that every bishop lawfully created in the Church, is as truly a Bishop as the Bishop of Rome, or S. Peter himself was; how idle then, frivolous, and false is all this? Furthermore I beseeth thee, good reader, to note in like manner his slight, or rather falsity, in translating primus Apostolus, to wit a prime Apostle, not the prime, or rather chief Apostle, as indeed it signifieth; his desire being that his reader should conceive that S. Augustines meaning was no other, but that S. Peter was a principal Apostle, that is, one of the principal, or chief Apostles, but not the principal, or chief of all, which S Augustine meant, when he said that S. Peter was vnus idemque primus Apostolus.  
4. This may easily be gathered by the precedent words, to wit, propter Apostolatus sui primatum, For the primacy of his Apostleship, which he expresseth more plainly in the other place debated before de ago Christ. cap. 30. where he saith that S. Peter bare the person of the Church propter primatum quem in discipul● habuit, For the primacy which he had amongst the disciples; giuing plainly to understand, that he had a primacy, or pre-eminency above the rest, which also M. Collins himself is forced to gra●●● in some sort, both before, as you haue heard, and now also, saying here that 〈◇〉, and his fellowes do grant( as he hath often  told us that S. Peter was the prime more then in regard of one primacy, which nevertheless he minceth, and extenuateth in the n●x● words following, saying an excellent flower he was in that garland: and then asketh me, what would you els●? Mary▪ good M. Collins I would h●ue you speak out of the teeth, and confess that he was the chief flower in that garland, and to english primus ●o that it may haue the clear sense that S. Augustine doth mean, yea, and according to the dictionaryes both English, and latin to translate it the chief, and not a prime, as you do, when fo● Vnus idemque primus Apostolus, you give us in English, one and a prime Apostle, which prime is neither an usual word in English, neither yet with the article,( a) can signify the chief, but one of the chief: so as thou seest, good reader, how he hath iuggled, and iangled hitherto in the exposition, and translation of this place.  
5. But now let us here how he proceedeth, That this primacy, saith he, was distinct from your supposed magistracy of majesty Ecclesiasti●●ll( as you would infere ou● of gerere personam) ●●are what follows. S. Augustine having recoun●●d the th●ee former degrees of Peters condition, he ●●o●eeds to a ●ourth neither coincident with the rest, ●●r yet containing any such principality, as you talk, 〈◇〉 me●●l● aff●arded him of our Sauiors free bounty in ●●gard to his excellent worth amongst his fellows. said 〈…〉 dictum est, ●ibidabo claves regnicaelorum,& quod●●que ligaueris supper terram, erit ligatum& 〈◇〉 caelis& quodcumque solueris supper terram, erit solu●um& in caelis, vn●uersam significabat Ecclesiam, ●●res S. Augustine, he stood for the Church; it was ●ayd to him in the person of the Church, not as chief ●agistrate, not as primus Apostolus, the first wheel in ●he clock, but in a sense distinct from the former 3. ●egrees therefore he sares said quando● yet happily the ●ather for his aforesaid worthiness, our saviour put his part vpon him, honoured him with the represen●ation of the Church, made him to signify Ecclesiam ●niuersam( S Augustins words) but only to signify ●t, and that not as an Apostle, but in a fourth conside●ation which helps you nothing, rather spoils you of al. Thus far M. Collins.  
6. Where you see he proposeth unto us a fourth consideration as he calleth it( distinct from the 3. degrees before mentioned) why our saviour made S. Peter to signify his universal Church; which consideration, he says, helps us nothing, but rather spoil●● us of al, for so you see he concludeth,& dot● not tell us clearly what this fourth consideration is, but only what it is not( at least i● his conceit) to wit, that S. Peter did represent, or signify the Church, not as chief magistrate, not as primus Apostolus, yea not as 〈◇〉 Apostle, but in a fourth consideration; making S. Augustine clearly contradict himself who saith expressly, as you haue heard, eue● in this very place now in hand, that S. Pete● bare the person of the Church for the prima● of his Apostleship. And again de ago Christia● c●p. 30. for the primacy which he had amongst t●● disciples. And lastly in his 13. serm de verb. Dom. that he b●re the figure of the Church, having th● principality of the Apostleship. Now then can any man declare his mind more plainly then S. Augustine doth, why S. Peter did signify, or represent the Church? to wit for his primacy, and because, he was the chief Apostle, or Prince of the apostles? How then can M. Collins his gloss( not as primus Apostolus) stand with S. Augustines text& meaning?  
7. But will you hear how he seeks somewhat to qualify the matter, or rather to cast a mist before his Readers eyes? he granteth that this fourth consideration, whereof he speaketh here, was afforded to S. Peter by our saviour in regard to his excellent worth amongst his fellowes; and after again that our saviour honoured him with the representation of his catholic Church, happily the rather for his aforesaid worthiness; so as now the principality of the Apostleship, and primacy amongst the Apostles( which S. Augustine ascribeth to S. Peter) is reduced only to an excellent worth amongst his fellowes, and yet that also with a perhaps, sa●ing, happily the rather for the foresaid worthiness, so as perhaps it was no part of the consideration at all; do you see then to what pass he hath brought this matter at last by his gloss? either excluding wholly S. Augustine his constant,& serious doctrine in this point, or else making him to contradict himself? and if he say that by this fourth consideration he excludeth only such a principality as we talk of( for so much he insinuateth at the first) as if he allowed S. Peter( as he doth elsewhere) a principality,& primacy of place, he then contradicteth himself, seeing that he affirmeth here expressly that S. Peter did not signify the Church, either as the chief Apostle, or yet as an Apostle, saying that Christ made S. Peter to signify the universal Church, and then addeth, but only to signify it, and that not as an Apostle, but in a fourth consideration. So he: wherein you see, he is so far from including in this fourth consideration any respect of S. Peters primacy or place, amongst the Apostles, that he excludeth his very Apostleship, and all respect of his being an Apostle; thus doth the poor man wind, turn, and entangle himself most absurdly, not knowing, as it seemeth, what he saith; so as whiles he hopeth to turn S. Peter out of his primacy, he turneth himself out of his wits.  
8. But perhaps he will say that if this 4. consideration should include his primacy, or any respect of his Apostleship, it would be coin●ident with the third degree mentioned by him before, to wit with Vnus, idemque primus Apostolus; One and the chief Apostle, which saith M. Collins cannot stand with said quando in S. Augustine, who thereby addeth a fourth consideration distinct from the former, and not coincident thereto. But then why doth he not tell us what this fourth consideration is, if it be so distinct from the former, as that it doth not any way include it? belike he remits it to the day of iudgement to be known, when all other secrets shal be revealed as you haue heard him say before cap. 2. num. 2. But in the mean time to give some satisfaction to the Reader in this point, he shall understand, that this great doubt, and difficulty that M. Collins maketh here is sufficiently solved, and cleared by me before cap. 2. num. 4.& 5. when I answered his objection of the comparison made by S. Augustine betwixt some things spoken by our saviour to S. Peter, and other things spoken in the Scripture of Iudas, which did properly belong to their own persons,& yet had a further relation: as Tibi dabo claves, spoken to S. Peter, had a relation not only to him, but also to the Church; and other things said of Iudas in the 108. psalm, were to be referred aswell to the wicked Iewes as to Iudas himself.  
9. By the occasion of this I haue signified cap. 2. num. 7.& 8. that S. Peter did represent, and figure the Church in a very peculiar manner, not common to every governor, but as the first governor therof, in whose person the ecclesiastical Monarchy( which was to endure to the worlds end) was erected, and instituted; in which respect those things which were said to him, expressing the power and authority given him( as Tibi dabo claves, Pasce oves meas, and the like) were spoken in regard aswell of the Church for ever, as of his own person; for otherwise the said authority had dyed,& ended in him, and with him,& had not descended to his successors,& to the whole Church for ever, as it did; and therefore S. Augustin in this place considereth the primacy of S. Peter, and his representation of the Church two ways: the one as it was to be considered in his own person, and for his own time, abstracting from his successors,& future times. In which respect S. Augustin saith he was primus Apostolus, that is to say, primate or head of the Apostles, and consequently head also of the Church, which Church he therfore represented not as the first Monarchy, or governor thereof, but as every King, or Prince representeth his whole commonwealth during his own reign, having al the Authority therof virtually in himself.  
10. But now by the other way, or consideration of S. Peter his primacy, and representation of the Church( to wit as he was the first governor thereof, in whose person the Ecclesiastical Monarchy, or kingdom was first erected) he represented all his successors, and the whole Church to the worlds end, and therfore of this manner of primacy,& representation of the Church S. Augustine speaketh in this place, when he saith, that Tibi dabo claves, was said to S. Peter, as he signified the universal Church, because it was said to him, to declare the authority given not only to him, and the Church for his time, but also to his successors,& the whole church in al future times, and ages until the end of the world. And this M. Collins may take( if it please him) for a fourth consideration distinct from the other, which he mentioned;& acknowledge withall, that it doth not spoil us of all( as you heard him say in his conclusion) but rather confirm all our doctrine concerning this point.  
11. But who would imagine that this Doctor had so little wit, as seeing himself so puzzled, that he is forced to scamble, and wrangle( as you see) to shift off these places of S. Augustine with most false interpretations, and absurd glosses, would yet farther hazard, and venture as well his own reputation, as the credit of his cause in urging still against us the doctrine of S. Augustine in this place, albeit he cannot but see( if he haue any wit) that it utterly overthroweth him. But, qui semel verecundiae fines transierit, gnauiter impudentem esse oportet: He which hath once passed the bounds of modesty must be impudent in good earnest,& therfore this silly man being already over the shoes, seeth now no other remedy but to run over the ears, and is not ashamed to prosecute the matter still, continuing the same for 7. or 8. pages, with such a deal of tittle tattle, as truly if I should allege his whole text, and answer every thing particularly, I should be too to tedious not only to myself, but also to my reader, and therefore I will only lay down so much of his text, as shal be to any purpose, and briefly touch the rest so far as shal be needful.  
12. First he observeth pag. 22. num. 18. that S. Augustine teacheth, that Petrus à petra, sicut Christianus à Christo, and not è contra( saith he) that our boast should not be in men, but in the living God. And who denieth this? was there ever any man so mad to say, or think the contrary? But then he proceedeth. And yet in truth more plainly in this place, which may serve, if any thing to open their eyes that dare build vpon a man, as the foundation of their Church, though it were Peter himself, that I say not how unworthy creatures now in his room. Thus he; so as now you shal see he will open our eyes with a place of S. Augustin, which therfore he allegeth thus. Ideo quip ait Dominus &c. For therfore saith our Lord, Vpon this rock I will build my Church, because Peter had said, thou art Christ the son of the living God; I will therfore build my Church, saith he, vpon this rock, which thou hast confessed. For the rock was Christ, vpon which foundation even Peter himself was say to be built. For another foundati●n can no man lay, besides that which is laid, which ●s Iesus ●hrist. So he out of S. Augustine.  
13. But to what purpose? perhaps he meant to gull some very simplo reader, in making him believe that when we teach that the Church was built vpon S. Peter, we understand that it was not built vpon Christ, or that Christ was built vpon Peter,& not Peter vpon Christ, which objection is so trivial and s●ale, and hath been so oft answered ●y catholics, that he may be ashamed still to object it, and to take no knowledge of the answer which is given out of S. Augustine himself; who albeit in the place before alleged, and also elsewhere, he do understand those words ( supper hanc petram) to be spoken by our saviour of his own person, yet doth never deny, but teach expressly that the same may also be understood of Peter( though not as the only and first foundation, which must needs be Christ) but as a secondary foundation built vpon Christ.  
14. To this purpose it is to be noted, that having in his 13. Serm. de verb. Dom. expounded those words thus, Id est supper meipsum filium Dei vivi aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. That is to say, I will build my Church vpon myself the son of the living God, he addeth presently, supper me aedisicabo te, non me supper te: I will build thee vpon me, and not me vpon thee. And in his first book of retractations cap. 21. he acknowledgeth that place to receive both the interpretations; I mean to be understood literally as well of Peter, as of Christ, yet not so of Peter, as to exclude Christ from being the chief and principal foundation, whereof never any Christian man, and much less any catholic ever doubted.  
15. Therfore S. Augustine having signified that he himself had interpnted the same both ways, and that the one way( viz. to make Peter the rock) was at that time so common, that cantatur( saith he) ore multorum &c. it is song in the mouths of many, in an hymn of the blessed Ambrose, he conc●udeth; harum duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat lector; of these two opinions( concerning the literal interpretation of these words) let the reader choose whether he thinketh more probable. So he; being so far from rejecting the interpretation of Peter to be the rock, that he not only used the same himself, but also fortifieth it here, as you see, with the authority of S. Ambrose, and the public approbation therof in those dayes, and finally remitteth it to the choice, and election of the reader to follow the one, or the other; which he never would haue done, if he had held either of them to be false; and albeit be held that the word Petra( in that place of the 16. chap. of S. matthew) was to be referred principally, and immediately to Christ, yet he doth no way contradict the other exposition, whereby the said word is referred secondarily to Peter, by which means both the interpretations do stand good.  
16. But now let us see how he proceedeth with S. Augustins text pag. 23. num. 18. Ecclesia( saith he) quae fundatur in Christo &c. The Church which is founded in Christ, received of him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Peter, that is, the power of binding, and losing sins for that which properly the Church is in Christ, the very same by signification is Peter in the rock: by which signification Christ is understood to be the rock, Peter to be the Church. This Church therfore which Peter signified &c. Thus far M. Collins allegeth S. Augustins words. And then glosseth them thus. I say nothing( saith he) of signification, whereof enough before, and every line in S. Augustine is fraught with it. But is not this strange, that Peter, whom every where they advance for the head, S. Augustine should still take for the body? So he, wherein you see he still harpeth vpon his old string, urging against me S. Aug. his understanding of gerere personam Ecclesia● As that it is only to signify, and represent the Church; whereof he saith also very truly that he hath said enough before, for so he hath indeed, yea and more then enough,& with shane enough, having so perverted my sense and meaning, as you still see he doth.  
17. But whereas he hath found out here one of the 7. wonders, to wit that S. Augustine should take still S. Peter for the body, whom we advance every where for the ●ead; I can tell him a far greater wonder in S. Augustin, to wit that he takes Christ himself very often for the body, whom we all worthily aclowledge to be the head; to which purpose thou mayst remember, good Reader, what I haue alleged before out of S. Augustine cap. 3. num. 6. to show that S. Peter was not excluded from the government of the Church under Christ, because he represented, and signified the Church, seeing that the same argument if it were good against S. Peter, would exclude our saviour also from being head therof, who as S. Augustine saith, non solum caput, said corpus est; It is not only the head, but also the body. And that he exclaimed in his Passion, as if he suffered somewhat against his will, quia caput membra sua praefigurat: Because being bead he doth prefigure his members. And ●a●tly, that Corpus suum gerebat, id est Ecclesiam; he ●●are his body, that is to say, the Church. Which( as I signified before) was as much in e●fect, as if he had said, gerebat personam Ecclesiae, he bare the person of the Church, which was his body.  
18. And this being so the greatest wonder▪ that I see here is, that so great a Doctor of ●iuinity as M. Collins is, and so conversant in S. Augustine should be so ignorant of his doctrine, as to make it a strange matter, that we should advance S. Peter for the head, whom S. Augustine takes for the body, seeing that S. Augustine maketh not only him, but also our saviour himself to signify the Church, quia caput membra sua praefigurat, because the head doth prefigure his members; Et propter primatum( saith Augustine of S. Peter) quem in discipulis habuit; In respect of the primacy, which be had amongst the disciples. So as I see no other cause of this wonder in M. Collins, but his notable ignorance, as little children,& fools wonder at every thing, by reason of their little knowledge& experience. There followeth in M. Collins a frivolous, and most idle digression about an argument, which he saith some of ours make for the primacy of S. Peter, out of our saviour his woods sequere me, as it it were, follow me in the government of the Church, which he saith is a strange problem of desperat pleaders. But he citeth no author of ours,& sure I am he findeth no such argument in my adjoinder, and therefore I let his answer thereto pass without answer, as not worth the labour to writ it.  
19. After this cometh his ample discourse, and commentary vpon S. Augustins comparison of S. Peter with S. John, making them figures, the one of the temporal life, and the other of the eternal, of which comparison, and M. Collins his foolish argument deduced from the same against S. Peters supremacy, I haue largely treated before( in the 2. chap. num. 22. 23. &c.) by occasion of the like comparison made not only by S. Augustine betwixt Iudas and Peter; but also by Origen betwixt S. Peter and S. John, which later is alleged and urged also by M. Collins himself cap. 5. pag. 203. And I haue already in this treatise cap. 2. num. 33. sufficiently discovered his impudent malice in concealing, and dissembling Origens clear doctrine of S. Peters primacy in the same place, which he allegeth, and urgeth against it; besides that I haue also shewed there, that Origen doth in the same place expressly disclaim from derogating in any sort from the supreme dignity of S. Peter, when he prefer●eth S. John( as a figure of the contemplative ●i●e) before Peter( as a figure of the active life) whereby M. Collins might learn( as I signified there) that S. Augustine( who imitated Origen therein) might make also the like comparison betwixt S. Peter and S. John( as figures of the temporal, and eternal life) without any prejudice in the world to the primacy of S. Peter; so as I shall not need to trouble thee, good reader, with any further discourse concerning that comparison, but only to make some reflection vpon his conclusion thereof pag. 29. num. 20. wherein he seemeth to preoccupate an objection, which he supposeth I may make against him.  
20. against this( saith he) I know what M. F. ●. will say( for he saith no more then out of the mouth of his best masters) as John really, so Peter really, as the one lay vpon our saviours breast, and it was no fiction, so the other received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and it was more then a bare representation. Who doubts but S. Peter received the keys, as well as John learned on Christs bosom? But Peter received the keys in the person of the Church militant, because our Lord would honour unity &c. And John restend, and repasted himself on his sacred bosom, as a figure of the triumphant, to shadow out unto us the estate of glory, and blessed immortality &c. So he: and a little after. In this( saith he) stands the answer that both Peter received,& received for himself( for he had a part in the keys as well as others we deny it not but {αβγδ}, not {αβγδ} portionally,& particularly, not wholly& entirely, sa●e only as he stood in the Churches room to grace unity, And this proves no universal authority, as not John in the triumphant, as not Iudas in the malignant, so neither Pe●e● in the militant; but so much may suffice to haue spoken thereof. Thus far M. Collins.  
21. In this his discourse I wish two things to be noted; the one, that he saith Peter received the keys in person of the Church militant, because our Lord would honour, and grace unity, which, saith he, proves no universal authority. The absurdity whereof I haue shewed before cap. 2. nu. 14.& 15. by 3 reasons. The first, for that it is a simplo,& an absurd manner of arguing to impugn, and contradict one truth by an other, as to deny that S. Peter representeth the Church for his primacy, because he doth it, to show the unity therof, seeing that both respects may, and do stand well together; and therefore are both of them taught by S. Augustine. The second reason was, that m Collins making S. Augustine exclude, and deny S. Peters primacy, because he represented the unity of the Church maketh him flatly cō●●adict himself, seeing that he affirmeth ●xpresly( as hath been oft declared) that when 〈◇〉 Peter received the keys, he represented the church propter primatum& therfore not to ho●our,& grace unity only, as M. Coll. will needs ●ave S. Aug. to teach; so as if he will believe ●im in the one, he must believe him in the ●ther, or else make him overthrow the one ●y the other, and contradict himself. The ●hird reason was that the consideration of ●he unity of the Church represented by S. Peter is so far from prejudicing his prima●y, that it doth notably fortify, and prove ●t, as I haue shewed amply in my Adioinder cap. 3. num. 1. 2. 3. 4.& 36. out of S. Cyprian, and S. jerome,& haue also signified it here before cap. 2. num. 17.& 18.  
22. The other thing which I wish to be noted in M. Collins his Conclusion is, that he now alloweth to S. Peter a part in the keys, as well as to the other Apostles, granting that he received them really for himself, as well as for the whole Church, yet not so for himself, but that the other Apostles had their part therein, which no man denieth; but that which I note herein is that he doth manifestly contradict his own former assertions, having taxed us before pag 12 num. 8. for affirming, that what is g●uen to Peter is given to the Church,& wh●● to the Church the same to Peter; wherupo● it followeth that he holdeth it for an erro● in us to teach that the keys which wer● given to the Church in Peter, were given also to Peter; and therfore he laboureth to confute this out of S. Augustine in the same place( though by a frandulent, and false construction of him) saying that according to hi● doctrine, Tibi dabo claves, can haue no pregnā● construction but of the Church: which fraud of his I haue discovered before cap 2. num. 3. And again a little after in the same page.,& paragraph he saith, that we would haue the keys so to be engrossed by S. Peter, as if they had been personally delivered him,& in his own right; which he taxeth also as an error of ours controlled by S. Austin; whereas nevertheless he affirmeth now, that the keys were really given him; whereupon it followeth that they were given him personally, that is to say to his own person, and for himself,& so he also confesseth here.  
23. Furthermore in another place pag. 9. lin. penul. I tell you( saith he) that Peter representeth the Church no otherwise then a proxy doth him that he stands for to be admitted; whereby he signifieth plainly that Peter received not in any sort the keys for himself, seeing that 〈◇〉 proxy receiveth nothing for himself, but ●ll for him that he standeth for; and this devise of a proxy pleaseth him so much that he useth the same afterwards again, calling Peter the image or proxy of the Church pag. 34. nu. 22. and then addeth to justify the same, for I fear not, saith he, to vouch that name by him, which hath every where so good grounds in S. Augustine as you haue heard. So he, meaning by those good grounds, which we haue heard, al that which he hath hitherto so much urged out of S Augustine touching the representation of the Church in S. Peters person, whereby he will haue S. Augustine to teach, that S. Peter received the keys, no otherwise then as a proxy for the Church, and consequently that he received nothing for himself.  
24. nevertheless having now better be thought himself, he granteth, that S. Peter received the keys really for himself: whereupon I infer that he received them otherwise then a proxy: besides that followeth also thereupon, that receiving the keys for himself, he received power,& authority, which is signified by the keys: and seeing this power, and authority was given him( according to S. Augustine) as he represented the Church propter primatum, for his primacy, and that the said primacy was giu●● him no other ways then by the keys, an● the Commission of the pastor; it is euide●● that the primacy) which S. Augustine acknowledged in S. Peter) was a primacy o● power, and authority, and not of place, order, and excellency only; as M. Collins( following my Lord of Winchester) would haue it to be thought, the absurdity whereof I haue she●ed more at large before in the 2. cap. num. 15. So as this filly man having striven, and struggled all this while, hath so entangled himself( as I may say) in the snares, and limetwigges of his own contradictions, absurdities, and follies that he is forced in the end to grant so much, that the primacy of S. Peter, which he most impugneth, doth necessary follow therof.   

A fourth place of S. augustine is debated, which M. Collins chargeth the adjoinder to haue alleged lamely, and fraudulently. The imputation of fraud is cleared. A false gloss of M. Collins vpon S. Cyprian is disproved. five or six notable fooleries of his detected; with his manifest corruption, and falsification of the sense, and text of the adjoinder. CHAP. V.  
I Haue hitherto examined his ●nswere to the 3. places which I alleged in my adjoinder out of S. Augustine to prove that S. Peter bare the person of the Church in respect of his Primacy, and you haue seen how well master Collins hath quit himself in the answer therof; it resteth now that I say somewhat to that which followeth immediately in M. Coll. touching the place of S. Aug. which was first in question betwixt my Lord of Winchester and me,& hath been the cause of all this dispute. And for as much as I charged his LP. with the lame quotation of the said place( in respect that the precedent,& subsequent words in S. ●ugustine left out by his LP. did show that the place doth make rather for the primacy of S Peter then against it) M. Collins being desirous to pay me with my own money, chargeth me roundly with the lame quotation also of the said place, which remaineth to be discussed, and debated betwixt vs.  
2. The place is in S. Augustines Treatise de ago Christiano cap. 30. and I alleged it in my adjoinder thus. Non enim sine causa inter omnes Apostolos &c. For not without cause doth Peter sustain the person of the Church amongst al the Apostles. For to this Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given, when they were given to Peter, and when it was said to him, Dost thou love me? feed my sheep, it was said unto all; and therfore the catholic Church ought willingly to pardon her children, when they are corrected, and strengthened in piety, seeing we see, that to Peter himself bearing the person of the Church, pardon was granted, both when he had doubted vpon the sea &c. and when he had ●hrice denied his master &c. Thus far I alleged S. Austine,& then I observed therein that the reaso why Pasce oves meas( which our saviour ●poke to S. Peter) was said to all the Church( according to S. Augustine) was because S. Peter bare the person of the Church, which he did by reason of the supreme authority, that he had over the Church; and this I proved ●atter by those three places of S. Aug. which haue hitherto been debated, betwixt M. Collins and me, by which places it is evident( as you haue seen) that S. Peter did bear the per●on of the Church propter primatum quem in disc●pulis habuit; for the primacy which he had amongst the Apostles. And therefore for as much as my Lord of Winchester, alleged out of this place only these words, cum Petro dicitur, ad omnes dicitur pasce oves meas: when it was said to Peter, it was said to all, feed my sheep;( the true meaning whereof in S. Augustine was to be deduced out of the circumstances of the place, especially out of those words, that S. Peter did sustain and bear the person of the Church, which my Lord of Winchester dissembled) I therfore worthily charged his LP. with the lame quotaion of it.  
3. Now let us see what M. Collins findeth wanting in the foresaid place, as I alleged it,& with what reason he chargeth me with clipping the text to my advantage. The place, as I haue laid it down before endeth as you may see with 2. etcaetera's, signifying that for brevities sake I omitted to city that which followed, being to no other purpose, thē that which I had already alleged containing certain errors,& faults of S. Peter, whereof I laid down 2. the one his doubting vpon the sea,& the other his three denials of our saviour, which two might suffice to make the sense of the place perfect; the rest which I left vncited either importing nothing to the matter in question, or making rather for us then against vs. Now M. Coll. pag. 35. num. 23. to give the more colour to his imputation of fraud in me, doth not only seriously lay down those faults of S. Peter, which I left vnmentioned, but also maketh ample commentaries vpon them, stuffed with no less impertinent,& idle matter then you haue seen in the former.  
4. The faults alleged by him,& omitted be me are three: the first his dissuading our saviour from death, for the which our saviour called him satan, but of this he hath little, or nothing to say, but that Christ did give it a heavy censure: the second is the snipping off( as he termeth it) of Malchus his ●are, with his sword, which he saith; I ●urst not so much as once to mention, it makes so harsh 〈◇〉 sound; and why trow you? forsooth because and hath found out a devise to apply this to ●he Popes sword, yea and telleth us of some that he hath heard of, who think that for Peter to draw his sword at Malchus( because Malchus in Hebrew signifieth a King) was either a presage, or justification of the Popes practices at this day. Thus saith M. Collins; and giveth thereby a great blow to some indiuiduum vagum, of whom he hath heard this reported, for he nameth no man, either in his text, or his margin, as no doubt but he would haue done if he could. But why he should say that I durst not so much as mention this, truly I see not, seeing that this ridiculous conceit of his( if it should be any of ours) could make nothing against us, but ra her much for us;& therfore I must leave it to the reader to judge of the depth of his conceit, which for my part I cannot penetrate. The 3. fault of S. Peter omitted by me, was his simulation at Antioch, for the which S. Paul reprehended him, which he saith pag. 37 nu. 25. I thought good to leave out, caelans peccata sicut Adam, either because it draws so near an error in saith, or at least for subjecting the Monarchy of the whole world, to the open resistance, and reproof of a● abortive. So he.  
5. here you see he allegeth two reasons, why I omitted this fault of S. Peters; the one because it draws so near to an error in faith; and the other because I feared to subject thereby S. Peter( whom we hold for the Monarch of the world) to S. Paul, a latter Apostle. As for the former he may be ashamed truly to draw it near to an error in faith, which some of the Fathers do excuse from al error, holding that this reprehension of S. Peter by S. Paul, touching his dissimulation with the Iewes in the observation of their ceremonial law, grew vpon an agreement betwixt them two; to the end that the Iewes seeing S. Peter receive with patience a rebuk at S. Paules hands, and aclowledge an error, might the more easily be withdrawn from the superstitious observation of their law, to embrace the Christian perfection, whereto they were so hard to be induced, that the Apostles were forced not only to permit them to abstain from blood, and strangled meats, but also to ordain, and command it to the Gentills in their first council, as appeareth in the Acts of the Apostles cap. 15.  
6. For this cause, I say, diuers ancient Fathers, namely S. Chrysostome, Theodoretus, Theophilactus, Oecumenius vpon the epistle to the Galathians, Cassianus col. 17. and S. jerome in his 89. Epist. to S. Aug.( where he also citeth for the same opinion Origen, Didimus, Apollinar●s, Eusebius Emissenus, and Theodorus Heracleotes) do all of them teach that S. Peter,& S. Paul mad● a compact, and covenant betwixt themselves, that S. Peter should suffer himself to be reprehended in that manner for the cause before specified: and albeit S. Augustine and others were of opinion that S. Peter condescended more then he should haue done to the infirmity of the Iewes, and that therfore he was reprehensible, as S. Paul said of him Gal. 2. yet neither he, nor any other Father thought, that either it was an error in faith, or yet that it drew near unto it, as M. Collins saith it did, against all reason, seeing it consisted only in his conversation with the Iewes, which was no matter of faith, but an act lawful in itself, though reprehensible in respect of some circumstances, to wit for the scandal that the Gentills might take thereby; so that the error was not in faith, but in prudence,( yea a material, and no formal error, as the Schoolmen speak,& consequently void of sin) and yet, as I haue said, blame worthy in respect of the inconvenience which might haue grown of it, if it had passed vncontroled.  
7. But I would gladly know here of M. Collins, what he should gain by it, or we loose more then he, if he could prove it to be an error in faith; for this being only a private error of S. Peters person, it could not prejudice the authority of our Popes public decrees( which is the mark that M. Collins aims at) for we hold not, that the Pope cannot err in his private actions,& opinions as a private person, but that he cannot err in the public decrees, which he maketh, and proposeth to the whole Church. besides that if S. Peter did, or could err in faith, we might doubt whether his epistles were canonical Scripture, or S. marks gospel a true gospel, which S. mark wrote by his relation,& instruction; whereupon it would also follow, that all the Apostles,& evangelists might err in faith, who had no greater warrant then S. Peter, neither yet so great, seing that our saviour( as he signified himself luke. 22.) prayed expressly for him that his faith should not fail, which we do not red that he did so particularly for any other of the Apostles;& therfore M. Collins must either grant that S. Peter did not err in faith, but in fact only,& so prove nothing against our Popes; or if he say heerred, or could err in faith, he shaketh the authority of all the new testament, no less then the authority of all the Popes decrees: so as you see how impertinently he bableth to prove some fraud in me, for the omission of this error in S. Peter. And thus much to his first reason why I omitted it.  
8. His second is, that I thought good to leave it out, least I might thereby subject the Monarch of the world to the open resistance, and reprehension of an abortive, that it to say, least I might subject S. Peter to S. Paul who was a later Apostle, and according to our doctrine inferior and subject to S. Peter: but in this M. Collins must needs speak against his own knowledge, and conscience, see ng that he saw afterwards in my adjoinder, that I was so far from fearing any prejudice to S. Peters primacy by this his error, and by S. Pauls reprehension therof, that I held, and proved it to be confirmed, and fortified thereby, according to the collection and inference that the ancient Fathers made therof, namely S. Cyprian, and S. Augustine, whose places I urged,& cited to that purpose; and M. Collins answered them so miserable, that he could not but see the force thereof, and know in his own conscience that they made wholly for us; and therfore to the end that thou mayst see, good Reader, his slight, and insufficient answer thereto, and consequently the little reason he hath to charge me with fraudulent dealing for having omitted this fault or S. Peter, I will lay down what I said in my adjoinder, together with his answer, and make thee judge of both.  
9. The occasion which I had to treat of this point there, was, that my Lord of Winchester cap. 8. pag. 218. charged carded. Bellarmine with fraud, because he alleged certain words of S. Cyprian ep. ad Quintum, to prove that our saviour founded the church vpon S. Peter,& omitted that which followed. The words alleged by the Cardinal were these. Petrus quem Dominus primum elegit,& supper quem fundauit Ecclesiam; and that which my Lord of Winchester accuseth him to haue fraudulently concealed is that which followeth in the same place,& concerneth S. Paules reprehension of S. Peter, wherein S. Cyprian signified, that S. Peter did not challenge any thing insolently to himself, nor take vpon him arrogantly to say, that he had the primacy, or that he ought to be obeied by thē that were younger, and later then he. Vpon which words of S. Cyprian my Lord of Winchester inferred that the mind, and sense of S. Cyprian seemed to be, that it Peter had said, that he had the primacy, he had insolently challenged somewhat to himself, and that therefore the cardinal suppressed that part of the text &c. wherein his L●. giveth the reader to understand, that S. Cyprian doth thereby affirm that S. Peter had not any primacy, or pre-eminency, and that therfore he should haue shewed himself very insolent, and arrogant if he had challenged any such thing to himself.  
10. For the confutation whereof I produced a place of S. Augustin alleged also by the cardinal in his controversies, to prove that S. Cyprian acknowledged therein S. Peters Primacy; for that S. Augustine having laid down those very words of S. Cyprian lib. 2. de Baptis. cap 1. saith thus: Ecce ubi commemorat Cyprianus &c. Behold how Cyprian doth show that Peter the Apostle( in whom the primacy of the Apostles is pre-eminent, with such an excellent grace) was corrected by Paul a later Apostle, when he dealt concerning circumcision otherwise then truth required &c. So saith S. Augustine, whereby it evidently appeareth how he understandeth S. Cyprian, to wit, that albeit Peter was pre-eminent, and far excelled the Apostles by reason of his primacy, yet when he erred, he patiently suffered himself to be corrected by S Paul, and did not insolently& arrogantly defend his error, standing vpon the authority of his primacy, and challenging obedience of S. Paul, and others. Thus said I in my adjoinder, with more concerning this matter, whic● I shall haue occasion to lay down also after a while: but by this it is evident enough that M. Collins seeing this in my adjoinder could not with reason charge me to haue dissembled this error of S. Peter traudulently, as making much against the primacy of S. Peter, when he knew that not only carded. Bellarmine, but also I myself had made use of it,& urged it for confirmation of S. Peters primacy, according to the sense, and m●nde of these 2. ancient Fathers.  
11. But now M. Collins will say perhaps, that in his 3. chap. he hath answered this amongst other things. Let us then see what he saith; first, he undertaketh cap. 3. num. 3. pag. 131. to answer our objection out of this place of S. Cyprian,& saith thus. Now in the Epistle ad Quintum what find we? Petrus quem primùm Dominus elegit,& supper quem aedificauit Ecclesiam suam. As if one of these did not expound another; for our saviour is said to haue built his Church vpon Peter, in that he choose him first, not choose him to be first, primùm eligit, non elegit in primatem, as preventing him with the promise, and honouring him with the exhibition of the keys before the rest &c. Thus saith M. Collins, who you see will needs haue primum, in S. Cyprian, to signify first chosen, and not chosen to be the first, or c●iefe; which exposition of his S. Augustine doth evidently control, expounding( as you haue heard) primum, in S. Cyprian, by a pre-eminent primacy of the Apostleship, in which respect M. Collins, when he cometh afterwards pag. 133. to say somewhat to S. Augustine his place, is faygne to charge him with some defect of memory, saying thus. S. Aug. albeit he alter the words of S. Cyprian ( as is soon done in allegations of memory) yet he keeps the sense, and savours you nothing; the primatus Apostolorum excellenti gratia praeeminens, standing in dignity, and quality( let the word gratia help to persuade you) not in authority. So he.  
12. In these few lines of his 3. or 4. egregious fooleries may be noted. The first, that he would persuade his reader, that S. Augustine so much trusted to his memory in the allegation of S. Cyprian, that either he had not his epistle, or at least did not look vpon it, when he alleged it, and thereby altered the words therof for lack of memory; whereas it cannot be thought with any reason that S. Augustine writing then against the Donatists( who relied vpon the authority of S. Cyprian) and alleging so much out of him as he did( both in the place which is now in question, and also afterwards) was not very wary, and careful both to haue the epistle itself, and also to consider it well, having to deal with such subtle and captious adversaries as he had; and therefore this is but a simplo, and very absurd shift, worthy of M. Collins, showing rather great want of wit in himself then any defect of memory of S. Augustine.  
13. The second foolery is, that he saith, that albeit S. Augustine do alter the words, yet he doth not alter the sense of S. Cyprian, wherein he saith very truly& condemneth himself utterly. For the sense of S. Augustins words are most clearly to be understood of S. Peters pre-eminent primacy: whereupon it followeth by M. Collins his own confession, that the sense of S. Cyprians words is the same, though S. Augustine for lack of memory perhaps altered them. Where then is M. Collins his construction of primùm in S. Cyprian, as if he meant that S. Peter was first choose,& not chosen to be the first or chief? Primum elegit( saith M. Collins) and not elegit in primatem; whereas S. Augustine retaining S. Cyprians sense( as M. Collins confesseth) acknowledgeth a pre-eminent primacy in S. Peter. Do you see ●●nem how this silly man contradicteth him●elfe, and overthroweth his own exposition?  
14. The third foolery is, that he saith S Augustine favoureth us nothing, by acknowledging the primacy of S. Peter, because the said primacy standeth in dignity ●nd quality, and not in authority. But this devise of his, I haue answered sufficiently before cap. 4. num. 24. and more amply cap. 2. num. 15.& 16. where I haue proved out of ●he ancient Fathers, that the pastoral commission, and power of the keys given to S. Peter by our saviour for himself, and the Church, did consist in authority of government, and not in a bare pre-eminence of ●lace, order, or excellency, which also may and confirmed, even by this place of S. Cypri●n now in question, seeing that he acknow●edgeth therein, that our Lord built his Church vpon S. Peter, saying mat. 16. supper ●●uem aedificauit Ecclesiam suam; for albeit M. Col●●ns saith that our saviour is said in S. Cyprian to ●ave built his Church vpon S. Peter, because he choose ●im first, and that S. Cyprian doth thereby ex●ound his precedent words, quem Dominus ●●imum eligit; yet he hath not any other reason for the same, but that it is his pleasure 〈◇〉 to say; whereas the analogy, and proportion which is betwixt the foundation in a building, and the head in a commonwealth or community, doth clearly show, that our saviour made S. Peter head of his Church, in building the same vpon him, besides that S. Cyprian in saying that our saviour buil● his Church vpon S. Peter, had relation, n● doubt, to our saviours promise made to S. Peter, when he said Mat. 16. supper hanc Petr●● aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, vpon this rock I wi●● build my church, which promise was mad● long after his vocation, or election to the Apostleship, and therefore signified some future thing to be performed afterwards, an● not the vocation which was already past▪ for no man promiseth a thing past, especially that which cannot be reiterated, or recovered; whereby M. Collins his childish folly i● most evident in affirming that our saviour is said to haue built his church vpon S. Peter, because he choose him first, seeing that his election w●●( as I haue said) before that the building o● the Church vpon him was so much as promised him.  
15. The fourth foolery is, that he sait● the word Gratia, may help to persuade me, that the primacy of S. Peter was not a Primacy of authority, but of dignity: but truly I shal be very hardly so persuaded, except he can persuade me first, that the same word in the title of the Kings majesty, and of other Christian Kings( who are said to be Kings by the grace of God) do deprive thē of all their authority, and leave them only a title of dignity; for I cannot conceive that the wo●d Grace, hath any more force, or other sense in the one then in the other, signifying in both a particular favour of almighty God, proceeding of his mere bounty, and goodness, being called gratia, quia gratis data, because it is given freely without our merit, or desert: which grace, and favour in this case is so much the greater, by how much the spiritual dignity and sovereignty of S. Peter excelleth the temporal dignity, or sovereignty of any temporal Prince. And therfore S. Augustine saith in this place, that the primacy of S. Peter was pre-eminent by an excellent grace; as also we haue seen before cap. 4. num. 1. that he said in like manner that S. Peter was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, and abundantiori gratia vnus, idemq́ue primus Apostolus, by a more abundant grace, or favour of God, one& he the chief Apostle. So as M. Collins his note of the word Grace, in this place serveth him to no purpose, except it be to put the reader in mind to pray to God to sand him more grace, and wit, having great want of both, as you haue seen sufficiently already, and shal see more abundantly hereafter; yea presently in two other notable fooleries of his, joined with falsity, and fraud, in that which followeth concerning this matter.  
16. In his fourth§. of the same chap. pag. 133. he saith that I quote out of S. Augustine, that Peter did otherwise then truth required, yea and in so great a point as Circumcision was; and that afterwards also I say more plainly num. 14. that he erred. whereupon he saith to me thus. Would you ever writ thus if you were in your wits, striving for Peters primacy to impute error to him, and error in faith, which you know cannot be without the grand peril of the universal Church? So he. But would he writ thus if he had either wit, grace, or his senses? for where findeth he in my adjoinder that I impute error of faith to S. Peter? seeing that those words which he himself allegeth, as quoted by me out of S. Augustin( to wit that Peter did otherwise concerning Circumcision then truth required) do manifestly show that the error which I aclowledge in S. Peter was only an error in fact, and not in faith, Vitium, as Tertullian saith, conversationis, non doctrinae: A fault of conversation, and not of doctrine, lib. de praescrip cap 23. Which therfore I call afterwards num. 16. pag. 109. an erroneous act, saying, That if Peter should haue stood vpon his primacy, in defence of his erroneous act, he should haue done insolently. With what conscience then can this man say that I charge S. Peter with an error in faith? Or how can he be thought to be in his right wits, who be lieth me so grossly, that the very words which he himself citeth out of me, may suffice to convince him.  
17. Yet much more fraudulent is the other foolery which followeth presently after n. 5. pa. 134. where he saith thus. I might likewise ask you what manner of primacy you call that, which excuseth not the superior from the lawful rebuk of the inferior; but so as if Peter should haue refused to follow, and to obey Paul( they are your own words num. 16) he should haue done insolently. Call you that a primacy( specially a Popish one) which must be patient of control, liable to the obedience even of his underling, if it will avoid pride? Thus saith M. Coll. relying, as he saith, vpon my own words; or rather belying both me and my words, as it will evidently appear by that, which I say in that place of my adjoinder, which he quoteth, to wit, cap. 3. num. 16. where I note a great difference to be observed, betwixt insolenter,& falsò, insolently, and falsely; for a man may( sa●d I) take vpon him a true authority, and speak of it insolently( that is to say, without just cause, or in defence of some evil act, and yet not falsely, because it is true that he hath the authority that he pretendeth. And therfore I say, that if S. Peter should haue stood vpon his primacy in defence of his erroneous act, and said that Paul ought to obey him therein, because he was the primate, and head of the Apostles, he had both said and done insolently, which nevertheless in the defence of a truth, or vpon some other just occasion he might both say and do without al note of insolency, yea justly, and necessary, because he had indeed the primacy, and therefore was to be obeied, and followed in all good, and just actions. Thus said I in my adjoinder.  
18. whereby 2. notable frauds may be discovered in M. Coll. the one that he dissembleth in his answer this discourse of mine, as if it were nothing to the purpose, for the explication of S. Cyprians words now in question, which I leave to the iudgement of the indifferent reader. The other fraud is a flat corruption, and falsification of my text, which he layeth down in a different letter thus: If S. Peter should haue refused to follow, and to obey S. Paul, he should haue done insolently; and these words he saith plainly are mine; whereas my words are these: If S. Peter should haue stood vpon his primacy in defence of his erroneous act, and said that Paul ought to follow, and obey him therein because he was the primate, and head of the Apostles, he should both haue said, and done insolently. So I; wherein thou mayst note, good Reader, a notable difference: for I do not say, that Peter should haue done insolently, if he had refused to obey Paul( for thereby I should haue acknowledged a superiority in S. Paul by the word, obey, which always presupposeth a duty, and subiection) but I say, that Peter should haue done insolently, if he had said that Paul ought to obey him, because he was primate of the Apostles.  
19. Therfore I doubt not, good Reader, but thou seest the difference, and how notably he hath corrupted, and falsified my text, to ground thereupon his foolish demand, to wit, Whether I call that a primacy, which must be patient of control, liable to the obedience even of his underling, if it will avoid pride? To which wise question, grounded vpon his own corruption of my text, I shall need to say no more, having discovered the weakness, and falsity of his ground; only I will add, that no primacy can exempt any man from the fraternal correction, and admonition of his inferior, when the same is given necessary, and with due circumstances: neither is the same primacy prejudiced thereby; for albeit the superior do follow the aduise of his subject in such case, yet he cannot be said properly to obey him therein, for that obedience, supposeth( as I haue said) superiority, and authority to command, which the subject hath no● over the superior, though he may admonish, counsel, and aduise him with more or less liberty, according to the quality, and importance of the cause. In which respect S. Cyprian acknowledging, not only the reprehension given to S. Peter by S. Paul, but also S. Peters primacy, commendeth S. Peter that he did not allege his primacy to defend his erroneous act.  
20. And S. Augustine debating this matter with S. jerome ep. 19. commendeth thē both: S. Paul for his liberty, and freedom,& S. Peter for his humility; and albeit he hold that S. Peter was reprehensible, yet he saith he left a more rare, and holy example to posterity( not to disdain a reprehension of their errors from their puisnes) then Saint Paul did by his act, quo confidenter auderent, saith he, etiam minores maioribus pro defendenda evangelica veritate, salua fraterna charitate resistere: whereby the inferiors might be moved to resist their superiors, though it were even for defence of the gospel, and without breach o● brotherly charity. whereby S. Aug. acknowledgeth that S. Paul was Minor,& S. Peter Maior, which he must needs be understood to haue said in respect of that primacy, which you haue heard him say before, was pre-eminent in S. Peter, tam excellenti gratia, with such an excellent grace and favour of almighty God. And therfore Saint Gregory in Ezechiel lib. 2. cap 18. commendeth greatly the humility of S. Peter, for that being primus in Apostolatus culmine, the chief in the height of the apostolical dignity, se minori fratri ad consensum dedit, he was content to yield to his younger, or inferior brother; yea and so notorious was this primacy of S. Peter to the very Paymins that Porphirius the Philosopher did blasphemously tax S. Paul with procacity or sausines, quòd Apostolorum principem ausus est reprehendere, that he durst be so bold to reprehend Peter the prince of the Apostles, as S jerome testifieth epist. 89. And to conclude this point, this is most evident, even in that place of S. Cyprian, which is now in question, and was urged by my Lord of Winchester against cardinal Bellarmine, as lamely quoted by him.  
21. For whereas my Lord inferred vpon S. Cyprians words, that if S. Peter had said, he had the primacy, he had insolently challenged something to himself( that is to say more then was due unto him)& that therefore the cardinal suppressed warily that part of the text( because it made little for the primacy) the contrary may be clearly inferred thereon, if the words of Saint Cyprian be well noted, who saith that Saint Peter, when he was reprehended by Saint Paul, did not arrogantly say that he had the primacy, or that he ought to be obeied by those that were later Apostles then he; wherein two pre-eminences are noted in S. Peter, the one that he was primate of the Apostles; and the other that he was the elder Apostle; of which two my Lord of Winchester, and M. Collins will not deny( I am sure) the later to haue been truly in S. Peter( to wit he was the elder Apostle) how then can they deny that he had the ●ther as truly, seeing S. Cyprian speaketh of them both a like, as who would say, that albeit S. Peter was both Primate of the Apostles, and called to the Apostleship long before S. Paul, yet he would not in defence of his error insolently challenge Obedience of S. Paul in respect of the one, or of the other.  
22. Therfore whereas my Lord of Winchester groundeth his argument against the primacy vpon the words insolently, and arrogantly( as if S. Cyprian should mean that S. Peter should haue done insolently to challenge a primacy, because he had none,) I would gladly know why S. Cyprian should make mention of S. Peters Primacy, as well as of his ●ldership, if he had not the one, as well as the other; to which purpose it is to be observed, that as the words insolently, and arrogantly do not derogate any thing from the truth, and realty of his Eldership, no more can they derogate from the truth, and realty of h●s primacy, according to the meaning of S. Cyprian, who as I haue said, speaking of bot● these titles, and pre-eminences alike, only signifieth, that it had been insolency, or a●rogancy in him to haue stood vpon thē in defence of his error, or to haue exacted obedience of S. Paul in regard therof, albeit he might in a just cause haue challenged them, without any note of insolency, or arrogancy, as I haue signified before.  
23. This then being the clear sense, and meaning of S. Cyprian, it is evident; first, that this place of S. Cyprian( together with the exposition of S. Augustin which you haue heard before) doth notably confirm the primacy of S. Peter; secondly, that my Lord of Winchester taxed the cardinal with the lame quotation of it, without just cause, seeing it made much for the cardinal and against my Lord of Winchester; thirdly, that S. Pauls reprehension of S. Peter did nothing prejudice the primacy of S. Peter; which primacy you see is acknowledged by these two Fathers, even whiles they treat of his error,& of S. Pauls reprehension thereof; fourthly, that M. Collins had no reason in the world to charge me with the fraudulent concealing of this error of S. Peter; seeing that he saw in my adjoinder, that I made use of it there to confirm S. Peters primacy in such sort, that he had been forced in the answer therof to dissemble, wrest, falsify and corrupt my text, besides diuers notable fooleries, which he hath committed by the way, as I haue sufficiently shewed; so hard, or rather impossible it is to maintain one error, without committing many. What then hath the silly fellow gained by the ample& large quotation of S. Austin, wherein he glorieth oft,& triumpheth exceedingly, although it hath served him( as you see) to no other purpose then to discover his folly,& the weakness of his cause?  
24. nevertheless the poor man knoweth not, when to make an end of his bab●ing, but will needs go on stil with S. Aug. ●is discourse, and his Comment thereon, wherein if I would follow him,& examine ●he weight, and worth of his gloss,& his ●rguments, as hitherto I haue done, I should ●yre thee, good Reader, no less then myself with his absurdities& malicious abuse, as well of S. Augustine and other ancient Fa●hers, as of the jesuits, against whom he ●pitteth every where his venom, and spite ●boundantly, belying them, and their doctrine without all respect of conscience, or ●hame; whereof I may perhaps haue some better opportunity to speak hereafter, and ●herfore having now for the present answered as much as he hath said of importance, to the places which I alleged out of S. Augustine, I will pass to another place cited al●o by m Lord of Winchester out of S. Ambrose, to the same purpose; which shal be debated in the next Chapter.   

M. Collins his answer to 2. places, the one of S Ambrose, and the other of S. lo, is proved to be exceeding fraudulent: and by the way many fooleries, and ridiculous absurdities are discovered therein. Finally M. Casaubon( to whom M. Collins remitteth his adversary) is found to be very defective, and absurd; injurious to Car●inall Bellarmine, and opposite to M. Collins. CHAP. VI.  
WE haue seen how well M. Collins hath behaved himself in answer of those places, which I alleged out of S. Aug. concerning the commission of chief pastor given by our saviour to S. Peter, when he said unto him pasce oves meas; and, that there hath passed nothing hitherto, wherein he hath not committed some notable fraud, or folly. Now there remain yet to be debated touching the same point, 2. places of S. Ambrose, the one alleged by my Lord of Winchester( which I charged his Lord P. to haue alleged corruptly) and the other quoted by me to justify my exposition of the former. And I must needs say that M. Collins hath had much better lucke in the former, then in the later; for I do very willingly aclowledge that he hath fully cleared his LP. of the imputation of corruption, wherewith I charged him, seeing he hath produced diuers prints, which haue the place, as my Lord alleged it, of which prints if I had found but any one, when I wrote my adjoinder, I would not haue charged his LP. as I did, following certain copies, which I had then agreeing with my allegation, as M. Collins himself confesseth pag. 45.  
2. nevertheless I would not haue thee, good reader, to think that the place, as his LP. hath it, doth prove his intention, or make any thing against us, or yet that it needeth any other answer then that which I gave him in my adjoinder; where the question being, whether S. Peter was supreme pastor of the whole Church, my Lord of Winchester produced 2. places for the negative, the one out of S. Austine de ago Christiano( which you haue heard already debated) and the other out of S. Ambrose de dignit. Sacerd. cap. 2 in these words. Eas oves non solum beatus suscepit Petrus, said& nobiscum eas suscepit,& nos cum illo accepimus omnes, that is to say: Those sheep not onely the blessed Peter received, but also he received them with us and we al received them with him: whereupon my Lord of Winchester saith in his answer to cardinal Bellarmines Apology pag. 16. nempe dictum est illi. Pasce &c. for it was said to him, feed as well in the person of others, as in his own. whereby my Lord giveth to understand that S. Peter had not( according S. Ambrose) any more authority, or power, given him by our saviour( when he said unto him pasce oves meas) then the rest of the Apostles had, or then all other Pastours in the Church haue, seeing they all received their pastoral authority in him, and with him.  
3. To this I answered first pag. 6. num. 6. that my Lord had corrupted the text of S Ambrose, adding th●se words thereto: Et nobiscum eas suscepit, and he received the same sheep with us: which words were not in the copies which I followed; of which imputation I do now aclowledge his L P. to be clear. Secondly I answered pag. 7. num. 7. that the doctrine of S. Ambrose is very conform to S. Augustins in that point, signifying nothing else, but that all the pastors of Gods Church received their pastoral authority over their flocks with S. Peter, because he being the head of the church represented the person of the whole church, and therfore did not receive that pastoral authority for himself alone, but also for the church, and all the pastors thereof.  
4. And to prove that S. Ambrose had no other meaning, but this, and no intent at all to deny thereby the supreme authority of S. Peter, or the different degrees of pastoral authority in the Church, I produced an evident place out of S. Ambrose in the 10. book of his commentary vpon S. Luks gospel cap. 24. where having said that our saviour asked Peter thrice, whether he loved him( not to learn, saith he, any thing of him, but to teach him, whom he meant to leave us, quoddle amoris sui vicarium, as the vicar of his love) he allegeth our saviours words to S. Peter, Simon the son of John dost thou love me &c. pasce agnos meos: feed my lambs. And then shortly after he infereth thereupon thus. Et ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur. And therfore because he alone of all the rest professed his love, he is preferred before them all. And after a while he concludeth, that our Lord asked him the third time whether he loved him: Et iam, saith he, non agnos vt primò q●odam lact pascendos &c. and now Peter is commanded not to feed lambs with a certain milk, as the first time, nor to feed the little sheep, as the second time; said oves pascere tubetur, perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret; he is commanded to seed the sheep, that he being more perfect might govern the more perfect.  
5. Thus far I alleged S. Ambrose in my adjoinder, to explicate, and answer the place alleged my L. of Winchester out of him,& I doubt not but it is evident by S. Ambrose his own exposition of the words pasce oves meas, that when he said that all Pastours received Christs sheep together with S. Peter, he had no meaning to impugn, or deny thereby S. Peters primacy( which you see he expressly affirmeth, and teacheth heer) but rather to confirm it according to S. Augustines doctrine, and explication; who using the same manner of speech that Saint Ambrose doth, as you haue heard, doth also yield the reason thereof, to wit, that for as much as S. Peter represented the Church propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit, for the primacy which he had amongst the disciples, therfore the Apostles, and all other Pastours received their pastoral authority in him, and with him.  
6. But now M. Collins taketh hold of my own words, and urgeth them against me, because I said pag. 7. num. 7. that the words of S. Ambrose, to wit, nobiscum eas suscepit( which I haue charged my Lord of Winchester, to haue added to the text) do enforce a greater equality betwixt S. Peter, and other pastors, then ever S. Ambrose did imagine; but my meaning was, that to the ignorant reader it would seem so,& therfore I said afterwards pag. 9. lin. 13. that these words make a greater show of parity, or equality. But if they be well considered, the sense is all one, be the words either as he, or I alleged them; for as I had them, they signify, that we received the sheep with Peter; and as his LP. alleged them, they signify that S. Peter received thē with us, and wee with him, which is in effect all one; for if we received them with him, then he received them with us; and if he with us, then wee with him: and this, as I haue said, is true in respect of his primacy, whereby he represented al the pastors of the church to the worlds end, as I haue signified amply before cap. 2. num. 7. by the similitude of a first Monarch, or king, of whom it may truly be said, that all his successors,& the magistrates subordinate to him, and them, received their authority with him, and he with them. Thus much concerning the place alleged by my Lord of Winchester.  
7. Let us now see what M. Collins saith to the place of S. Ambrose which I produced to interpret the other, in which place S. Peters supreme pastoral dignity is clearly acknowledged, and taught by that ancient, and learned Father. The place is laid down by me a little before as I alleged it in my adjoinder pag. 7. num. 8. where I also added num. 9. three things to be noted therein. First that he called S. Peter, Vicarium amoris Christi, the Vicar or substitute of Christes love. The second that he said of him, quia solus ex omnibus profitetur, omnibus antefertur. The third, that by the distinction which he made of lambs, little sheep,& sheep( recommended to the pastoral care of S. Peter) he giveth to understand that al sorts of Christians( even the most holy, learned, and perfect, yea the Apostles themselves) were committed to his charge, and government, and that therfore S. Ambrose concluded thus, oves pascere jubetur, perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret.  
8. Thus said I in effect, but somewhat more amply in my adjoinder pag. 8. num 9. where you see plainly, that S. Ambrose doth in his conclusion expound pascere by gubernare, which I desire thee good Reader, to note, that thou mayst the better discover M. Collins his notable coggery, who undertaking to answer to this place, even by piecemeal( as I may say) saith somewhat to the rest, but dissembleth that conclusion: and to the end he may the better do it, he doth not lay down the whole place, neither yet my text, but toucheth only some such partes therof, as he supposeth he may best shift off, with some colourable answer. First he layeth hold vpon the words, Quia s●lus profitetur, omnibus antefertur, saying pag. 48. anteferri is one thing, praeponi another; the later may be of authority, the first of any excellency; so so as he will not grant that S. Ambrose acknowledged any authority in S. Peter more then in others by the word anteferri, but only a kind of excellency, which he saith a few lines before pag 47. lin. antepenult. is that primatus praestantiae, by the which my L. of Winchester foiled my frivolous objection even before it was batched. And he asketh me by the way, whether he doth not seem to me too grammatical? whereto I answer that truly I think he hath more grammar, then wit to use it well, and yet no more grammar neither, then he hath need of, as may appear by his correction of my translation of obstrepere, and repraesentare in his preface;& what good use he maketh of his skill in grammar, yea and of this difference which he maketh here betwixt anteferri, and praeponi thou shalt see, good reader, hereafter in his answer to a like place of S. lo, wherein praeponi is used in the very same sense, which here he signifieth, and yet it will not suffice to persuade him, that S. Peter had any authority over the rest of the Apostles; as shall appear after in this chapter num. 36.  
9. But to proceed, he telleth me, that anteferri is to be esteemed, or graced before another; and to show his copy and plenty of Latin, he saith it is like anteire, antecellere; and afterwards giveth 3. instances of S. Peter excellencies. The first, that he was bid to feed, as one, in whose person others were exhorted:& the Church represented The second, that he was promised martyrdom in these words, cum senueris. And the third, that he had a priority like charity amongst other virtues, which is, saith he, to be principal indeed, but not to rule; and addeth for the proof therof, that the virtues of the prosequutiue part, rule not the intellectual, but are ruled rather. So he: and now do you not se how this pedant, to exclude S. Peter from all authority, and rule, doth out of his grammar rules labour to overrule, and controlle S. Ambrose, contradicting flatly his exposition of our saviours words? which, as you haue heard, he understandeth clearly of rule,& government, saying: oves pascere jubetur, perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret: that is to say, S. Peter is commanded to feed the sheep, to the end that he being more perfect, might rule, or govern the more perfect. whereby he signifieth plainly what he meaneth by anteferri, to wit, that S. Peter was preferred before the rest in authority, rule, and government: had not this fellow reason, think you, to nip off, or at least to dissemble those words of S. Ambrose to make good his grammatical conceit?  
10. The like may also be said of his discourse, which followeth num. 33. concerning Vicarium amoris, in S. Ambrose, whereupon he maketh an ample comment, over long, and idle to be set down here, but the sum, and scope of all is, to prove by diuers examples, that the title of Vicari●s Christi hath been applied to diuers other as well as to S. Peter, which no man, I think will deny; neither would I haue urged that title if it had been alone without these circumstances,& the subsequent discourse,& especially the conclusion which fortifieth the rest, and expresseth S. Ambrose his meaning in all the premises.  
11. But now M. Collins goeth on with his extravagant discourse to impugn an observation which I make out of S. Ambrose, and he out of his Doctorall gravity calleth it a grave observation, and me a Noddy for my pains. My words are these pag. 8. num. 9. chambermaids S. Ambrose observeth 3. degrees of Christians, to wit lambs, little sheep, and sheep, all commended to the care of S. Peter, he giveth to understand, that all sorts of Christians were committed to his charge and government, and not the weak onely, but the most holy also, learned, and perfect, yea even the Apostles themselves, and therfore he saith, ones pascere jubetur vt perfectiores persectior gubernaret. Thus said I, which M. Collins doth curtal thus pag. 50. num. 34. There is yet behind, saith he, an other grave observation out of S. Ambrose, that Peter is not bid to feed the lambs, or little sheep, but oves ipsas, that is the more perfect. So he, dissembling that, which most importeth t●uching government, though expressly set down by S. Ambr.& related by me, to wit, vt perfectiores persectior gubernaret; which words were too hot for M. Collins to touch, because they signify clearly, that S. Peter was commanded to feed the sheep( that is to say the more perfect) that he might govern them, which he in his gloss vpon anteferri denieth to be meant by S. Ambrose, as you haue heard, acknowledging onely a certain priority to be allowed by S. Ambrose to S. Peter, such a one as Charity hath amongst the virtues, that is to say to be principal, but not to rule; which word rule, he also putteth in a different letter, to be the better noted, as no way intended by S. Ambrose.  
12. But if gubernare be to govern, and to govern be to rule, S. Ambrose affirmeth it, and teacheth it expressly, and M. Collins doth not only fraudulently conceal,& dissemble it, but also if I may be so bold to say it to so grave a Doctor) belieth S. Ambrose, denying flattly his sense and meaning; and yet forsooth to give some colour to this fraud of his, he insinuateth that the text of S. Ambrose should be red otherwise, saying. I might sand this Noddy to M. Casaubons late monument, or rather mirror of Excercitations to Baronius his Annales to be informed of S. Ambrose his reading this text, and the uprightness of it. So he; without declaring any particular therof, being surprised, as it seemeth with such a sudden pang of sorrow for the death of M. Casaubon, that he abruptly crieth out. Wo is me, for that divine man M. Casaubon, that speaking of his monument, I should speak ambiguously of his tomb, or of his writings; but what that hath devoured, these shall eternize, and now is no ty●e to bewail our loss.  
13. Thus doth kind M. Collins ease,& disburden his tender hart of some part of his sorrow conceived for the lamentable lo●se of divine M. Casaubon, which truly made me the more willing to inquire after that worthy monument,& mirror of exercitations, which I had never seen, nor I think should ever haue cared to see, had it not been by this occasion; and having at last got a sight of it, I turned to the place cited by M. Collins, and found the divine man scant honest in his allegations, and in●erpretations of the Fathers, and other authors even in that Exercitation, and chapter, which M. Collins citeth, viz. Exercit. 16. cap. 133. where he digresseth from cardinal Baronius, to haue a fling at cardinal Bellarmine, for his exposition of pasce oves meas, wherein the cardinal followeth S. Ambrose in this very place now in question.  
14. And albeit he is so saucy with S. Ambrose, as to censure him for using ouiculas instead of agnos, and making a difference between diligo, and amo: yet I think good to omit it for breuityes sake, as not importing any way the matter in question betwixt M. Collins and me, which consisteth not in the different sense, or reading of diligo or amo, or yet of euiculae, or agni, but in the true sense of pasce oves meas, whether the same doth include in it a primacy of government, or no; about which words( I mean the true reading of them in S. Ambrose) M. Casaubon maketh no question at all; and therefore M. Collins sheweth himself, I will not say a Noddy( as he termeth me) but a very inconsiderate Doctor to sand me to him to be informed of the uprightness of S. Ambrose his text, for matters that do not concern our present question: besides that I make no doubt but that the text of S. Ambrose willbe held for upright, and currant enough throughout the Christian world, notwithstanding the idle censure of these two pedantical Grammarians.  
15. nevertheless I cannot omit to observe somewhat in M. Casaubon, as well to show his honesty, as for the better instruction of M. Collins, whereby I hope, it will appear who is the Noddy, either I, whom he sent to M. Casaubon, or he for sending me to him. Thou shalt understand therefore, good Reader, that master Casaubons chief quarrel against cardinal Bellarmine in that chapter, is about the Cardinals explication of those words, pasce oves meas, which he explicated thus, id est regio more impera( as M. Casaubon saith) who therforce wisheth to be noted in the greek text of the evangelist, that in the 3. times that our saviour said pasce, according to our latin translation, the greek hath twice {αβγδ}, and but once {αβγδ}, and nevertheless, saith he, cardinal Bellarmin neglecteth wholly the word {αβγδ}, and urgeth mightily the word {αβγδ}, ratio est, saith M. Casaubon, quia vt Theophilactus observat, {αβγδ} curam mitiorem significat; {αβγδ} acrioris imperij videtur habere significationem. The reason is, because, as Theophilact observeth, the word {αβγδ} doth signify a more mildred care, and {αβγδ} a more severe command, or government. And to this M. Casaubon addeth the Greek text of Theophilact thus: {αβγδ}.  
16. herein M. Collins may note that according to Theophilact, the greek of pasce in this place( be it {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}) doth include authority,& government, though the one signify a more mildred government then the other. This is evident in the word {αβγδ}, which doth signify in this place Imperium, and is applied to both the verbs {αβγδ}& {αβγδ}, though with different adjectives, the one signifying more mildred,& the other more severe; so as the true sense of the greek in Theophilact is this, {αβγδ} signify●th a more severe government, and {αβγδ} a more mildred government. This I note by the way for the instruction of M. D. Collins, to the end he may learn, not only by the place of S. Ambrose, which is now in question, but also by this of Theophilact alleged by his divine M. Casaubon, that pasce, in the words pasce oves meas doth signify to govern; of which point, I shall haue occasion to say somewhat more to M. Collins hereafter num. 25. 26. 27.& 28. by the testimony of M. Casaubon himself.  
17. In the mean time, for as much as M. Casaubone, to whom M. Collins sendeth me, remitteth me,& others his Readers to Theophilact( saying vide Theophilactum) concerning the understanding of the word pasce, according to the greek Fathers( who he saith do note that Christ did admonish the Apostles by the two words {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, that they should haue care as well of the mean and little sheep, as of the great, and that they should so behave themselves towards the one,& the other, as their need should require) for this cause, I say, I haue taken the pains to see Theophilact, as M. Casaubon hath willed me; and I find even in that place, whereto he remitteth me somewhat more then he mentioneth, yea much more then he and his disciple M. Collins will well digest; for thus he saith in cap. 21. joan. {αβγδ} &c. When dinner was ended, Christ recommended to Peter the government of the sheep of all the world, and he did not deliver it to any other, but to him. Thus saith Theophilact, not denying that this pastoral commission was given to the rest of the Apostls, and to the whole Church; but that it was not given principally, and immediately to any, but to him, who being the supreme pastor, and governor of the Church, received that commission not only for himself, but also for the Apostles, and for the whole Church bearing the person therof, propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit, for the primacy which he had amongst the disciples, as hath been sufficiently proved heretofore out of S. Augustine.  
18. To the same purpose Theophilact saith also afterwards: {αβγδ} &c. he gave into the hands of Peter the prefectship of all the faithful; for although james received the chair, and throne of jerusalem, yet Peter received the chair, and throne of the whole world. So he: giuing to understand that neither james, nor any of the Apostles had the supreme charge and government of all the faithful, as Peter had; and that as james was truly the pastor, and particular governor of the Church of jerusalem; so Peter was truly the chief pastor and governor of the whole Church. In like manner afterwards Theophilact having demanded why the evangelist S. John doth make mention of his own layning on Christs breast, and of the question which he asked of our saviour, who should betray him; saith thus: {αβγδ} &c. It was not don without mystery, or by chance, to the end he might show Peters liberty, or freedom of speech after his denial; for he that durst not before the cross ( or passion) ask concerning the traitor, but committed the question to another, he the self same receiveth the prefectship of all; and not only those things which belonged to him were not committed to any other, but also he asketh for the best beloved disciple, and is made a mediator for him to their Lord.  
19. Thus far Theophilact; imitating therein S. Chrysostome, who in his homily vpon the same gospel, and words of our saviour hath the very same in effect, expounding pasce oves meas, by suscipe curam fratrum tuorum, take the charge of thy brethren, that is to say, of the Apostles, as it appeareth evidently by the circumstances in S. Chrysostome, who noteth as Theophilact doth, that albeit S. Peter durst not presume at Christes last supper to ask him, who was he that should betray him, yet, Commissa sibi fratrum cura, saith he, vicem suam alteri non mandat, said ipse magistrum interrogat: The charge of his brethren being committed unto him he doth not delegate any other, but asketh their master himself. So saith S. Chrysostome, giuing plainly to understand that S. Peter having by the pastoral commission received the charge, and government of his brethren the Apostles, was more confident, then before, and would not use the intervention of any of them( because they were under his charge) but asked our saviour himself; and therefore Theophilact abridging S. Chrysostome in this place( as he doth in a manner throughout al his homilies vpon the Ghospells) instead of curam fratrum in S. Chrysostome hath {αβγδ}, praefecturam omnium, the prefectship of all.  
20. This also may be confirmed out of Euthymus, another greek Father, who vpon the same chapter, and place of S. John saith, that our saviour asking S. Peter three times, whether he loved him,& commanding him stil one thing( to wit to feed his sheep) did manifestly signify, that he most highly esteemed praesidentiam supper omnes discipulos, the presidence, or government( which he gave him) over all his disciples; and therefore I cannot omit to note here by the way, how impertinently M. Collins answereth the place cited a little before out of S. Chrysostome alleged by me also in my adjoinder pag. 22. num. 31. whereat he scoffeth thus pag. 84. num. 52. That Peter( saith he) had the care of his brethren committed to him, as if we imagined Peter such a Cain, that cried, what haue I to look to my Brother? Thus saith M. Collins, as who would say, that the charge which S. Peter had over his brethren, was but only a brotherly care, that one brother should haue of another: which sense cannot stand either with the meaning of S. Chrysostome( as any man may easily see in the place before cited) or with {αβγδ} in Theophilact, which as I haue said, signifieth a prefecture, or charge including jurisdiction, and authoriry of government, such as he acknowledged in S. Peter, when preferring him before S. james, he said, as you heard before, that james had the throne of jerusalem, but Peter had the throne, or chair of the whole world, which S. Chrysostome also in the same place affirmeth in like manner, who having demanded, why james was made Bishop of jerusalem and not Peter, answereth that our saviour preferred Peter to be the master of the whole world.  
21. Whereby he signifieth plainly that albeit S. james, and all the other Apostles had express commission from our saviour to preach every where throughout the whole world( in which respect he saith also himself in the same place, that the care of the whole world was recommended unto them) yet his meaning was that Peter had it in a far more eminent manner then they, because he being Princeps Apostolorum,& vertex totius caetus, prince of the Apostles, and head of the whole company( for so he calleth him in the same homily) had the charge and government of them, as well as of all others that belonged to the sheepfold of Christ; whereupon it followeth that he alone was the supreme pastor of the whole Church, and that the rest of the Apostles, being the sheep of Christ, were also subject to him; which S. Chrysostome signified evidently when he expounded pasce oves meas, by suscipe curam fratrum tuorum, take the charge or thy brethren, whereby it appeareth what a ridiculous gloss M. Collins maketh thereon, when he taketh it only for a brotherly care.  
22. But now, to return for a while to M. Casaubon, you haue seen how little the greek Fathers, on whom he seemeth most to rely, do favour him, and specially Theophilact, unto whom he appealeth by name; in so much that it is hard to say, whether his fraud, or his folly be greater, his fraud in abusing his Readers with a false show of ancient Fathers, when they make nothing for him; his folly in appealing to such, as do flattly condemn him; so as M. Collins who hath deified him, calling him the divine man, might rather haue noddified him, and himself for company, when he meant to noddify me. But he that will see what a divine man M. Casaubon is, let him red F. Andreas Eudemon-Ioannes his castigations of that mirror of Exercitations( as M. Collins termeth it) whereto he remitteth me, and he shall find the divine man, so far from a good divine, that he is neither good Philosopher, nor good humanist, nor yet good Grammarian, either for the latin, or for the greek, wherein he most glorieth, and this evidently appeareth as well by the observation of his errors made by F. Andraeas himself l 2. cap. 2. as by those other which he layeth down in his third chap. of the said book, noted by Mathaeus Cariophilus: whereto may be added his many barbarisms in the latin long observed even in one onely epistle of his by Gaspar Schiopius, to say nothing of his impostures, abuse of the holy fathers, and other authors, and his manifold lies, of all which the said F. Andraeas giveth manifest example; so as wee may see how worthily M. Collins hath deified him, and how true the latin proverb is, Mulus mulum scabit, One mule claws another.  
23. And although it may perhaps seem a needles labour to enlarge myself in this place further vpon M. Caesaubon, yet because I find( even in that chapter of his Exercitations, whereto M. Collins hath sent me) that he notably abuseth cardinal Bellarmine, I cannot omit, for the honour I bear the worthy cardinal, to say somewhat thereto, and much the rather, because it may serve me also to some good purpose, to rectify the iudgement of M. Collins in the present controversy betwixt him and me. Therfore it is to be understood that whereas the cardinal in his 4. book de Rom Pont. cap. 16. saith, that when our saviour said to S. Peter, Pasce oves meas, he used vocabulo Regio, a Kingly word; and in his recognition of all his works speaking of that place, saith, that it may be gathered by the words of our saviour, that he gave to S. Peter authority to govern regio more, after the manner of a king, remitting his Reader for the further explication therof to his first book de Rom. Pont. cap. 15.( where he bringeth diuers places of the holy Scriptures, and some out of profane authors to prove that pasce, is oft-times used for regere, to govern, as well in the greek, as in the Latin;) M. Casaubon wilfully,& maliciously misconstrueth the Cardinals meaning, urging and exaggerating his words further, then ever he meant to extend them.  
24. For his intention was no other, but onely to signify that the government of the Church is by the institution of our saviour truly monarchical, that is to say a lawful, just, and moderate government under one head, such as is the government of a just, and good King, who seeking( according to Aristotle) the good of his subiects, and not his own, may truly be called, Paeter patriae the Father of his country, the refuge of the poor, the defence of the innocent, and the comfort of all his distressed subiects, such as david,& Moyses are described to be in the holy Scriptures; yea such as the very Paynim Philosophers( who treat of the office,& duty of a good king) require him to be; that is to say, not onely to be the minister of Almighty God, to administer iustice, but also to be most like him in innocency, liberality, longanimity, patience, mercy, and in all virtue, and goodness, as Plutarch, following Plato, teacheth notably in his treatise de doctrina Principum, and in the life of Aristides.  
25. This then being so, and the Cardinals meaning no other( when he speaketh of a kingly government in the church) what reason, or honest meaning hath M. Casaubon to stretch the Cardinals words,& intention to a tyrannicall government,& to inveigh against him for the same, as he doth? to which purpose it is also to be noted, that whereas the cardinal produceth diuers places of Holy Scripture, and profane authors( as I haue signified before) to prove that {αβγδ} in greek, and pascere in latin, are many times used for, regere, to govern; M. Casaubon himself expoundeth these places to signify only, that the office of a King is to govern his people with such tenderness, sweetness, and loving affection, as shepherds are wont to govern their flocks, which was also the cardinals meaning, who in acknowledging a Kingly manner of government in the Church, and producing those places for the proof thereof, had no other intention, then to denote the most just, sweet, moderate, and pastoral government that may be. But seeing that M. Casaubon is scandalised with the words regium, and impera, I marvel how he doth brook and digest the use therof in the holy Scripture, as 1. Petr. 2. where our priesthood is called regal sacerdotium, a kingly Priesthood. And in the Apocal cap. 1& 5. Fecisti ●os Deo n●stro regnum,& sacerdotes,& regnabimus supper terram: Thou hast made us to our God, a kingdom, and Priests, and we shall reign vpon the earth. And in S. Paul to Titus cap. 2. Argue cum omni imperio, reprove with all imperious command; which seemeth to be much more, then regio more impera; for omne imperium, includeth not only, the regal, and imperial authority, but also the Despoticall; whereas, Regio more, being added to impera, in the cardinal, doth so qualify,& moderat the rigour of the word that it signifieth a most just, mild, and moderate government, that is to say, the government of a just, and good King; in which sense the cardinal taketh it, as I haue declared before.  
26. nevertheless I must advertise M. Casaubon by the way, that although the government of the Church ought to be pastoral, that is to say most moderate, and sweet; yet not so moderate, gentle, and sweet, but that the pastor may, when occasion requireth, use his pastoral staff to correct a straying sheep, and beate him into the fold;& if there should be a scabbed sheep in the flock, though perhaps he were as good a Grammarian as M. Casaubon, or as great a doctor as M. Collins, yet the shepherd might with his sheep-hooke draw him by the leg out of the fold, yea and if he were incurable he might give him into the butchers hands, least otherwise he might infect the whole flock. And this I think could not seem to any reasonable man, either tyrannicall, or unfit for the office of a good pastor described( as M. Casaubon saith) by S. Gregory Nazianzen orat. 1. saving: Pastor non utitur multùm pedo, fistula vero plurimùm: the shepherd doth not much use his staff, or sheep-hooke, but his whistle very much, that is to say, he useth more lenity, then severity, oftener preaching and exhorting, then punishing, yet punishing sometimes even with severity, when there is just occasion for a public good.  
27. For what more severe punishment can there be, then S. Peter used to chastise Ananias and Saphira, whom he stroke with sudden death Act. 5? Or then S. Paul used in the punishment of the incestuous Corinthian delivering him to Satan 1. Cor. 5. punishing him thereby as well in body, as in soul? And this M. Casaubon himself seemeth not to deny, when he saith in the end after his long invective against the cardinal: Neque hoc dicimus, saith he, quod putemus &c. Neither do I say this, because I think that the spiritual pastor doth lack spiritual power to punish his rebels after a spiritual manner &c. meaning, no doubt that he may punish by way of excommunication, and censures; which albeit, they do principally concern the soul, yet do consequently induce many times bodily or temporal punishment; but whether they do, or no, the only spiritual is more severe, and terrible, then any bodily, or temporal punishment in the world; and therefore no man that hath such esteem of spiritual punishments( especially of excommunications, and ecclesiastical censures) as a good Christian ought to haue, can deny but that the spiritual pastor may use rigour, and severity, when occasion requireth.  
28. Well then, this I haue touched briefly by occasion of M. Casaubons malicious censure, and reprehension of the Cardinal; and as I haue said before, I haue don it the rather, because it may serve me also to some good purpose for the instruction of M. Collins, who sent me unto him. For whereas M. Collins hath denied, as you haue heard, that S. Peter had, by the words pasce oves meas, any authority given him to govern, or rule, but only to seed( for which cause he also suppressed the words of S. Ambrose, who expounded pascere by gubernare) he is clearly convinced by his divine man M. Casaubon, who( albeit he exclude tyranny, or great severity from the pastoral office) yet granteth, that the spiritual Pastor hath ●ot only praesecturam, that is to say a Prefectship, or government( though omnium mitissimum, saith he, the most mild, and gentle of all other, which no man denieth) but also spiritualem potestatem animaduertendi in rebelles; power to punish his rebellious subiects; and that Pastor castigat pedo, the Pastor punisheth with his pastoral staff, or sheep-hooke( but not with Virga ferrea, saith he, the iron rod( about which point I will not stand now to dispute with him, though I know not what iron rod can be so grievous as an excommunication,) but it sufficeth me for M. Collins at this present, that his divine man M. Casaubon granteth to the Pastor authority of government, though most gentle, and mild, partly approving Theophilacts exposition of the greek word 〈◇〉 signifying, or denoting imperium mite, a mild government, and partly allowing S. Hilaryes interpretation of {αβγδ}, who expoundeth it by pastoraliter regere; whereupon M. Casaubon himself also saith: En lu●●l●nter à magno Doctore expositum &c. behold how a great Doctor expoundeth clearly, what Pastor, and pascere, do signify, when they are spoken of the gouernours of the Church.  
29. Now then I infer hereupon against M. Collins, that seeing our saviour Christ when he gave the pastoral commission to S. Peter used a word, which signifieth pasce, as our latin hath it, and is expressed in the greek by {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, he gave him authority not only to feed, and direct his sheep with doctrine, but also to govern, and chastise them, according to the iudgment as well of the divine Casaubon, as of the two Fathers S. Hilary, and Theophilact alleged by him.  
30. And if M. Collins seek to escape here by his wonted distinction, that S. Peter did not receive this commission for himself, but as a proxy for the Church, M. Casaubon hath so hemd him in, as I may say with the authority of Theophilact, that he cannot start out: for Theophilact declareth plainly even in the same place, which M. Casaubon citeth, that Christ gave the government of the sheep of all the world to Peter, and not to any other but to him That is to say, to none principally, and immediately but to him, albeit he gave the same in him, and by him to the whole Church, which he represented, being supreme Pastor,& head thereof, as hath been sufficiently declared& shewed before, throughout all the precedent Chapters.  
31. Therefore I leave it now, good Reader, to thee to judge who is the Noddy, I, whom M Collins calleth so, and sendeth to school to M. Casaubon; or he, for sending me to such a master, who as you see utterly confoundeth him, partly by Theophilact, and partly by his own doctrine, teaching that pasce, as it was spoken by our saviour to S Peter, signifieth to govern, which M. Collins flatly denieth, as you haue heard hitherto, and shall hear further in that which followeth. For whereas he endeavoureth to answer my former objection out of S. Ambrose, viz. that S. Peter was commanded to feed all kind of Christians, that he might govern as well the perfect, as the unperfect, and weak( yea the Apostles themselves, as being comprehended amongst the more perfect) M. Collins spendeth, or rather spoileth a great deal of rhetoric to pervert S. Ambrose his meaning, and cousin his Reader. And after he hath flaunted a while, after his fond fashion, he goeth on thus. Do we look that it should haue been said, feed all save the Apostles? Or all save Princes? Why should Princes,& Apostles not pro●it by Peter? Why should they be denied the benefit of his feeding? Why should not all the Apostles feed al the world? Why should not one Apostle feed another, Peter his fellowes, and they Peter? So he, dissembling altogether the mention of government in S. Ambrose, and reducing all by degrees to a bare feeding, as that S. Peter should feed the Apostles, and yet no other ways, thē as they should feed him, one Apostle( saith he) should feed another, Peter his fellowes,& they him.  
32. But this deep devise of his is utterly dashed with those few words of S. Ambrose( which he listed not to see, but most fraudulently dissembleth, to wit, vt perfectiores perfectior gubernaret) as also with the authority of Theophilact, and S. Hilary, before alleged, and approved by M. Casaubon, who understand, and aclowledge the authority of government in the pastoral commission given to S. Peter; besides the testimonies, which you haue heard also before in the second chap. num 16. out of S. Augustine, expounding pascere, by docere,& regere to teach, and govern, and now also in this chap. out of S. Chrysostome,& Euthymius, teaching expressly, that Christ gave unto S. Peter the charge, and government of the Apostles, or disciples, when he bad him feed his sheep.  
33. And now to those I will yet add one other testimony out of S. lo, which I objected in my adjoinder pag. 24. nu. 22. and M. Collins undertaketh also to answer pag. 85. num. 53. and this I will do the rather, because he useth therein the same fraud and cozenage that you haue already seen in his answer to the place of S. Ambrose. S. Leo's words are these serm. 3. in assump ad pontiff. Peter was chosen out of the whole world to haue the chief charge of the vocation of the Gentills, and of all the Apostles,& of all the Fathers of the Church, to the end, that albeit there be many Priests amongst the people of God, and many Pastours; omnes tamen propriè regat Petrus, yet Peter may properly govern them all, whom Christ doth also principally govern. Thus saith S. lo, teaching expressly that S. Peter had the government, as well of the Apostles themselves, as of all other Pastors of the Church under Christ, who is the principal governor of them all.  
34. And what saith M. Collins to this trow you? mary forsooth he layth down part of the place, thus: Peter was chosen out of the whole world to haue the chief charge of the vocation of the Gentills, and of all the Apostles, and of all the Fathers of the Church. Thus much he allegeth, and then saith, that there is nothing here for my turn, save that Peter was chosen to haue the charge of the Apostles,& therfore in answer therof saith a little after. Neither do we deny, that Peter might haue the charge of the Apostles, yet no commanding charge but either as ferrum acuit ferrum, one iron whets, and sharpens another( so the face of one brother to quicken another by his encouragements, confirma fratres) or bono unitatis, preferred for his maturity to prevent schism, and disorder, as hath been told you; though the name( Apostles) is common to some without the company of the twelve, and the Scripture useth it so Philip. 2.25. whom Peter might be charged with, and with the other fathers of the church( as lo calls here the Bishops of their making) without derogating from the college of them properly so called. So he, granting three things, with certain limitations, whereby he would seem fully to haue answered me for this place; the first is, that Peter might haue the charge of the Apostls, but no commanding charge. The second that he was preferred before the rest, only, for the good of unity, and in respect of his maturity( for the which he remitteth me to what he hath  told me before.) The third is, that he might haue the charge of such, as were termed Apostles, and were none of the twelve.  
35. But if M. Collins had been as honest a man, as a Doctor of divinity should be, I mean, if he had alleged the whole place of S. lo, as he found it in my adjoinder(& cannot be denied to be the true words of the author) I think he could not for shane haue said any of these three things; for you may see in the place before alleged, that after the words of S. lo, laid down by M. Collins, there followeth immediately this: Vt quamuis in populo Dei multi sunt sacerdotes &c. that albeit there be many Priests among the people of God, and many pastors; yet that Peter may properly govern them all, whom Christ doth also principally govern. Thus saith S. lo, which quiter overthroweth M. Collins his gloss, who acknowledgeth that S. Peter had the charge of the Apostles, but no commanding charge; whereas S. lo speaketh expressly of a charge of government, that is to say, a commanding charge. again, M. Collins granteth that S. Peter was preferred before the rest in respect of his maturity, and for the good of unity; and S. lo telleth us, what S. Peters preferment was, viz. that he did properly govern all the Pastours of the Church, whom Christ doth principally govern.  
36. But here I cannot forget, good Reader, to put thee in mind by the way of what hath passed before in this very Chap. num. 8. in his answer to the place of Saint Ambrose pag. 48. where he observed( out of the depth of his grammatical science) agreat difference betwixt anteferri, and praponi. Anteferri( saith he) is one thing, and praeponi is another; the later may be of authority, the first of any excellency. So as if S. Ambrose, had used praeponi, as he did anteferri, master Collins would haue granted, as it seemeth, that he had acknowledged in S. Peter a preferment of authority, and government; which therefore I must desire him to grant me now in this place of Saint lo, who for the words, which I translate, to haue the chief charge of the Apostles, hath in Latin praeponatur omnibus apostles, which no doubt M. Collins saw in the Latin( for I make no doubt but he would examine the place in S. lo) and yet you see he will not grant to S. Peter any authority more then to the rest of the Apostles, so as praeponi hath now no more force with him, then anteferri; and therefore I leave it to thy iudgment, good Reader, what credit his grammatical observations deserve to haue with others, seeing he maketh so little account of them himself.  
37. But now to proceed with his 3. note vpon the words of S. lo, whereas he hopeth to find a starting hole by the name( Apostles) because it is sometimes applied to those, which were none of the 12. or of the college of the Apostles, S. Leo's words do deb●r him utterly from that eu●sion, speaking of al the Apostles,& not of some, omnibus Apo●tolis praeponatur sa●th S. lo, which cannot be vndestood of some in particular, and specially of such, as onely were so called, and were not of the number of the 12. Besides that S. lo his conclusion, which M. Collins fraudulently concealed( as he did before, that other of S. Ambrose) doth utterly mar his market: for if the 12. Apostles were to be comprehended( as no doubt they were) amongst those Priestes, and pastors whom Christ doth principally govern, he must needs grant, that according to S. lo they were all governed properly by S: Peter.  
38. Behold then what an absurd answer he hath shaped us here, besides the notable fraud that he hath used therein; so as I may well say, that if he answer arguments no better in the public acts,& commencementes at Cambrige, he will shane the university, and deserve to be hyssed out of the schools. I omit what he idly citeth out of S. lo, which doth no way contradict that which I haue already alleged out of him, but might serve notably to conunice him, if it were needful, or that I would stand longer vpon it; but it sufficeth for the present, that hi● fraud in this is most evident, and inexcusable. And whereas he insinuateth an exception, which he might take to S. Leo's testimony, to wit, because he is our o●ne Pope( as he termeth him) and not a little addicted to the amplysying of the Philacteryes of his own sea. And again, that it was easy for lo to Rhetoricate at Rome in praise of Peter. I may well say to M. Collins, that it is a sign of a very bad& desperate cause to take exceptions to the testimonies of such as all antiquity a●mired, and held for testes omni exceptione maiores; for so I may truly say of Pope lo, who was so famous in his time both for learning, wisdom, and sanctity of life, that he was honoured with the title lo Magnus,& hath been ever since held and honoured by the whole Church for a Saint; besides that, such was the integrity of his faith& doctrine, that the whole council of Chalcedon( which was the fourth general council, and is allowed by his majesty for ecumenical) gave notable testimony thereof in an epistle, which the said council wrote to the Em●erour Martian, affirming that God had provided for them in Pope lo, impenetrabilem in omnem errorem propugnatorem; an invincible defender against all error, and prepared him for victory: doctrinis eum per omnia veritatis astringens &c. binding him with the doctrine of verity in all things, to the end that he fighting with wont affection, as Peter did, may bring all sense and understanding to God. Thus wrote that famous& ancient council of Pope lo, showing their constant opinion and iudgment touching the infallible verity of his doctrine, by whose conduct and authority they assured themselves that God did guide them to all truth, and defend them from all error; in which respect they also acknowledged themselves to reverence in his person the authority of S. Peter, as appeareth further by the applause and acclamations of the whole council to an epistle of his; Petrus say they, per Leonem locutus est; Peter hath spoken by Pope lo, whereby they testified the reverend respect they bare, as well to him, as to S. Peter, and to the sea apostolic, which he governed, as S. Peters successor. Who then would not detest the audacious temerity of M. Collins, and his fellowes, who because they cannot answer the pregnant places which are alleged out of him for the proof of the Popes Supremacy, do seek to calumniate and disgrace him with the imputation of ambition, and pride, whom all antiquity, and the famous and ancient general council of Chalcedon reverenced, and admired, as a mirror of learning& sanctity.  
39. But now to return to the place of S. Ambrose, from the which I haue a little digressed, and to come to the conclusion of M. Collins his discourse, it were truly a wonder, if it were any whit wiser then the rest; seeing that he hath one special virtue, or quality, which is, that he is semper idem,& sui similis, always the same man,& like himself, as wise in the end, as in the beginning, always impertinent, always ridiculous, yet more here, if more may be, then hitherto, as thou shalt see, good Reader, in this upshot of his answer to the place of S. Ambrose, which I will therefore give thee in his own words.  
40. Nay, how if the Iesuite ( saith he) haue so mistaken himself in his curious distinction betwixt lambs, and Sheep, that he hath clean exempted both Apostles, and kings from Peters jurisdiction? to bring whom in, and to raung them within the compass of that supreme power, the distiction only was at first devised: for if oves& agni only be S. Peters walk,& he the shepherd, where are arietes? where are the rams? the rams being the Apostles by Turrians exposition, or the successors of the Apostles, that is, the Bishops, and again, the rams being meant by kings, as Tolet witnesseth vpon the 15. of S. John annot. 3. Two jesuits, you see, I bring him, and the one a cardinal made for his learning, which I think will never be his lot; but hath he not spun a faire thread, I say, shutting out both Apostles,& kings, whom by that very trick he would haue shut in? And so much of his answer to the first exception, that the bishop makes against the argument drawn from pasce oves meas, consisting in the authority of S. Augustine, and S. Ambrose. Thus concludeth he.  
41. Wherein three notable fooleries are to be ob●erued. First that he saith, the jesuit devised this distinction of lambs,& sheep, to bring the Apostles, and Kings under S. Peters jurisdiction; whereas you see, that the distinction was made by our saviour himself observed by S. Ambrose,& only related by me without any mention of Kings in particular, but of al Christians in general; and albeit I mention the Apostles, I do it not so much by reason of the distinction of sheep,& lambs, as by the occasion of S. Ambrose his comment thereupon, who understandeth by sheep the more perfect, amongst whom I include the Apostles. Secondly M. Collins seemeth to exclude rams from the sheepfold, seeing that he will not haue them comprehended in the distinction of sheep and lambs, nor to be reckoned in the number of sheep; perhaps this great Grammarian hath noted, that ovis, for a sheep is of the feminine gender, and that therfore a ram cannot be a sheep.  
42. But then, I would know whether a Wether be a sheep, by M. Collins his grammar, and if he be, why a ram may not be a sheep also;& again whether because Agnus is of the masculine gender, there be any she lambs, and consequently whether they were under Peters jurisdiction, when our saviour said unto him pasce agnos meos, and if they were, why then the male sheep, that is to say the rams, and Wethers could not be included in pasce oves meas, and in the number of those sheep, of whom the royal Prophet saith: oves& boves,& pecora campi &c. psal. 8. and of those of whom he said also 2. Reg. 24. Isti qui oves sunt, quid fecerunt: these which were sheep what haue they done? And finally when our saviour shall place the sheep vpon his right hand,& the goats vpon his left, if the rams be not sheep, where shall they stand? Do I seem to you M. Collins too grammatical, as you said to me while ere? But truly if you were not more silly then a sheep, you would never haue denied rams to be sheep, as you do, excluding them from the distinction of sheep and lambs.  
43. But now to come to the third foolery( which truly I know not whether it be more foolish or fraudulent:) Arietes, saith he, are( by the opinion of two jesuits Turrianus, and cardinal Tolet) to be understood to be the Apostles, or Bishops their successors, and Kings, who therfore being neither sheep, nor lambs, are excluded from the dominion of Peter: and so( as he saith) I haue spun a faire thread to shut them out whom by that very trick( he meaneth the distinction of sheep and lambs) I would haue shut in. How faire the thread is, that I haue spun, I leave it to the iudgement of others; but sure I am, that of my faire thread( if it be a faire one) he hath woven a very foul, false, and weak web, arguing as simply, and ignorantly, as you haue heard him before chap. 2. num. 25.& 26. out of a similitude, or comparison betwixt S. Peter, and Iudas, applying it to other purpose then it serveth for, wherein he is so much the more inexcusable heer, for that he hath taken this out of Tolet vpon the 15 chap. of S. John annotat. 3. who treating of the false application of similitudes, and of the weakness of arguments grounded thereon, bringeth this example, that Christ is compared in the Scripture to a lamb, and Kings to rams: nevertheless saith he, it doth not follow thereon, that kings are greater then Christ, because ramms are greater then lambs, Id enim tantùm ex parabola petendum est, ad quod significandum est proposita for that only is to be drawn, or taken from a parable, or similitude, for the which it is proposed. Thus saith Tolet.  
44. Now then M. Collins taketh out of ●olet, that Kings are compared to rams( as indeed they may well be, because they are, as it were deuces gregis, the leaders of the flock) and applieth it clean contrary to his mind, and to the instruction, which he giveth with that example; for Kings were never compared to rams in the Scripture with any relation to S. Peter, no more then with relation to Christ; and therefore, as the argument was not good, and worthily reproved by Tolet, which referred them to Christ, no more could any argument be good, that should any way refer them to S. Peter, because as I haue said, the comparison of rams with Kings was not made, nor is used in the Scripture to any s●ch purpose; but if such an argument coul● be good, M. Collins would be utterly spoyled with his comparison; for seeing that the Rams( albeit they are leaders of the whole flock, yet) are no less subject to the shepherd, then the meanest sheep in the fold; it would follow directly, that kings are no less subject to S. Peter( to whom Christ gave commission to feed his sheep) then the poorest Christian in their kingdoms.  
45. Thus thou seest, good Reader, what a faire thread M. Collins hath spun in shutting in both Apostles, and kings within the jurisdiction and government of S. Peter, by the very same trick, whereby he thought to shut them out, and so remaineth foiled every way, even by his own argument, besides his notable abuse of S. Ambrose, and S. lo, as you haue heard a little before; and now of cardinal Tolet, whom he allegeth directly contrary to his own meaning, which must needs be against the light of his own conscience, if he haue any, wherew●th you heard him charge me once, and call me wretch, when nevertheless not I, but he himself was taken tardy with it, in the same place, as you may see before cap. 1. num. 10.& 11. If therefore he had found me halting in this manner, how would he haue triumphed, and treated me think you? What names, and titles would he haue bestowed vpon me, as he doth many times without any cause calling me, witch, Noddy, Hobbyhorse, Mastiff dog, cur false thief, a souterly fellow,& what not? But for my part I will say no more of him, but that he is a great Grammarian, and a deep Doctor of divinity, and that if he may stil be employed for a writer, the university of Cambridge will haue much honour by him, Kings College a notable Ornament, and the Clergy of England a great light, the gospel great increase, my Lord of Winchester a doughty, and worthy Champion, all his friends a singular comfort, and only I, poor wretch, and the catholics are like to haue a terrible, and a potent adversary, God help us; for, Si Deus nobiscum, quis contra nos?  
46. But now to conclude this matter, and Chapter, you haue heard what he hath thought good to say to my answer to the first exception that my Lord of Winchester makes against our argument drawn from pasce oves meas, consisting in the authority of S. Augustine, and S. Ambrose, and I doubt not but you haue clearly seen three things. First that the charge of a lame, and fraudulent quotation of S. Augustine which I laid vpon my Lord of Winchester, remaineth good, for ought that M. Collins hath been able to say to the contrary, seeing I haue shewed clearly that the words, and circumstances of the place alleged by my Lord( to prove that S. Peter had no more authority by pasce oves meas, then the rest of the Apostles) did prove the contrary; signifying expressly that those words were said to S. Peter, as he bare the person of the Church, which he did( according to S. Augustins express doctrine) propter primatum, in respect of his primacy;& that therfore S. Augustine said, that which my Lord of Winchester objecteth out of him, to wit, Cum Petro dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, pasce oves meas, when it was said to Peter, it was said to all, feed my sheep; because he being primate, and chief pastor of the Church, received that commission for himself, and for the whole Church; so as my Lord of Winchester objecting the words of S. Augustine contrary to his meaning, and dissembling the reason thereof( which was expressed sufficiently in the same place) was worthily charged by me with a lame, and fraudulent quotation, whereof you see M. Collins hath no way discharged him.  
47. Secondly whereas M. Collins following my Lord of Wincester hath expounded the primacy, which Saint Augustine acknowledgeth in S. Peter, to be a primacy of place, or excellency, and not of authority, or government; you see I haue proved the contrary, as well out of S. Augustine and other Fathers in the precedent Chapters, as now in this out of S. Ambrose, and S. lo, who teach S. Peters primacy of government so expressly, that M. Collins had no way to answer them, but with a fraudulent silence, and dissimulation of that which most imported, as you haue seen so lately that I need not to repeat it.  
48. Thirdly, you haue seen also how M. Collins hath quit himself in his answer to my Adioinder, so far as yet we haue gone, wherein you may haue noted such a number of follies, absurdities, contradictions, falsifications, and abuse of Authors, that you may guess, with what manner of ware the rest of his great pedlars pack is stuffed; seeing that nothing hath passed from him, of all that which I haue hitherto examined, wherein he hath not been notably overtaken: and in one thing specially he surpasseth all other ignorant, and foolish scribblers of this age( at least those which I haue seen) that he hath not the wit to understand when he argueth against his adversary, or against himself, whereof you haue seen diuers examples. And therefore I may with great reason say unto him, for the conclusion of this Chapter, and controversy, Obmutesce Samuel, for shane, obmutesce.   

The Author passeth to another controversy touching Prayer to Saints, and the Veneration of their relics: and for breuityes sake undertaketh from henceforth to discover only M. Collins his falsities fraudes, and manifest lies; omitting his absurdities and fooleries. AND In this Chapter M. Collins is convinced to ●ave shamefully abused not onely the Author, but also S. jerome, S Basil, the council of Gangra, S. Ephraem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and S. Epiphanius. And by the way, answer is returned to my Lord of Winchester, of a message which he sent to the Author by M. Collins. CHAP. VII.  
FOR as much as this my reply is already grown to a greater Volume, then at the first I determined, I will take a shorter course from henceforth,& therefore having hitherto ventilated, and debated with M. Collins only the matter of the Popes supremacy; and now meaning, in the ensuing Chapters, to treat of another controversy, to wit. Of prayer to Saints, and the Veneration of their relics, I will prosecute my first intended course; which is to attend only to the discovery of his cozenages& fraudes in his answers to the places, and authorities of the Fathers alleged by me in my adjoinder, whereby I doubt not, but that his bad conscience,& the weakness of his cause willbe no less evident, then if I should discover all his follies, which truly are so many in this controversy, that they would require more time,& labour then were fit to be bestowed vpon such an idle companion; besides that they are commonly so connected with his fraudes, and so evident of themselves, that the discreet Reader will easily note many of thē without any labour ●f mine to decipher them, or to put him in mind thereof.  
2. Well then I will begin with his sixth Chapter, which beginneth his second part about the invocation of Saints( as he himself intytleth it.) And because my first question debated with my Lord of Winchester, concerning that matter, is about the word invocation, whether it belong to God alone( as my Lord affirmeth it to do) or may be applied also to Saints; I will examine M. Collins his frauds in answer to my adjoinder touching that point.  
3. It is therfore to be understood that my Lord of Winchester labouring to prove that none can be invocated but God, saith: Terret nos Apostolus &c the Apostle doth terrify us, when he asketh this question Rom. 10. Quomodo inuocabunt, in quem non crediderunt? How shal they invocat him, in whom they believed not? Vpon which text he infereth that we may invocate none but him in whom we beleeue, which is God alone; whereupon I thought good in my adjoinder to explicate that text, and to that end, I said thus, pag. 213. num. 3.  
4. A man may wonder how this great Doctor could so grossly err in a matter so evident as this, seeing that the words of the Apostle immediately going before, do manifestly show, that he speaketh there of an invocation due to God alone, as to our chief Lord; which kind of invocation is not communicable to creatures; and therfore the Apostle having said, that God is Dominus omnium &c. the Lord of all,& rich, or bountiful, towards all that invocate him, he confirmeth it with the saying of the Prophet, Omnis qui inuocauerit nomen Domini saluus erit, every one that shall invocate the name of our Lord, shalbe saved. And then he addeth: Quomodo inuocabunt in quem non crediderunt? how shal they invocate him, in whom they haue not believed? as who would say, how can they invocate him, of whom the Prophet speaketh, him, that is Dominus omnium, the Lord of all, except they believe in him, that is to say, except they beleeue him to be their Lord, and Creator, whereby he doth not signify that none but God can be invocated in any sort; but that we cannot invocate God, as our Lord, and our God, except we believe him so to be.  
5. Thus said I, and as I hope, this my explication of S. Pauls words is so natural, proper, and conform to the circumstances of the text, that it cannot with reason be rejected. And this M. Collins saw so well( as it seemeth) that he thought best to practise his ordinary fraud in dissembling it wholly,& therefore not making so much as any mention of it( as any way controverted betwixt my Lord and me) he applieth and urgeth it in the same sense that my Lord doth, taking occasion to wrangle with me about another question, to wit, whether we may be said to believe in Saints( which I will debate with him anon)& because I affirmd that it might be truly said, that we beleeue in Saints in some sort, and sense, he allegeth that text of S. Paul, urging the generality of it, and expounding, Quomodo inuocabunt in quem, that is, saith he, in quemcumque non crediderunt, how shall they call vpon him, in whomesoeuer they haue not believed: which interpretation of his, that other of mine in my adjoinder( gathered and urged by me out of the circumstances of the place) doth utterly overthrow, and therefore ought to haue been answered& confuted by him, before he grounded any arguments or reasons, vpon his own exposition, being no other but my Lord of Winchesters, which I impugned, and confuted by mine.  
6. Furthermore I proved also afterwards out of my Lord of Winchester himself that the word invocation may be applied to creatures; for he saith pag. 45.§. locus autem. That poscereà sanctis auxilium propriè inuocare est, to ask help of Saints is properly to invocate them; whereupon I said in my adjoinder thus pag. 215. num. 6. according to this interpretation of his, we do properly invocate al those of whom we crave help, and succour, which we lawfully crave, not only of God, but also of those who by the ordinance of God may, an do lawfully help us, as Angells, Saints, and men do: whereupon it followeth that we may lawfully demand their help, and consequently invocate them, according to M. Andrewes his own interpretation; whereby it appeareth that he hath not only very idly laboured to fright us with his terrible Text, but also fond contradicted himself. Thus said I, in my adjoinder.  
7. And now I make no doubt, but that thou wilt think good Reader, that M. Collins ought in reason to haue taken some notice of this, as well to justify his own,& my Lords application of the word invocation to God alone,( which here you see is disproved by my Lords own doctrine) as also to deliver my Lord from the note of contradiction wherewith I charged him. But he dissembleth all this, albeit he saith somewhat( as idly as he is wont) to the paragraffs that immediately go before and after, to wit, to the fifth, and seventh, whereas this, which I haue now cited, is in the sixth; so as he cannot be excused neither from a fraudulent dissimulation of my Text, nor from treachery to my Lord, for leaving him in the lurch vndefended, being charged with a flat Contradiction.  
8. But now let us hear how he iugleth touching the faith or belief which we may be said to haue in Saints. First then he saith, that I aclowledge the invocation of Saints( but not of God) to be possible without saith in them, and yet he taketh exception to it, because by that distinction, at least( saith he) a man might invocate God though not as the Creator of heaven and earth, yet as some Saint, or demy-God; which how false it is,& how far from my meaning, you shal see by my own words after a while: in the mean time he proceedeth, and saith that afterwards, I eat my word, and allow faith in Saints themselves; and albeit he confesseth that I qualify it, saying in some sort, yet he styleth it an egregious blasphemy,& produceth diuers places of holy scripture and Fathers to prove that there can be no faith but in god; which how little it proveth against me, you shall now see, by my own text, which he fraudently concealeth, and belieth egregiously.  
9. Thus then I said in my adjoinder, touching this point pag. 214. num. 4. This doth not contradict the invocation of Saints in another Respect, to wit, not as Gods, but as the seruants of God, whom he glorifieth, and by whose intercession, and mediation he bestoweth graces, and favours vpon men: in which sense, yt may also be truly said, that we cannot invocate them, or crave their prayers, except we do in some sort beleeue in them( I mean) so far forth as we invocate them, that is to say, except we beleeue them to be Gods seruants, and that we haue also confidence in them, as in those who by gods goodness may help vs. So as a faith,& belief in saints is necessary for the invocation of them, though yt is not the faith that we haue in God, as in our chief Lord and Creator. And that we may haue faith in Saints M. Andrews may learn in the Apostle himself, who commendeth the charity, and faith which Philemon had in domino Iesu& in omnes sanctos, in our Lord Iesus, and in all saints; vpon which words S. jerome in his Commentary vpon that Epistle discourseth amply, proving that wee may be said to haue faith in Saints. Thus said I in my adjoinder.  
10. Now then herein yt is evident, first that I do distinguish clearly betwixt the faith that we haue in God( as our Lord and creator) and in Saints, as his seruants ( who by his permission and ordinance, may help and relieve us) and therefore I say, that we may beleeue, and confided in them, in some sort. And this is most true, not only of saints, but also of men. For who will be so mad to demand help or relief at any mans hands, who he doth not believe, may and will help him? And this also I do say expressly, is not the faith, and belief which wee haue in God, as our Lord and creator, because wee do not aclowledge the saints so to be; whereby you see how frivolous, and vain the exception is which he taketh to my assertion, when he saith, that by my distinction a man may invocate God, at least, as some saint or demy-God, though not as creator of heaven and earth; whereas I do expressly affirm, that as well invocation, as faith is due to God in a supreme, and peculiar manner, not communicable to any creatures, to wit, as universal Lord, and creator of all, which therefore cannot be so extenuated as to be the honour of a Saint, or demy-God.  
11. Secondly it appeareth that the texts of holy scripture and the places of the ancient Fathers which he bringeth to prove, that faith can haue no other object but God, do prove nothing against me, who do clearly distinguish betwixt faith in God, and faith in Saints; whereof the former is properly faith, having only Almighty God for object, as he is prima veritas; whereas the faith in Saints, I said is faith in some sort, implying only a belief and confidence, that they may help us by the goodness of God, whose seruants they are. And therfore yt is manifest, that he hath abused me notably, not only in concealing and dissembling my discourse, but also in misconstruing, and perverting it most maliciously& arguing against his own false sense, and construction of it, as if it were mine, as you haue seen him do many times heretofore, and shall see even now again in his next Answer to the instance which I brought out of S. Paul to Philemon, and S. Hieromes exposition therof. Thus then he saith pag. 226. num. 3.  
12. He belies S. Hieromes commentary vpon the Epistle to Philemon, who speaks of no faith to be reposed in Saints, but credence given to their doctrine only. So he, belying S. jerome manifestly in two things( besides his lie touching me, when he saith, that I bely S. Hieromes Commentary.) For S. jerome expounding those words of S. Paul to Philemon, audience charitatem tuam& fidem quam habes in Domino Iesu,& omnes sanctos eius &c. saith, that there is no difficulty to interpret that which S. Paul said concerning Philemons Charity, which he had in Christ Iesus, and in all his Saints; but that the difficulty consisted in the interpretation of that which belongeth to his faith in Christ, and in his saints, and therefore he saith thus.  
13. Non hoc quaeritur, quomodo camdem fidem in Christo Iesu habere quis posset,& in Sanctos eius, nor the question is how a man may haue the same faith in Christ Iesus,& his Saints: wherein I must desire M. Collins to note by the way, that S. jerome makes the question here not of some kind of faith, or of faith in some sort, that may be had in Saints( as I spake reseruedly) but of the same faith, which we haue in Christ, how that may be also had in Saints, to which purpose S. jerome also saith further thus: Ad expositionem huius loci &c. For the exposition of this place, let us take an example out of Exodus, Credidit populus Deo& Moysi servo eius; vna atque eadem credulitas in Moysen refertur,& in Deum, the people believed God and Moyses his seruant; one and the self same credulity or faith is referred to Moyses, and to God, vt populus qui credebat in Dominum, aeque credidisse dicatur in servum, that the people which believed in the Lord, may be said to haue believed aswell in the seruant; hoc autem non solum in Moyse &c. and this to be understood, not only in Mo●ses, but in al his Saints. Thus saith S. jerome.  
14. whereby it is as clear as the sun, that M. Collins belieth him grossly, in saying that he speaks of no faith to be reposed in Saints, when he speaketh not only of some faith, but also of the same faith, that we haue in God, and in Christ Iesus; and albeit he explicateth how we may be said to haue faith in Saints, yet he doth not deny that is the same faith which we haue in God, but confirmeth it( not onely with that place of Exodus before mentioned but also) by the like consideration to be had of Charity, or love to the Saints, or seruants of God( which is the same love with the which we love God, because we love them for God) and therefore he saith, that non est in Deum perfecta dilectio& fides, quae in ministres eius odio& infidelitate tenuatur, the love and faith in God, is not perfect, which is extenuated with hatred, and infidelity towards his seruants; giuing to understand, that as we love Gods seruants, for the love we bear to God, so also we may be said to believe in Gods seruants, for the faith we haue in God;& as we do not love God, if we love not his seruants, so also it may be said, that we do not believe in God, when we do not believe in his seruants.  
15. And although he also explicateth this, yet his explication doth further confirm, that it is the same faith which we haue in God; for thus he saith: Hoc quod dico tale est &c. This which I say, is in this manner, or thus to be understood. Doth a man believe in God the creator? He cannot believe in him except he first believe that all things which are written in the Scriptures of his Saints, are true. So he. And then exemplifyeth the same by the Creation of Adam and eve, by the translation of Enoch, by the delivery of Noë from the deluge, by the departure of Abraham from his country and kindred, by the oblation of Isaac, and many other particular histories, in the books of the Iudges, and kings, and concludeth thus: Haec& caetera quae de Sanctis scripta sunt nisi quis vniuersa crediderit &c. Except a man believe al this, and all the other things which are written of the Saints, he cannot believe in the God of Saints. Thus saith S. jerome, and the reason hereof is, because God, who is Verity itself,& the Author of the Scriptures, is the object of our faith, and therefore he that doth not believe what God hath revealed in his Scriptures concerning his Saints, doth not believe in God.  
16. And this also S. jerome doth yet further confirm by the sanctity which is in God, and in his seruants, affirming it to be candem sanctitatem, the self same sanctity( meaning no doubt that our sanctity is a participation of the divine sanctity) and then he saith finally of Philemon: Non putemus levem esse Philemonis praedicationem &c. Let us not think, that it is a light, or small praise of Philemon, si eamdem habet Sanctos fidem, quam& in Deum, if he had the same faith in the Saints of holy men, which he had in God. So he. lo then how clear it is, that S. jerome teacheth expressly, that we may be said to haue, not onely some kind of faith in Saints, but also the same faith that we haue in God, wherein also it is to be noted, that there is not so much as one word of believing the doctrine of Saints, whereof M. Collins saith S. jerome speaketh only, albeit afterwards he is better advised, saying that S. jerome o●ly meant that the histories which went of the Saints in Scripture were to be believed, and credited. And if S. jerome meant so, yea, and only so, then truly he meant not( as M. Collins said before) only that credence is to be given to the doctrine of the Saints, for he could not mean them both, and yet but one of them only, and much less both this only,& that only; so as we shall haue some what a do to agree this poor fellow with himself, especially seeing, that having said in his text( as you haue heard) that S. jerome meant only, that credence is to be given to the doctrine of the Saints, he contradicteth the same with a marginal note just over against it, containing some part of S. Hieroms text, set down by me before, signifying that a man cannot believe in God the creator, except he believe that those things are true which are written in Scripture of the Saints, as of the creation of Adam, and eve &c.  
17. Whereby it is manifest even by S. Hieromes own words, that his only meaning was not, that credence should be given to the doctrine of Saints: for put the case he had said( as he doth not any where) that it is to be understood by faith in Saints, that their doctrine is to be believed, yet it could not be understood, that he meant so only, because he saith expressly that he meant it of credence to be given to the verity of the Scriptures concerning Saints: nevertheless M. Collins, concludeth his note in the margin, with this question to me, where is conscience now M. F. T? whereas I may rather ask him, Where is both conscience, and wit now M. Collins? For truly if he had either of both, he would not contradict his text with his marginal note, and besides make no less then three notable lies, within the space of three lines.  
18. For first, whereas he saith, that I belied S. Hieromes commentary in my adjoinder, you see how false it is, seeing all that I say of S. jerome is, that he discourseth amply vpon S. Pauls words, proving that we may be said to haue faith in Saints, which is most true, as you haue seen; for he teacheth not only that we may haue faith in them, but also the same faith, which we haue in Christ; and what blasphemy would this haue seemed to M. Collins, if I had said it, seeing that he accounteth it an egregious blasphemy in me to say only, that we may be said to haue faith in Saints in some sort, which I also explicated immediately to consist in a belief, and confidence that they may help us( as the seruants of God) and I added further, that this is not the faith, which we haue in God, as in our Lord, and Creator; besides that, it is to be noted, that I do not allege S. jerome to prove or confirm my explication of the manner, how we may be said to haue faith in Saints, because I knew full well, that it may be said in diuers respects( as it may appear by the diuers expositions of the Apostles words to Philemon,& M. Collins himself setteth down one out of Haymo different from that of S. jerome;) but I affirmed only that S. jerome proveth amply out of S. Pauls words to Philemon, that we may be said to haue faith in Saints, which you see is so true& evident, that it is extreme impudence in M. Collins to deny it; and therefore I hope it may pass for a notable lie, that he chargeth me to haue belied S. Hieromes Commentary.  
19. His second lie is, in saying that S. jerome speaks of no faith to be reposed in Saints, whereas he speaketh expressly and amply of some faith, yea of the same faith we haue in Christ.  
20. His third lie is, that he affirmeth that S. jerome speaks only of credence to be given to the doctrine of Saints, whereas he speaketh not one word of it, and much less only of it. And now add heerto his contradiction of himself in affirming that S. jerome speaketh of two several things with an only to both( which cannot possibly be true of both; for if he speak only of the one, the other must needs be excluded,) let this, I say, be added to his three lies, and to his ordinary dissimulation, and false construction of my text, and it willbe evident that he hath neither conscience, shane, nor wit, in so much that if he useth to talk, no more wisely then he writeth, it may be wondered that some body hath not begged him ere this to get his livings, which they say are great; and not unlike, for as the old proverb saith, fortuna fauet fatuis: but this shall suffice for this point, and now to proceed.  
21. M. Collins doth admonish us in the title of his sixth Chapter, about the invocation of Saints, that the authorities of the Fathers of the first and second rank( according to the Bishops accurate division of the confused huddle brought by the cardinal) are examined( for so speaketh very accurately and prettily fine M. Collins)& therfore to the end you may know, what the accurate division of the cardinals confused huddle is, and what he meaneth by the first& second rank of Fathers; you shal understand that my Lord of Winchester undertaking to answer the places of the Fathers alleged by cardinal Bellarmine touching the invocation of Saints, divideth them into three ranks Respons. ad Apolog. pag. 39.§. Patrum. The first saith he, is of those Fathers, qui verè Patres, said non verè citantur, are truly Fathers, but not truly cited. The second of those, qui verè citantur, said suspectae fidei, are truly cited, but of no sound credit. And the third of those, qui& verè citantur, said nihil ad rem, which are truly Fathers, and also are truly cited, but nothing to the purpose.  
22. Thus indeed saith my Lord of Winchester more accurately( to use M. Collins his fine word) then truly, as I haue made it evident enough in my adjoinder, concerning all the cardinals allegations, notwithstanding all the false, and fraudulent endeavours either of my Lord himself in his glosses, and interpretations of the said places, or of his Champion M. Collins in defence of his Lordship, whereof I dare remit the Iudgment to any indifferent and learned Reader, that shal red my adjoinder, and compare it with his answer, and not take my words and sense, as he doth deceitfully give them, by patches, and snatches, never laying down my whole context, whereby the force of my answers, and arguments are never fully or truly understood, as it hath sufficiently appeared hitherto through out the precedent Chapters, and will appear no less clearly in this, by the examination of his answers to such places of the Fathers, as I haue alleged in defence of the cardinal, whereof nevertheless I will examine only such as he hath gone about to answer with some notorious& inexcusable fraud, corruption, or lie; and will omit to discover, and answer innumerable foole●yes and impertinencyes, as well in those which I shall examine, as in the rest which I shall leave untouched; for otherwise I should make a huge volume,& tyre both the Reader and myself.  
23. In the first rank of the Fathers, which my Lord of Wincester saith, are truly Fathers, but not truly cited, the first was S. Basil, out of whose oration vpon the 40. Martyrs, the cardinal cited a most clear,& pregnant place for the proof of prayer to Saints, which my Lord of Winchester chargeth the cardinal to haue alleged falsely and corruptly, because there is some difference in a word or two, betwixt the Greek and the cardinals Latin text; where as I haue shewed amply in my adjoinder, not only that the cardinal cited truly, and exactly the words of the latin translation, but also, that the latin expresseth fully the sense of the Greek, though the words do differ; and for the confirmation thereof, and the proof that S. basil did beleeue and clearly teach our catholic doctrine, concerning the invocation of Saints, I alleged another place of S. basil out of an oration of his made in the feast of another holy Martyr, to wit S. Mammas, whereof I do mean now to examine the answer of M. colyns. And because he setteth not down above two words of my text( to the end his false gloss thereon might seem the more probable) I must perforce put my Reader to the pains, to red what I haue cited, and pressed at large out of S. basil in my adjoinder touching that matter. Thus then I said pag. 223. num. 20.  
24. And because M. Andrews may perhaps desire some further proof that yt was the custom in S. Basills time to pray to Martyrs, yea to invocate them( for without that word there is no bargayn with M. Andrewes) let us hear what S. Basil saith of another holy Martyr, to wit, S. Mummas, vpon whom he made also another oration and saith, as followeth, Memores estote martyris quotquot &c. Be ye mindful of the Martyr as many of you, as haue enjoyed him in your sleep( he meaneth by some vision, or apparition) as many as haue even in this place had his help, to pray for you; or whomesoeuer ( nomine advocatus) he, being called vpon by name, hath assisted in his actions, or works; as many as he hath reduced to the right way when they went astray; as many as haue recovered their health by him; to whomesoeuer he hath restored their Children, reuiuyng them when they were dead; and finally as many of you as haue had your lives prolonged by him; gather all these together, and contribute the same, as yt were a common shot to the praise of the Martyr &c.  
25. Thus saith S. basil, which I haue the more largely laid down, to the end thou mayst see, good Reader, not only what benefits the devout Christians in S. Basills time received by the intercession& prayer of Martyrs, but also that this holy martyr of whom he treateth did sometime appear to men by visions in their sleep, and that men used to invocate him in their necessities, and thereby had his assistance; which is evident even in the greek text, where we red, {αβγδ}, that is to say, whomsouer he( to wit the Martyr) hath assisted in his works, being called vpon by name; which words I hope M. Andrews cannot deny to express a plain invocation of the Martyr,& the good effect( I mean the help& assistance) that followed therof.  
26. besides that, it is also to be considered heer that S. basil doth speak not only of assistance given by the holy martyr in the place where his relics were kept( as when he saith, Quotquot in hoc loco constituti &c. as many of you as here in this place haue had his help in your prayers) but also of great favours done by him in other places, as namely to wandring men, that had lost their way &c. And therefore I would gladly know here of M. Andrewes in what manner these wandring men, or others that were absent from the monument and relics of the Martyr, obtained those favours mentioned by S. basil; yea and how they knew that the martyr had favoured, and ●elped them, if they had not first invocated ●im, and prayed particularly unto him; ●or M. Andrewes cannot say in this case, as and said in the former, that because God did ●ew by miracles at the monuments of and martyrs, that he heard mens prayers ●ere, therefore men had, and might haue ●course thither to pray to God for help, ●●t not of the martyr himself; this device ●ay cannot serve his turn.  
27. For how did the way-fayring man( who was far from the monument of the Martyr, and had lost his way) know that he was brought into it again by the help of the Martyr, but because he had reposed special confidence in him, yea, and recommended himself particularly to his prayers, and assistance? in which respect S. basil having used that general speech, quibusqunque, ex nomine vocatus, adfuit &c. to whomsoever the Martyr had given assistance, being called vpon by name, doth particularise the favours that many had received by the invocation of him, saying that some had been reduced to their right way, others restored to their health, others had recovered their dead children, and others again obtained prolongation of life, al which no doubt were things well known to S. Basils auditors to haue happened in that manner to some or other amongst them, for otherwise he would not haue affirmed the same unto them so confidently as he did.  
28. This then being so, yt is evident by the testimony of S. basil himself, that the custom, and practise of faithful and catholic people in his time, was to invocate holy Martyrs,& saints by name, whereupon it followeth that the recourse which Saint basil saith was ordinary to the 40. Martyrs, included the invocation of them, according to the common custom of that time.  
29. Thus far are the words of my adjoinder, which I doubt not, good Reader but that thou seest, to be so pregnant, as well in respect of S. Basils words, as of my inference thereupon, that thou dost marvel, and much desire to see what devise M. Collins will find to answer it, or to shift it of. Thus then he faith pag. 235. num. 14. To your number 29. saith he( but he should say 20. for so it is in my adjoinder) Mammas was but vocatus, not inuocatus, nor advocatus, as you translate it. {αβγδ} saith S. basil:& that might be by Apostrophe. Or, as if he should say Daniels God, not inuoking Daniel; so Mammas his God; we name his name, but wee do not invocate him as our patron; only we show we consent in religion with him, and in our joint service to the common Lord. As he that commanded all men to worship Daniels God. Dan. 6.26. Does S. Basil say, that Mammas ever helped him? I warrant you not. what then doth he else, but even take aduan●age of the honest peoples affection, towards the deceased Champion, to establish them in the zeal of the true God, whom he served and suffered for? So he, being very confident, as it should seem that those who should red this his answer, should never see the objection in my adjoinder, I mean the words of S. basil alleged by me,& my explication thereof; for otherways, he would never haue been so simple,& shameless to make this gloss, which S. Basills Text can by no means admit.  
30. For how can this devise of the invocation of Mammas, his God, stand with the words of S. Basil {αβγδ}, whomesoeuer he( to wit Mammas) hath assisted in his works being called vpon by name? Is it not clear, that he who gave the assistance was called vpon by name, or invocated? in which respect S. Basil did particularise the favours that many received of the Martyr, aswell in thei● children, as in their own persons, and as well abroad in their journeys, as at home and therefore whereas M. Collins doth car● at my translation of {αβγδ}, saying that i● should be vocatus, not inuocatus, nor aduocat●●, may well say, that Nodum in scirpo quaerit, h● makes a difficulty where there is none, a● it willbe evident by adding that which h● craftily left out, to wit, the verb {αβγδ}, which signifieth adfuit, that is to say, assisted by his presence; for what else could be understood thereby, but that the Martyr did afford his presence, and assistance being by name devoutly called vpon, or invocated to that end? Whereby it is most manifest, that it was not an invocation of Mammas his God, but Mammas himself, who being called vpon by name, gave assistance by Gods will and ordinance.  
31. But then saith M. Collins, Does S. Basil say, that Mammas ever helped him? I warrant you not. A wise question truly, and as wisely answered, with I warrant you not. For what if S. Basil did not say, that the Saint had helped him? Did he therfore lie, when he affirmed it of others? Could no man be helped by the Saint, if S. Basil were not? or is it credible, that so grave a Father would so seriously, and confidently haue spoken to the people of such graces and favours done by the Saint to them, if it had not been notorious that diuers of them had experienced the same in themselves? for else what could he haue expected of them, but that they should haue laughed at him for his pains? This therefore may pass for a solemn foolery of M. Collins, besides the egregious cozenage of his Reader, in concealing S. Basils words, to make his own impertinent, and improbable gloss the more probable, and currant; and finally as I concluded in my adjoinder, so also I conclude here, that S. Basil approved, and embraced our catholic doctrine concerning the invocation of Saints, and that the practise therof was common in the Church in his time, and by him recommended to the people that were under his charge and government.  
32. But let us now pass further, and see some more of his cozening tricks in the defence of another answer of my Lord of Winchester, to the place of S. Basil before mentioned num. 23. alleged by the cardinal out of his Oration vpon the 40. Martyrs. And this I will examine the rather, because M. Collins chargeth me to haue shamefully belied the council of Gangra, concerning that matter: but thou shalt see good Reader, that the lie will light, and lie so heavy on him, that it would utterly crush his credit, if he had any. Thus then I said of my Lord of Winchester in my adjoinder pag. 226 num. 25.  
33. Now to say somewhat of his other answer which I mentioned in the beginning he saith, Aliud est narrare quid fiat, aliud statuere quid faciendum sit: it is one thing to declare what is done, and another thing to determine what should be done; giuing to understand that albeit S. Basil in the place alleged by the cardinal declared that men used in his time to pray to Saints, yet the same doth not suffice to prove it to be lawful, except it be approved by some decree of S. Basil,& the other Fathers of that time: to which purpose he doth often inculcate the same, demanding still some statute or decree of the Fathers; as I shal haue occasion to show further hereafter. But here I would be glad to know what kind of statute or decree he would haue in this question; for if he exact some decree of the Fathers assembled in a General or provincial council, he flieth, as I may say, out of the lists, to another manner of trial thē the Cardinal offereth in this place,& then he himself seemeth to accept. Besides that he must expect such decrees from the ●omes of the councils, where they are particularly related, and not from the works of the Fathers, who are not wont to set them down, but vpon particular occasions, now and then occurring.  
34. To which purpose it is to be understood, that there were never any Councells assembled, or synodical statutes made concerning faith, but by reason of matters controverted with public trouble, scandal and danger to the Church; as the four first general Councells were called by reason of the heresies of the Arians, Macedonians, Nestorians, and Eutychians, which at those dayes did exceedingly molest, and scandalise all the East Church; whereas the invocation of Saints being then publicly, and generally practised throughout the whole Church needed not to be confirmed by decrees of Synods, especially seeing it was not expressly denied by any at that time. For albeit an abominable Arian heretic called Eustachius did then impugn the public honour done to Saints, by dedicaing Churches to them,& celebrating their feasts( for which cause a provincial council was held at Gangra, where this his heresy, together with diuers others of his, was condemned, and all those anathematized who did contemn the Temples, and Monuments of Martyrs, and the assemblies,& sacred oblations which were made there) yet because this heretic did not directly impugn the invocation of Saints, the same was not directly, and expressly confirmed, or mentioned in this Canon.  
35. Thus said I in my Adionder. And now that you may fully know the state of the question betwixt him& me in this place and judge thereby the better of his fraudulent answer, you shall understand, that whereas I haue said here to my Lord of Winchester, that if he exact a decree of some general, or provincial council for prayer to Saints, in S. Basils time, he runneth out of the lists, to another manner of trial then the cardinal offereth; the reason is, because the cardinal undertook only to prove by the testimony of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares, that the faith of the Protestants touching the invocation of Saints, is not the faith of the old primitive Church.  
36. This appeareth evidently by the Cardinals own words of his Apology pag. 11.§. Sequitur, where having signified that his majesty in his Preface admitted the three Creeds, the 4. first general Councells and the uniform doctrine of the first 400.( or as it is in the English copy 500. yeares) he declareth that amongst other points of catholic Religion, his majesty condemneth prayer to Saints, and the veneration of relics, as superstitious: Whereupon the cardinal saith: Accipiam intercessionem Sanctorum &c. I will take in hand the intercession of Saints, with the veneration of relics; which if I can show to be approved by the vnanime consent of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares, I shall withall prove, that the faith of the King of England is not the faith of the primitive Church, but the devises, and heresies of the late Innouatours. Thus saith the cardinal. Where it is clear, that my Lord of Winchester demanding a decree of the Fathers, for prayer to Saints, within the first 400. or 500. yeares, flieth from the trial which the cardinal offereth, and my Lord ought to accept, and stand unto, seeing his majesty admitteth it, whom my Lord hath undertaken, and is bound to defend.  
37. This being so, let us now see, what M. Collins answereth to my adjoinder in his 229. pag. and 9.§. wherein he iugleth notably, not only in dissembling my text( which you see is ordinary with him) but also in wresting the sense& substance of it to far other purpose then ever I meant it, or can be any way gathered of it. Thus then he saith of me. He says, There is no ordinance, or no decree, but in Councells. Let him bring them hardly then, let him city the councils. Are not they Fathers, and multiplied Fathers? will his majesty refuse the Councells, wherein so many speak as one man, that is content to be ordered by the Fathers in singular, if the authority be pregnant,& the antiquity sufficient? Thus saith M. Collins.  
38. And now judge, good Reader, how substantially he hath answered. I tell him that there needed no Canons of councils for praying to saints at that time, yea and that there could be none, because the practise of it was then universal, and there had not been any such controversy or trouble in the Church about that point, that it might cause any decrees or Canons to be made concerning the same;& yet he very gravely bids me bring thē hardly then. Besides that, affirming as he doth, that his majesty is content to be ordered by the Fathers in singular, if their Authority be pregnant, and Antiquity sufficient; he granteth that which moved the cardinal to produce the testimonies of S. Basil, and other Fathers of the first 500. yeares( to wit because his majesty did admit them) in which respect my Lord of Winchester was also bound to stand unto them, seeing he undertook to answer for his majesty;& therefore I had reason to charge him to fly out of the lists, when he fled from the testimonies of the Fathers, to the decrees of Councells; but M. Collins hath thought best to conceal all this, and as though I had said nothing to the purpose, urgeth me( as my Lord did the Cardinal) to produce some Canons or Decrees. Can there be greater juggling then this? Yet this is nothing to that which followeth.  
39. He goeth on in the same Paragraf, saying thus of me. But how shamefully does he belie the council of Gangra? Neither is there any such thing in the proeme there, nor yet in the Canons. Only a corruption is crept into the Proem, which is nothing material neither, though it were granted. See the greek at Paris, of Tilius his edition, see the greek copies. And is to meet at Churches, or not to shun assemblies in Basilicis Martyrum, all one with the invocation of Saints, now become? Why should we not rather think their private mass condemned under a Priest,& his boy in the 6 Canon of that council? Thus saith he, and then goeth forward, most idly, citing 6. or 7. Canons more of that council, against some other points of the catholic Religion, being stale objections, which haue been answered over and over by our writers, and proved no way to concern us, as he may see in cardinal Bellarmine, or any other catholic Author, that writeth of these controversies; for which cause I omit to answer him concerning them, as also because I haue resolved not to deal in this Chapter with his fooleries, and by-questions( as these are) but only to discover his fraudes, falsities, and lies.  
40. And therefore now to come to the discovery of this: you haue seen heer first that he doth not set down any one word of my text concerning that council of Gangra: secondly, that because I quote in the margin the Proeme of that council, and the 20. Canon, he saith, that there is a corruption crept into the Proeme, though nothing material; and for the proof hereof, he posts us over to Paris to see the Greek there, without telling us what the corruption is, or wherein it consisteth. Lastly he insinuateth that I allege this council to prove prayer to Saints, saying, Is to meet in Churches, or not shun assemblies in Basilicis Martyrum, all one with the invocation of Saints now become? So he. And afterwards again more plainly: And do they tell us, saith he, of the council of Gangra, in which there is not one syllable, neither in preface, nor bulk of praying to Saints? Thus saith he, as if I cited it to prove prayer to Saints.  
41. Now then let us see, who hath lied shamefully, I or he; I said that the Fathers in that council did anathematize all those who contemned the monuments of Martyrs, and the assemblies, and the sacred oblations which were made there. This is evident in the 20. Canon which is this: Si quis arrogantia v●ens,& martyrum, congregationes abhorrens& sacra quae in eis celebrantur,& eorum memorias accuset, anathema sit. If any man out of arogancy, and hatred to the congregations of the Martyrs( that is to say to the assemblies, made at the tombs of Monuments of the Martyrs) do accuse( or condem●e) the holy rites which are celebrated there, and the memories of them, let him be accursed. Thus saith that Canon, whereto M Collins taketh no exception, and therefore it sufficeth alone to justify my assertion, and condemn him of a monstrous lie, in saying, that I do shamefully bely the council of Gangra; whereas I say no more of it, then that which is found there expressly in the 20. Canon. And whereas he saith that there is no such thing in the Pro●me nor yet in the Canons; if he mean, by no such thing, that there is nothing there touching the celebration of the feasts,& memories of Martyrs( which was all that I affirmed) it is also a lie, nolesse monstrous then the former. And if he say that he meant it only of prayer to saints( as that there is no such thing in the council) albeit he say true in that respect, yet he belieth me shamefully in another,& cozeneth his Reader intolerably, affirming that I allege that council to prove prayer to Saints, whereas I signify the contrary in express words saying, that because Eustachius did not directly impugn the invocation of Saints, the same was not directly confirmed, or mentioned in that council. behold then what an impudent fellow this is, who to prove one lie in me, maketh no less then two or three himself, as also you see he did the like before, charging me most falsely to haue belied Saint Hieromes Commentary, when he himself made no less then three evident lies within three lines: so as if he come at any time where there is lying for the whetstone, it willbe his infallibly; for I think he will hardly meet with his match in that faculty.  
42. But let us now proceed, and see some more of his legier-de-main,& his notable cozenage, concerning a place of Saint Ephrem, alleged by my Lord of Winchester against the cardinal, and answered by me in my adjoinder, which indeed I would haue omitted for breuityes sake, as I do many other things, were it not, that I stand some way obliged to say somewhat unto it, because I promised in my adjoinder to give further satisfaction, when I should hear further news from my Lord touching that matter, which now I haue heard by M. Collins, who hath not only answered for his Lordship in that point, after his wonted manner, but also hath delivered me a particular message from him touching myself, which therfore I cannot leave unanswered. And forasmuch as M. Collins hath also here( as he is wont) dissembled my whole text, and only picked out of it here and there a word or two, to carp at, I must be forced as I haue been diuers times, to lay down the words of my adjoinder, concerning so much of this matter, as I mean to bebate with him, that is, so much as toucheth the fraud, that both he and my Lord haue used therein. Thus then I said in my adjoinder Chap. 6. pag. 239. num. 43.  
43. Now let us see what he saith to the second rank of Fathers, which he granteth to be truly cited, but not to be of sound credit. The first of these is Saint Ephram, out of whom the Cardinal allegeth these words: Precamur beatissimi Martyres &c. we beseech you most blessed Martyrs, that you will vouchsafe to pray unto our Lord for us wretched sinners, that the grace of Christ may come unto vs. To this M. Andrews answereth diuers ways: first he taketh exception against the translation; both because the Author thereof was one of ours( whose fidelity and credit he saith hath been long since cracked) and also because the original( which is in greek) was, saith he, lately taken out of a grot, and therefore is fidei cripticae, of obscure credit. So it pleaseth him to make himself merry with the word Crypta, for that Vossius the translator signifieth in his Epistle to the Reader in the beginning of the first Tome that he had a special help for his translation, by two very ancient manuscripts or written copies of Saint Ephraems works, which are to be seen in Crypta ferrata( a famous monastery near to Rome called commonly in Italian Grotta ferrata) of which manuscripts the one was written in the year of our Lord 531.  
44. But what cause had M. Andrews to iest at this? Sure I am that in the iudgment of any indifferent man, it may serve for no small justification of the translator that he fortifieth his translation with the authority of such an ancient manuscript, written above eleven hundred yeares ago, and yet extant to be seen so near to Rome, where his Tomes were printed, especially seeing that there is such continual recourse, and confluence thither from Rome( by reason of the celebrity of that monastery) that he might well think he should quickly be discovered for an impudent,& notable liar, in case he should faygne the same. And therefore for his further justification in this point, he also directeth his Reader to the very class where the said manuscripts are, to be found in the library of Grotta ferrata, to wit, under the title of these greek letters Ω. and Π. besides that he declareth also further that he conferred the same copies with diuers others which he saw, and are yet to be seen in the Vatican at Rome, and in the library of cardinal Sforza.  
45. So that these particularities, being considered, no man can with any reason, or without extreme malice, imagine any fraudulent meaning in the translator, seeing he remitteth his translation to the examination of so many learned men, as Rome continually affordeth, who might withall facility convince him of fraud, if he ha used any: and therefore master Andrewes sheweth more malice, then wit, in this exception, as also in that he rejecteth the translation, because the author thereof was a catholic. For albeit he say; that catholics haue lost their credit in matters of that kind; yet I hope the discreet Reader( who hath already seen by many examples how little credit M. Andrews deserveth) will not easiy believe him without some further proof then his bare word. And this it seemeth he himself feareth, and therefore seeketh another shift in these words: Longè aliter Tom● primo germanus Ephraem &c. The true Ephraem in his first Tome,( where he prayeth, and doth not make orations) saith far otherways, calling vpon God alone in every prayer, not so much as naming any Saint, yea there he speaketh to God in this manner: Ad te. ad praeter te neminem orationem facio, to thee, to none but thee I make my prayer. So he. Not quoting any particular treatise, or chapter where the words which he citeth are to be found; which by all likelihood he omitteth of purpose the better to cloak a piece of cogery, which he may be worthily suspected to haue used in this point.  
46. For whereas he mentioneth the first Tome of a true Ephraem, thou shalt understand, good Reader, that there are no other works of S. Ephraem extant in Latin, but only the three tomes above mentioned set forth by Vossius, except a little pamphlet containing a few sermons translated by a monk of Camaldula which cannot deserve the name of Tome; besides that, there is not any such prayer therein as he mentioneth, for ought I can find. And put the case, he could there show the same words, which he citeth, yet they may be so understood, that they will make nothing for his purpose. For even as david, when he had committed homicide, and sinned not only against God, but also against his neighbour, said nevertheless to Almighty God, Ti●● soli peccavi, I haue sinned against thee alone, because all sin against man doth finally redound to God: even so, for as much as all our prayer is finally directed to God the Author, and giver of all grace, and goodness, we may well say, we pray to none but to him, albeit we use therein the intervention and assistance of Angells, Saints, or men, by whom we also pray to God, when we crave, or procure their prayers to him for vs.  
47. And in this sense, no doubt that manner of prayer is to be understood, if any such be in S. Ephraem, or in any other ancient Father: for otherwise it should contradict the custom of the Apostle, who used to crave the prayers of the Romans, Ephesians, Thessalonians, and others to whom he wrote; as also al good Christians are wont to recommend themselves to the prayers one of another, and are warranted so to do by the Holy Scripture; so as I shall need to say no more concerning his true Ephraem, until he give me further news by whom he was translated, and published, how many Tomes there are of him, and in what part of his first Tome those words which he citeth are to be found. Thus far are the words of my adjoinder, wherein you see I speak amply( and probably also, as I think) in defence of the Latin edition, which we haue out of S. Ephraem translated by Vossius, and divided into three Tomes, urging him withall to justify his allegation of the first Tome of his pretended true Ephraem, which I beseech thee, good Reader to note well, and remember that thou mayst the better judge of his answer, which is this pag. 241. num 22.  
48. Numb. 46. You say a few sermons of Ephrem cannot deserve the name of a Tome; yet {αβγδ}, and resoluit Tomum, or scidit Tomum, often in the Councells, not for a huge volume, but what scroll soever. Why may not the Bishop speak after that manner? Though you cannot de●y, that Ephrems edition is distinguished by Tomes, as they are properly so called, unless you be a very stranger to the matter. And give us leave to suspect your Criptik Authors of your own editions when we call for Fathers, that is, no bastard Fathers to determine controversies. So he. With more which you shall hear anon. In the mean time you see here how he iugleth, and cauilleth about the word Tome, whether it may signify a little book, or a huge volume; asking me why the Bishop may not call a little pamphlet or book, a Tome; as if my Lord had spoken of a Tome in that sense, and that I had quarreled with his Lordship for the same: whereas you see his lordship quoted, the first Tome of the true Ephraem, whereby he signifieth evidently, that is was not some single Pamphelet, but a work that consisted of more Tomes then one; else what meant he by the first Tome? in which respect I said, that there are not extant any works of Ephraem in Latin, but only the three Tomes translated by Vossius, except a little pamphlet of Sermons &c. and yet M. Collins tells me, that I cannot deny that Ephraems edition is distinguished by Tomes, unless I be a very stranger to the matter. Do you see then how idly he tatleth, and what strange news he tells me? to wit, that Ephraems works are distinguished by Tomes, as if I doubted of it, when I told him so expressly myself, saying also that there are three Tomes of them, translated, and set forth by Vossius? Do you think this fellow is well in his wits?  
49. But you will say, that he taketh exception to those Tomes, as being cripticae fidei. It is true indeed, for so he doth; but why then doth he not tell us some particulars of the true tomes of true Ephraem which my Lord quoted, and he acknowledgeth? Why then doth he not tell us who translated them, or who set them forth, or where they were printed, or where they are to be found, if they be not those of Vossius, which is the matter in question betwixt my Lord and me; for his Lordship citeth the first Tome of a true Ephraem, and I tell him that there are none but the three tomes set forth by Vossius, and desire to hear news of the other if there be any such. And now M. Collins tells me news, of an edition of Ephraem distinguished by Tomes, whereof he saith I cannot be ignorant: so as by that reason be meaneth the Tomes set forth by Vossius, for I told him before, and so I tell him stil, that I know no other( neither can he in truth mean any other, because there are no other extant) whereupon it should follow also that the first tome which my Lord quoted should be the first of those three before mentioned; which nevertheless, both my Lord, and he do reject as being cripticae fidei. So as you see how distractedly he talketh contradicting himself, and my Lord, except he can tell me of some other edition of S. Ephraems works divided into Tomes then that of Vossius, which yet he neither doth, nor ever shallbe able to do.  
50. But will you see how he defendeth my Lord, or rather how he payeth him home, in that which followeth: The Bishop( saith he) was not only true in quoting Ephrem, but quoted him out of the original arabic that he wrote in. Not in coggery therefore as you call it, but so much the more to be respected, and credited afore your grottae, or criptae. So he. And is it so indeed M. Collins? Did the Bishop( as you call him) quote S. Ephraem out of the original arabic wherein he wrote? Ergo not out of the first tome of Ephraem, as his Lordship expressly affirmed; for his works are not printed in the arabic tongue, neither are there any manuscripts of them but in greek; for ought I could ever find or hear. And whereas M. Collins saith that he wrote in the arabic tongue, it is more I think, then he can prove, or is probable, seeing he was a Syrian born, and therefore it is most like, that he wrote in the syriac tongue, although some of his works, or perhaps all may haue been translated into the arabic tongue. But it little importeth for my Lords excuse in what language he wrote, seeing that the allegation of the place, even out of the arabic, whence my Lord professeth to take it, is fraudulent above measure, as it shal appear even by the arabic words, which M. Collins setteth down, given him by my Lord himself for his justification in this point. Thus then he saith pag. 242. num. 25.  
51. You ask the Bishop who published Ephrem, how many Tomes of him &c. in which matter we are not scrupulous to shape you an answer to the full, though it were more that you asked: Of Tomes before. So he. here note by the way good Reader, what answer he shapeth me,& how well to the full, concerning the Tomes of Ephraem, seeing that he remitteth me only to that, which he hath said of Tomes before, wherein how idly he hath iangled you haue seen, so lately, that I need not repeat it, and therefore to go on with his text, thus he saith further: The words are these, which willingly I would set down both in the arabic, and the Hebrew, as I haue received them from the Bishop, if we had such characters at hand. But in the Latin thus, both for form,& meaning. Illaica we shaveca lam atlabu. i. Ad te& praeterquam ad te non facio orationem, in English thus, for the satisfaction of every Reader, yourself& all, good M. F. T. To thee and but to thee to none, I make my prayer. The Bishop cited it out of a manuscript, which he keepeth yet to be seen vpon any occasion, called the Diurnal of the Maronits, a certain kind of Monks in a Monastery on mount Sinah. Which book was printed at Rome Anno 1584. at the commandment of Gregory the 13. by Dominicus Basa in syriac characters, though it be in the arabic tongue, under the name of the prayer of S. Ephrem. Thus saith M. Collins, wherein truly he hath don me a great pleasure; for now knowing, where my Lord had his text, I shallbe able as I hope, to shape his Lordship a better answer, and more to the full, then M. Collins hath shaped me a little before, concerning the tomes of Ephraem.  
52. You shall therefore understand, that albeit I know not how my Lords text is in his manuscript( which M. Collins saith his Lordship keepeth to show vpon any occasion) yet sure I am, that in the book, which he calleth the diurnal of the Maronites, printed at Rome, Anno 1584. I find it far otherwise, both in words and sense; for whereas he allegeth the arabic words thus: Illaica we shaveca lam atlabu, the three first are not in the arabic text of S. Ephraems prayer, in the aforesaid diurnal of the Maronits mentioned by M. Collins, and therefore it seemeth, that because Illaica or rather Ellaica signifieth ad te: my Lord thought best to add it to the arabic text, to justify his former translation in his answer to the apology, where he hath the Latin thus: Ad te, ad, praeter te, neminem facio orationem, and as for the other two words, to wit, we shaveca, the former, as it is there placed before shaveca, hath no sense, neither serveth to any purpose; for albeit u.( which signifieth, and) is pronounced, uue, when the word following beginneth with the vowell e.( as it is also pronounced uua, when the vowell a. followeth immediately) yet going before a word beginning with a consonant( as it doth heer before shaveca) it is not changed any way in sound or pronunciation; and therfore it reteyneth the natural sound and form of the letter u. so as uue before shaveca hath no sense, or construction: whereby it appeareth, either that M. Collins hath not well learned his lesson of my Lord, or else that my Lord himself is but a smatterer in the arabic tongue; and that therefore meaning to make arabic to justify his false allegation of his Latin text, he erred,& made false arabic. And this may be observed not only in the word uue, but also in shaveca which followeth it,& is no true arabic word, although it hath some affinity in sound at least with suaca, which is in the text of S. Ephraem, as shal be declared more at large after a while. In the mean time thou shalt understand good Reader, that to the end I may speak vpon good ground, I haue used extraordinary diligence to find out the said Diuinall, and to see, and consider the words, and text itself with the aduise and iudgment not only of some Italians who haue very exact skill in the arabic tongue, but also of the Maronits themselves, who do naturally speak that language, and reside in the College of that Nation here in Rome, in whole library I found the book mentioned by M. Collins, printed in the year 1534. in the arabic tongue, though in Syriac characters: in which book I find also the whole passage, which M. Collins hath laid down( for he citeth 7. or 8. lines together, as you shall hear further after a while) all agreeing very well with this printed copy, except only those few words which most concern this controversy, and a few more immediately following left out by him, because( belike) they made nothing for his purpose.  
53. Therefore to the end, as well the truth as my Lords fraud and his champions, may the better appear, I will first set down the whole text of S. Ephraem, as M. Collins citeth,& translateth it,& afterwards I will show the difference betwixt that,& the true arabic, as it is in the printed book which M. Collins mentioneth. Thus he saith: The words before, and after are these: Accipe deprecationem meam o Domine &c. receive my prayer, O Lord, not for my righteousness, but for thy mercies sakes; and in the multitude of thy bountyes, and of thy compassions, save my soul, which is taken prisoner of death. Remember me o Lord, and although I haue sinned, and am wounded with deadly wounds, non precor quemquam praeter te, yet do I not pray to any besides thyself: but to thy mercy and bounty I betake myself, because thou art that Lord God which comprisest( or imbracest) all things, and thy power is over all that liveth and breatheth. Thus doth M. Collins allege the context with the circumstances of the place cited by my Lord.  
54. And indeed the arabic agreeth therewith, until it come to the words, Non precor quemquam praeter te, I do not pray to any besides thyself, which are far different in the arabic thus, Flam et job suaca, that is to say, non precabor equalem tibi, I will not pray to any equal to thee: which Saint Ephraem explicateth also further, saying immediately thus, Vlam absot idai ala alah gairaca, that is to say in English, And I will not stretch forth my hands to any God, besides thee, which last sentence is wholly left out by M. Collins; so as if we add the same to the former which my Lord allegeth,& change praeter te, besides thee, into equalem tibi, equal to thee, it willbe evident that S. Ephraem did not mean to exclude prayer to any, but to the false Gods; for then the whole sentence willbe this, I will not pray to any equal to thee, neither will I extend( or stretch forth) my hands to any God besides thee. And then he goeth forward as M. Collins hath it thus: But to thy mercy, and bounty I betake myself &c. This then being so, I leaves it to the Reader to judge, how well M. Collins hath justified my Lords allegation; seeing that now it falleth out, that as his Lordship did then corruptly translate those words, praeter te instead of aequalem tibi; so now master Collins hath fraudulently alleged the whole passage, leaving out that which immediately followed, and is very necessary to make the Reader understand Saint Ephrems meaning therein.  
55. And whereas all the controversy concerning this sentence consisteth in the words, praeter te, as whether the same be truly translated out of the Arabicque; it is to be understood that the word shaveca, which M. Colins giveth us to signify praeter te, is no arabic word, as I haue said before, although it cometh near to the Arabicque; for the true Arabicque word which is in Saint Ephrems Text, is suaca, and signifieth equalem tibi, equal to thee; for sua signifieth equal, and ca being added unto it, maketh it, equal to thee: and for the proof thereof it chanced, that an Italian very learned in the language being demanded what suaca signified, and having answered that it signified equalis tibi, called to him to a Maronite who passed by at the same time, and asked him, what signified equalis in his language,& he answered suae, and being further asked what is equalis tibi, he said suaca, besides that the very Dictionaries of the Hebrew, syriac, and arabic do clearly confirm it, as the Lexicon pentaglotton col. 182. a. where it appears that the hebrew verb shaua( which signifieth aequalis svit) is in the Calday also shaua, in the syriac sheua,& in the arabic saui, and that it hath for the constrain in the Hebrew sheua, in the Calday shaua, in the syriac sheui, and in the arabic sua, all signifying aequalis.  
56. Now then by the consonance,& conformity of the other three languages, Hebrew, Calday, and syriac, with the arabic, it is evident that the proper and natural signification of sua in the arabic, is aequalis; nevertheless I will not deny but that it is taken sometimes( though unproperly) for praeter: but why my Lord should leave the proper, and common signification of the word, to take the unproper, I see no re●son, especially seeing that gairaca which followeth a little after in the arabic Text of S. Ephraem doth properly signify praeter te, as in those words, which M. Collins left out, to wit, Non extendam manus meas ad Deum prater te, I will not extend my hands to a God besides thee. There I say, praeter te, is gairaca in the arabic, and therfore it is likely that if S. Ephraem had meant to say, Non precor quemquam praeter te, he would not haue used suaca, but gairaca, as he did afterwards. moreover if suaca should signify there praeter te, the sense should be unperfect, for so the Latin translation shoulbe Non precor praeter te, without quenquam, which M. Collins addeth, or ad neminem as my Lord translateth it( who hath it thus, Ad te, ad praeter te neminem orationem facio;) whereas in the arabic text of S. Ephraem, there is no word which signifieth quenquam, or ad neminem, but translating suaca, aequalem tibi, the sense is perfect word for word, thus, Lam et job suaca: Non precabor aequalem tibi: lastly the word, which M. Collins hath given us in his arabic for praeter te( to wit shaveca) may suffice to confounded my Lord and him; for shave( which according to my Lords translation should signify praeter) being no arabic, but an Hebrew word, signifieth aeq●●lis and not praeter, being derived from the root shaua: so as albeit my Lord, or M. Collins, haue erred in the arabic, yet I may say by the error, as one said by a ston, which he had cast at a dog,& did hit his stepdame, that it did not hit amiss for me, seeing that his Lordship missing the arabic,& lighting by chance vpon the Hebrew hath confuted himself; and therefore I conclude, that by all this it is manifest, that his corruption of S. Ephraem is inexcusable as well for the text, as for the sense,  
57. But now to do my Lord, and M. Collins a pleasure, if I should allow their translation of praeter te, what would they gain thereby? truly nothing at all, for now that we see the circumstances laid down by M. Collins, it appeareth evidently that my Lord did fraudulently city those words of S. Ephraem, concealing the said circumstances, to the end he might with more colour apply them to his purpose against prayer to Saints, which is no way prejudiced thereby for the circumstances do show that S. Ephrē did crave of Almighty God the salvation of his soul by the cure of his deadly wounds, that is to say, by the remission of his sins, and grace to heal the same; and this he craved of God, as of th● Omnipotent Lord of all, who only can give grace, remission of sin, and salvation; so as S. Ephraem had great reason to crave it of him only, and therefore might well haue said, non precor quemquam praeter te, I do not pray to any but to thee, that is to say, to obtain remission of my sins, not knowing any equal to thee, or any other God but thee, and therefore to thy only mercy, and bounty I betake myself, because thou art the Lord God of all,& hast power over all creatures. Thus I say, S. Ephraem might with great reason say, and so all catholics in like case, never demanding grace, or remission of sins, or salvation of any but of God himself, who is the only giver thereof; albeit we crave the same of him by the intercession of Saints, and of men; and do also beseech Saints, and men to help us to obtain it of him, yea and pray also to Angells, and Saints to favour, and help us in such other things as by the goodness of God are in their power to bestow vpon us, but not as Gods, or equal to God, but as his dearest seruants, and favourits, whose ministry and service he useth to the help and comfort of his Creatures; so as to that purpose which S. Ephraem prayed, we pray to none but to God.  
58. You see then what good service, M. Collins hath done unto my Lord hereby, laying down the text of S. Ephraem at large, seeing it appeareth evidently thereby that my Lords allegation of those few words which he cited, was very fraudulent: whereto if we add now his Lordships false translation of suaca, and his addition of Illaica to the arabic text( which he promised to allege entirely) I know not what more may be desired to show the egregious fraud, and malice of them both; so as hereby it may be judged, whether M. Collins had any reason to say afterwards as he doth viz. that this is pregnant enough to justify the Bishop from being such a falsary, as( I) would make him,& that( I) may rather fear the imputation of it myself, as if the two letters F. T. were as many marks in my forehead to know a False thief thereby. Thus indeed he saith, but how reasonably let the Reader judge, seeing that instead of justifying my Lord from the imputation of falsity, he himself hath increased the suspicion& fortified the imputation thereof by his diligent addition of the circumstances, which do evidently discover my Lords fraud. And whereas it is his pleasure to make use of the letters F. T. to mark me in the forehead for a False thief, he might haue said it with some reason, if he could haue charged me truly to haue stolen so much as one word or syllable, now, or at any time, out of any sentence, which might make against me; whereas you see he hath pilfred, and stolen out of S. Ephraems text a whole sentence immediately following the words which my Lord alleged, and do import much for the explication of S. Ephraems meaning; and therefore I remit it to the iudgment of the indifferent Reader, whether he or I, do better deserve to be branded in the forehead with the mark of a False thief.  
59. Although this might suffice to discover the intolerable fraud of my Lord,& M. Collins; yet to make the same more clear then the sun at noon day, it is to be understood, that there are in the said Diurnal( which M. Collins alleged) certain salutations, with prayers to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to S. Michael, almost immediately before the prayer of S. Ephraem, out of the which my Lord took his sentence;& in one of the said salutations to the B. Virgin( which is to be seen there fol 167.) there are these words towards the end therof pa. 173. Peace be to thee by whom we were delivered from the fire of hell, O crown of the faithful that do combat or fight; peace be to thee, who art the holy ship, and the port of salvation; peace be to thee to whom the angel Gabriel was sent, who saluted thee saying rejoice O Virgin, the Lady of women; rejoice o full of grace, our Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, because he that was born of thee, is called Holy,& the Son of God. PRAY TO HIM for the remission of our sins. Thus endeth that salutation,& prayer to the Blessed Virgin.  
60. In like manner S. Michael is saluted thus pag. 204. Peace be to thee Michael the head of the Angels: Peace be to thee Michael the Lord of great miracles; peace be to thee Michael the archangel, the intercessor of mankind before the Trinity. Pray for us, O Michael the archangel, that our sins may be forgiven us for thy prayers, which are acceptable to our Lord. And after this there followeth a short prayer to Almighty God fol 205. which endeth thus: hear our cry by the intercession of our Lady, and pure Virgin, and of S. Peter the Apostle, and of S. Nicholas, and of all Saints. Amen. And immediately after this followeth sol. 207. the prayer of S. Ephrē, alleged by my Lord& M. Collins, which prayer also endeth thus, fol. 224: hear O Lord the prayer of thy seruant by the intercession of thy Saints, which art eternal,& blessed for ever& ever. Amen.  
61. Now M. Collins, I would gladly hear what my Lord and you will say to al this; for if this diurnal be S. Ephraems work or any part of the first tome of the true Ephraem( which my Lord quoted expressly for the sentence which he alleged) then either my Lord did not understand Saint Ephraem well, or else S. Ephrem contradicted that sentence in his practise, praying to others besides Almighty God, as namely to our blessed Lady, and Saint michael. And if this be not Saint Ephraems work, then it doth not justify my Lords allegation of that sentence, out of the first tome of the true Ephrem; besides that it seemeth strange to me that my Lord could see that one sentence, consisting only of 5. or 6. words,& could not see in the same Diurnal those long prayers to our Blessed Lady, and Saint michael a little before. Is not this to be wilfully blind? How well may the saying of our saviour to the Pharisees joan. 9. be applied to my Lord, and you: Si caeci essetis &c. if you were blind, you should haue no sin, but now that you say we see, your sin doth remain.  
62. Well then, to come now to the message which it hath pleased my Lord to sand me, M. Collins saith to me thus num. 22. pag. 241. As for Vossius( saith he) the translator, and Prefacer, and setter forth, with whom you are so much delighted; as his name in Dutch( which was his natural language) follies a Fox, so you are the Goose for your labour, if you credit him to far: and this as I was wished from him that understands these things best, so I tel it you. Thus saith M. Collins, and I accept the message very gratefully; and to the end I may return the answer to my Lord with speed, by the same messenger. I beseech you M. Collins as you brought me the message, so also to deliver the answer, and to signify to his Lordship from me, these points, with all due respect to his person.  
63. First, that his Lordship should haue done much better for his own reputation, to haue sent his message by a wiser man: for as the proverb saith. He that sends a fool on his errand, must go after and do it himself.  
64. Secondly that I rest as little satisfied, as before, concerning the first tome of the true Ephraem, which his Lordship allegeth: for albeit you tell me of an edition of Ephraem, distinguished by Tomes, yet you neither tell me by whom it was set forth, nor where it was printed, nor where it is to be found; neither do you say that his Lordship took yt out of the first tome of that edition, but out of a manuscript which was printed in Rome such a year,& called a diurnal, as indeed it may be well called, being but a little prayer book, containing diuers prayers for morning, evening, midnight, and the canonical houres, with the 7. penitential psalms, and amongst the rest there are only 5. or 6. prayers with the title of Saint Ephraem: so as that diurnal cannot be called Saint Ephraems prayer, as master Collins calleth it, saying: That the book goeth under the name of Saint Ephraems Prayer; and much less is if the first come of the true Ephraem( as my Lord quoted it) and if it be Saint Ephraems work, then the prayers there to our B. Lady, and Saint Michael, convince my Lord of inexcusable fraud; and so you may tell his Lordship from me, and that he might haue seen those prayers, as well as that short sentence, if he had not been wilfully blind.  
65. Thirdly that his Lordships addition of Illaica to the Text, and his translation of suaca, which he interpreteth praeter te, is also most fraudulent; which later indeed I suspected before, albeit I could not charge his Lordship directly with it, until now that you M. Collins haue directed where to finde it, as I haue done by your good help, and therefore how much he is beholding to you for this, I leave it to his Lordships iudgment.  
66. Fourthly you may also tell his Lordship for his better information, that if he do believe that the Maronits( out of whose diurnal he pretendeth to haue taken the sentence) are Monks in a monastery on Mount Sinah( as you say they are) his Lordship is much deceived; for the Maronits are a people dwelling on Mount Libanus many dayes journey from mount Sinah; and albeit there are monks among them, as also on mount Sinah, yet they are of different orders, and contryes; for the Maronits on mount Libanus are of S. Antonies order, and those of Sinah, being Greeks, are of S. Basills order, and are not called Maronitae, but Melchitae. Thus much by the way for my Lords instruction, and yours.  
67. Fiftly, that put the case his Lordships translation were true, and that S. Ephraem had said, Non precor quemquam praeter te, yet his application therof against prayer to Saints, is neither to the purpose, nor void of fraud; seeing that the circumstances( which his Lordship concealed,& you M. Collins haue now laid down little to his honour) do manifestly show, that the place doth nothing prejudice prayer to saints, for the causes signified so lately, that I need not to repeat them now: and therefore whereas you M. Collins, make such account of that sentence, that you haue prefixed it before the second part of your book( where you profess to treat purposely of prayer to Saints) setting it down under the title thus. Ephraem. To thee, and but to thee, to none I make my prayer; you may do well to remove it from thence, and set it amongst the errors and faults escaped in the print, or rather to put it up in your pocket, that there may be no more memory of it, nor consequently of my Lords forgery, and your folly.  
68. sixthly, whereas my Lord doth reject the edition of S. Ephraems works, translated by Vossius, yea and( as you tell me also afterwards pag. 243. lin. ult.) his Lordship will avouch it( howsoever the first tome of Vossius his edition may be of the true Ephraem) yet the rest are no more Ephraems works then his own; whereas I say you affirm this in my Lords name, you may tell his Lordship, if you please, that albeit I acknowledge him to be a man of great dignity( as being counsellor to the Kings majesty my sovereign,& therfore I do bear him all due respect) yet I cannot aclowledge his authority to be so great, that his bare word shall stand for a law, and suffice to censure, control,& condemn Authors as his pleasure, without yielding any cause or reason why, especially in this case now in question touching Vossius, seeing that I haue given in my adjoinder( as you haue seen before) sufficient reasons to justify his edition, which both my Lord, and you M. Collins haue seen in my adjoinder, and nevertheless you dissemble it wholly, and urge my Lords bare avouchment, and affirmation of the contrary, as though the same were sufficient to confute all that which I haue said, or can be said in defence of Vossius. Therefore you may tell my Lord, that as yet I see no reason, why the place alleged by Cardinal Bellarmine, out of S. Ephraems works to prove prayer to Saints, should not stand in full force, notwithstanding the exception which his Lordship taketh to the edition of Vossius; in which respect I will also be bold to make use of S. Ephraems testimonies hereafter, out of the same edition, as occasion shall serve, until my Lord or you do disprove it, with some better reason, then my Lords bare word.  
69. Lastly I would gladly haue my Lord to understand( though I think you will be loathe to tell him) that he had never worse lucke in his life, then when he made choice of you for his Champion; for you are so far from performing the office of a good Champion, that you rather play the part of a bad Tinker, who in labouring to stop one hole in a Kettle, commonly maketh two or three more,& leaveth it much worse then he found it; for truly so do you here deal with my Lord, making his cause much worse then it was; so as his Lordship should haue provided better for his own honour, to haue let you still be silent, as you were amongst the Canes muti non valentes latrare( of whom the Prophet Isay speaketh cap. 56.) then to set your tongue on talking so much to his own disgrace, as here he hath done; and therefore not only I, but also his lordship hath great reason to shut up your mouth hereafter with Obmutesce.  
70. But now to proceed, I omit a world of fooleries, and impertinent cavils in his answer to my Adionder touching certain places of S. Chrysostome& S. Maximus,& will discover his most fraudulent answer concerning a place which carded. Bellarmine alleged in his Apology, of an Oration of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, made in the feast of S. Cyprian, wherein he not only prayed to the Saint saying, Tu è superis nos respice,& populum hunc sanctum diring: behold us from above, and direct this holy people; but also recounted the story of a holy Virgin called Iustina, who being extremely tempted by the devil, and her chastity endangered( by the means of Necromancy) devoutly implored the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whereby together with her other holy endeavours she overcame the temptation. To this objection of the cardinal, my Lord of Winchester answereth three ways; first that the Oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen, out of which this testimony is taken, is not liquida fidei, of clear credit, because it is uncertain who that Cyprian was of whom he made that Oration, as namely whether he was Cyprian Bish. of Carthage( as he should seem to be by the circumstances mentioned therein) or Cyprian Bishop of Antioch, in which respect my Lord of Winchester saith: Ita fluctuat res tota, ita perplexa omnia, so uncertain is the whole matter, and so perplex, and doubtful are all things in that Oration.  
71. His second answer is, that it was but the fact of a maid, and then asketh whether the fact of a maid be a statute of the Church? And whether a rule of faith be to be grounded vpon a maids act? And lastly he answereth that S. Epiphanius sharply reprehended the self same fact in the same Age in the Collyridian heretics, when it was done by many of the same sex. To these three answers of my Lord of Winchester, I replied in my adjoinder thus. pag. 252. lin. 6. You see how substantially he argueth, inferring that the matter, and substance of the oration is uncertain, because it is doubtful of which Cyprian the oration was made; whereas nevertheless he cannot with any reason deny but that the oration is S. Gregory Nazianzens: whereupon it must needs follow that albeit Nazianzen should be deceived, and err in the history, or the person of whom he speaketh, yet the substance as well of the story, as of the doctrine contained in that Oration, was true in his conceit, and therfore may serve for an assured testimony of his belief, and of the practise of the Church in his time( which is the only point now in question) and therfore seeing that he not only prayed to a saint himself, but also signified that a holy Virgin did the like; it is clear, that both he himself, and also the faithful people in those dayes, held it to be lawful, and practised it as occasion required.  
72. And whereas M. Andrewes addeth concerning the latter point( to wit, the prayer of the maid) that it was but a fact of a maid, and then asketh whether the fact of a maid is a statute of the Church? and whether a rule of ●ayth is to be grounded vpon a maids act? I haue sufficiently answered him already touching the statutes,& decrees of the Church concerning this point; and now tell him again, that there was neither at that time, any need of statutes for prayer to saints, which then was every where in practise; neither is it now in question what the Church decreed then touching the same, but what was then generally practised and believed, which cannot be better, and more clearly proved by any testimonies of the Fathers, then by such as witness, not only their own facts, but also the practise of other Christians, either in their dayes, or else in former times, as this was which S. Gregory affirmeth of that holy maid.  
73. But will you now hear how well M. Andrewes concludeth al this matter? forsooth he maketh an objection against himself, saying in a different letter( as if the objection were the Cardinals) said factum non reprehenditur, but this fact of the maid is not reprehended by S. Gregory Nazianzen: and then he addeth answering to his own objection: Immò idem illud &c. yea, but Epiphanius sharply reprehended the self same, in the same age, in the Collyridian heretics, when it was done by many of the same sex. Thus saith M. Andrews, playing his part kindly, as well in his objection as in his answer. For in his objection( wherein he would seem to speak for the cardinal, or rather to lay down his words) he dissembleth altogether what the cardinal saith to urge, and fortify that example of the maid, and therefore forbeareth purposely, as it may be thought, to set it down in his margin with the rest of the cardinals text; who after the words of S. Gregory before related( to wit Virginem Mariam rogauit &c. She besought the Virgin Mary to succour a Virgin in danger) addeth immediately, ac paulò post resert eam &c. and a little after ( Nazianzen) declareth that her prayer was heard. Vicit, inquit, virgo, vincitur daemon. The Virgin( saith he) overcame, and the devil is overcome. Thus doth the cardinal urge this example, which as you see, is of much more force, then to say only( as M. Andrews saith) that S. Gregory did not reprehend the fact.  
74. For albeit his silence in not reprehending it, may serve for an argument that he did not mislike it, yet the other clearly proveth that not only he, but also God himself did notably approve it, seing he saith that she obtained the effect of her prayer, and overcame the divell: whereto I also add, that when that holy Father beginneth to recount the history of the maid, he saith thus: Audite Virgines, ac simul exultate &c. hearken o ye Virgins, and rejoice also, yea all ye that esteem chastity in matrimony, and love Virgins, give ear, for to both sorts this my narration may serve for an ornament. So he. Whereby it appeareth plainly that he meant to recount that which he would wish to be approved and imitated by others: whereupon it followeth that by this example he exhorted, and encouraged all those whose chastity should be endangered, to crave the help of the blessed Virgin, as that holy maid did, who thereby( together with her other deuotious of fasting,& prayer to almighty God, which S. Gregory relateth) overcame the divell, and escaped the danger of his tentation. And could this holy Father more evidently declare what his faith and belief was, concerning prayer to Saints, then not only to relate this fact of a holy Virgin without reprehension of it, but also to signify the happy event, and success thereof, yea, and to incyte others to the approbation, and imitation of it?  
75. But now saith M. Andrewes, although Nazianzen did not reprehend it: yet Epiphanius did sharply reprove idem illud, even the self same fact in the same age in other women. If this be true, M. Andrews doth indeed say somewhat to the purpose( at least to prove that the Fathers of that age did not with vnanime consent allow prayers to saints;) but if it be false, and that he flatly belieth S. Epiphanius, what shall we think of the mans conscience, and cause? The truth is, S. Epiphanius sharply reprehendeth certain women who used at a certain time of the year to commit Idolatry to the Virgin Mary, adoring her with divine honour, offering to her certain cakes in sacrifice, as though she had been a God, or a Goddesse, and they her Priests: whereupon he discourseth amply, proving first out of the old Testament, that nusquam mulier sacrificauit, aut Sacerdotio suncta est, women haue never sacrifyced any where, or executed Priestly function. And then he cometh to the new Testament, where he sheweth also the same, and addeth further, that if women could ever haue been admitted to sacrifice, the Virgin Mary herself should haue done it rather, then any other, nevertheless she never did: and finally he concludeth, that the body of the blessed Virgin Mary, was reuerà sanctum, said non Deus, truly holy, but not God,  
76. By all which it appeareth, that these women, which Epiphanius reprehendeth, did not only take vpon them the Priestly function, but also committed flat Idolatry, adoring the Virgin Mary with divine honour, offering sacrifice unto her, which is a worship due to God alone. Now then could a man believe that M. Andrewes, or any man else that hath care of his reputation would be so shameless to say, that this is idem illud, that very self same thing which, Nazianzen saith, that holy Virgin did, who only craved help of the Virgin Mary? Is there no difference betwixt praying,& sacrifysing? betwixt Idolatry,& religious veneration due to Gods Saints,& seruants? Or betwixt the usurpation of Priestly function( whereof no woman is capable)& the oblation of private prayers, which is as free for women, as men? Doth every one, or any one that prayeth to saints or Angels, craving their help, and assistance( as that holy Virgin did) doth he, I say, adore them as Gods, commit idolatry, offer Sacrifice, usurp the function of a Priest as those women did, whom Epiphanius reprehended? Truly if M. Andrews can justify this, he may boldly say, and writ what he list. So as now you see, that whereas he undertook to prove that this testimony of S. Gregory Nazianzen is not liquidae fidei, of clear credit, he hath obscured, or rather clearly lost his own credit, by an evident, and intolerable abuse of S. Epiphanius, without giuing the least blemish, or taint in the world to the credit of the place that he impugneth: by the which it appeareth evidently, that the invocation of Saints was usual in the time of S. Gregory Nazianzen, seeing that he himself did both invocate Saints, and also testify and approve the practise of it in others, as you haue heard: and this shal suffice for him.  
77. Thus said I in my adjoinder, wherein you see, I not only confuted my Lord of Winchesters answer to the cardinals objection, but also charged his Lordship with two frauds, the one in dissembling, and concealing wholly that which most imported in the objection, I mean the circumstances which the cardinal urged to confirm the maids example in praying to the Blessed Virgin, to wit, the good success, and effect of her prayers, and other holy endeavours which S. Gregory signified, saying: Vicit virgo,& vincitur Daemon: The maid overcame, and the divell was overcome; and the other fraud was, an intolerable abuse of S. Epiphanius in affirming, that he condemned in the Collyridian heretics idem illud, the self same act of the maid, who prayed only to the immaculate Mother of God( not as to a God, or Goddesse, but as to a creature most acceptable to God;) whereas that which S. Epiphanius condemned in the Collyridian heretics, was flat Idolatry, which they committed, offering sacrifice to the B. Virgin, which is due to God alone.  
78. Now then I doubt not, but that the Reader expecteth that M. Collins should say somewhat, if not to all my reply vpon My Lords answer, yet at the least to the imputation of the fraudes, wherewith I charged his Lordship, seeing he hath undertaken to defend him, and to clear him of the fraudes, falsities, and lies, wherewith he saith in his title, I slandered his Lordship. But here, he not only dissembleth that which is most important in my reply, but also is wholly silent to the charge of the two fraudes, dissembling that which he could not answer.  
79. And albeit in the ninth Chapter pag. 388. num. 24. he doth enlarge himself very much vpon that place of S. Epiphanius, spending no less the five or six pages, in a large Comment vpon it; nevertheless he maketh no mention at all of any imputation of fraud, or abuse of S. Epiphanius( wherewith I charged his Lordship)& yet I gave him sufficient occasion to do it even in that place, where I recapitulated all my Lords frauds, falsities, and lies,& among the rest, charged his Lordship with this in particular, saying, that he had egregiously abused, and flatly belied Epiphanius, touching prayer to our Blessed Lady, which M. Collins thought best, to dissemble wholly, and yet to make some fair flourish vpon the place itself, because it treated of Idolatry, and seemed to him very fit, to guile some simplo Reader, with the help of some false gloss, or comment of his; and this he thought he might do without any hazard to my Lords honour, who being not so much as name or any ways mentioned by him, should scape Scotfree for his fraud, albeit the Reader should not be satisfied with the exposition of the place.  
80. But you will say perhaps, that albeit M. Collins doth not name my Lord, nor mention my objection of fraud to his Lordship, yet it may be hath cleared him sufficiently of the imputation, if he haue proved, that Epiphanius condemned prayer to the Blessed Virgin, no less then sacrifice. But how hath he proved it? Forsooth, he saith thus pag. 388. num. 24. Epiphanius you say, never reprehended praying to the Virgin Mary, but sacrifice only in the Colliridian gossipps. And was their sacrifice without prayer? Or could it well be? Remember I pray you, your own principles; then show where Epiphanius reproving sacrifice, excepts praying, and condemns not all their foppery in gross: yet he scans the point nicely, and shows what we may give to the Virgin without offence, what we may not, in all which, of prayer not a word he vouchsafes her. Thus indeed saith M. Collins, even as much to the purpose, as if he had said just nothing.  
81. For what need I deny either that the prayer of these Idolaters concurred with their sacrifice, or that Epiphanius condemned them both? Seeing that( as well their prayer, as their sacrifice) was idolatrous, being offered to a creature, as to God. As also the like may be said even of any act of worship or reverence done to any man, or other creature as to God, either with prayer, or without it, in which respect the Christians in the time of julian the Apostata, would not do any reverence to his Image when it was painted with the Image of jupiter, because they would not seem to do an act of Idolatry to jupiter; whereas they used to do reverence to the Image of the Emperour, when it was alone, as it is testified by S. Gregory Nazianzen orat. 1. in julian. And no doubt the Collyridian gossips did acts of worship,& veneration together with their sacrifice,& prayer to the Blessed Virgin; which acts, were in like manner condemned by S. Epiphanius in gross withall their soppery( as M. Collins saith very well) and yet I hope, he will not say, therefore that all acts of worships or reverence done to creatures are unlawful: whereby you may see how wisely he argueth, and how like a Doctor of divinity, to reject all prayer to Saints, because Idolatrous prayer is to be rejected, not proving prayer to Saints to be idolatrous, which neither he, nor his fellow Ministers shall ever be able to prove.  
82. For as sacrifice may be lawful, and unlawful, so also we may say of prayer. Sacrifice offered to God is most lawful, but offered to a creature is most unlawful, yea abominable; so also prayer made to almighty God as God, or to a Saint as a Saint,( that is to a creature acceptable to God) is lawful, and behouefull; but made to a Saint, or to any other creature as to God, is idolatrous and execrable: so as my Lord of Winchester ought to haue made a great difference betwixt the prayer of Iustina the holy maid in S. Gregory Nazianzen, and that other of the Collyridian Gossips in Epiphanius; for the former was made to the Blessed Virgin, not as to God, but as to a creature( yet the Mother of God) and so was lawful and good, whereas the other prayer was made to her, not as to a creature, but as to God, and consequently was unlawful and detestable; and therefore my Lord( if I may be bold to say it) ouerlashed very much, and greatly abused S. Epiphanius, when he said that, Epiphanius reprehended the prayer of Iustina in the Collyridian Gossips and M. Collins did very wisely to pass it with silence, and become dumb, when he could not tell how to defend, or excuse it.  
83. And this might suffice for this point, were it not that his gloss vpon S. Epiphanius is not only most false, and absurd, but also most injurious to the blessed, and immaculate Mother of God; in which respect, I cannot omit to discover as well his impiety as his absurdity therein: and because he is so ample in it, that it cannot be confuted in a few words, I will make it the subject of the next Chapter.   

An impious and absurd gloss of M. Collins vpon a discourse of S. Epiphanius against the Collyridian heretics is examined, and proved to be partly repugnant to the text of that holy Father, and partly opposite to the belief, and doctrine of his majesty; and finally blasphemous, and most injurious to the immaculate Moth●r of God, whose honour is defended throughout the whole Chapter. CHAP. VIII.  
BEING now to examine M. Collins his absurd, and impious gloss vpon S. Epiphanius against the Collyridian heretics, I find to be verified in him, that which our saviour said Matth. 7. that as he is wise who builds his house vpon a rock, so is he a fool that builds it vpon the sand,( that is to say vpon a weak and false foundation) as M. Collins hath done heer, having founded all the frame of his building( I mean al the weight and force of his arguments) vpon two false suppositions. The one, that the honour which we give to the Blessed Virgin is idolatry. And the other, that the adoration, which S. Epiphanius denieth to her, is the adoration, and honour that we do yield her; which two points are most false; for S. Epiphanius( whom he gloseth) impugneth,& condemneth only the Idolatry of the Collyridian heretics, against whom he wrote, and by the way, inveigheth against the Idols of the Paynims, using throughout all his discourse, the word adoration for divine honor, wherein he doth not touch us at all, who do not give any divine honour to the Blessed Virgin, and much less to her Image, or to any creature; so that a● our saviour said of the fools house, that the winds blew, and the house fell, so may I say of M. Collins his brave building, that one puff or blast of a bare denial will overthrow it. And therfore he should first haue proved his grounds soundly, before he made his inferences vpon them, and so his large Comment vpon S. Epiphanius might haue seemed at least, to haue been to some purpose; whereas now it serveth to no other end, but to discover his folly, and his impious,& blasphemous humour against the most blessed, and glorious Mother of God; in which respect I will take a little pains to examine it briefly, and to defend the due honour done to her by catholics, so far, as his Comment shal give me occasion: and to that end I most humbly crave both her leave and assistance with this versicle of the Church; Dignare me laudare te Virgo sacrata, da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos: Vouchsafe to give me leave, Holy Virgin, to praise thee,& give me force( or strength) against thy enemies.  
2. Now then to the end it may appear, that S. Epiphanius forbidding the adoration of the B. Virgin, meaneth only divin adoration, or worship, is it to be understood that these foolish women( of whom he wrote) held her to be God, and therefore speaking of them haeres. 78. he saith, that Sanctam semper Virginem pro Deo introducere sluduerint, they laboured to introduce the holy ever Virgin for God. And that therefore they used to do sacrifice unto her; in which respect he saith also afterwards: Cesset itaque error seductorum, neque enim est Deus Maria, neque de Caelo corpus habens &c. let the error of these seduced people cease; for Mary is not God, neither hath she a body from heaven, but by the conception of a man and woman. And again afterwards haeres. 79. Reuerà sanctum erat corpus Mariae, non tamen Deus &c. truly the body of Mary was holy, yet not God, she was indeed a Virgin, and honourable, but not given us to be adored, but she adoring him, who was born of her in flesh. So he. Whereby it is evident, that he denieth her only that ador●tion, which she gave unto her son, that is to say, divine honor as to God.  
3. And to this purpose he saith further, that God the Word took flesh of the Virgin, yet not to the end that she should be adored, nor to make her a God nor that we should offer sacrifice in her name; nor that she should find wom●n priests& she sacrificers after so many Ages. In all which it is manifest, that those foolish women, held the Blessed Virgin to be God, and adored her with sacrifice( which is divine honour due to God alone.) And therfore S. Epiphanius proveth also very amply, as I haue signified before in the last Chapter num. 74. that it was never heard, or red of in the old or new Testament, that there were women-priests, which might offer sacrifice. Finally in the same sense, and to ●he same purpose, he saith all the rest touching Adoration, which M. Collins allegeth ●nd objecteth to us, as, Mariam nemo adoret, ●et no man adore Mary: Deo debetur hoc mysterium, this mystery is due to God; etsi pulcherrima est Maria& sancta,& honorata, at non ad adorationem, albeit Mary be most fair,& holy, and honourable, yet not to be adored;& lastly, Maria in honore sit, Dominus adoretur, let Mary be honoured, and our Lord adored.  
4. All this saith Saint Epiphanius, and M. Collins allegeth it, with certain other sentences, which shall also be considered after a while: but by all this which I haue cited, it is evident, that those Collyridian gossips, holding the blessed Virgin for a God, committed flat Idolatry, offering sacrifice unto her, as her Priests; and that therefore Saint Epiphanius worthily forbiddeth all such adoration to be exhibited to her, or to any other creature; teaching nevertheless, that she is to be honoured as the mother of God, though not to be adored as God: whereby it appeareth that M. Collins, hath belied Saint Epiphanius notably, whom he affirmeth not to adjudge to her any adoration at all of what kind soever; for if she be to be honoured, she is to receive some kind of adoration, seeing that the word adoration signifieth not only divine honour, and worship( in which sense Saint Epiphanius taketh it here) but also religious, and civil worship, as I haue proved so amply, and clearly in my adjoinder, out of the holy scriptures, and fathers, that M. Collins himself granteth both the different use, and acception of the words, and also the different kind of worship, or honour signified thereby; for he granteth the civil adoration, though absurdly he denieth the religious, calling that civil which is testified in the scripture to haue been done to Angells, and holy men, as I shall haue occasion to show amply, and to discover his folly withall, in the tenth Chapter. But that which I wish to be noted for the present, is, his detestable impiety, seeing that in excluding the most blessed mother of God from all adoration of what kind soever, he doth not only exclude her from the religious worship,& adoration which the church doth yield her, but also from the civil adoration, which he himself granteth may be given to mortal, and sinful men: so as yf shee should appear to any( as she hath done to many) she might not be adored so much as civilly, with cap, and knee, or bowing of the body, which is a kind of civil adoration, that may be used to any man of quality.  
5. But will you hear how Saint Epiphanius himself checketh this fellow, haeres 78. writing against such others as he, I mean certain heretics called Antidicomarianitae, that is, saith he, adversarij Mariae velut inimicitiam aduersus Virginem habentes,& gloriam illius extenuare volentes &c. The adversaries of Mary, bearing, as it were, enmity against the Virgin, and desiring to extenuate her glory &c. to whom he saith thus: Who is he that out of the abundance of an affencted madness, would frame some blasphemous opinions, open his mouth, and loose his tongue out of a wicked mind? Immò pro hymnis& gloria, yea instead of hymns, and glory, invent, and utter drunken, and contumelious speeches against the holy Virgin? Et vas honoratum non colere, and not to honour( or worship) that honourable vessel &c. Thus saith Saint Epiphanius. For the better understanding whereof, yt is to be considered, that he writeth this against certain heretics, who did teach that the Blessed Virgin, was not always a Virgin, but that she had children by S. joseph after the birth of Christ: to which purpose I wish 3. things to be noted.  
6. The first, that if M. Collins be not of the same opinion, he is not far from it according to the principles of his master Caluin, Beza,& other sectaries, who teach that the B. Virgin made no vow of chastity, or it she did, that she was not bound to observe it: so as according to their doctrine she might haue done( if not better, yet) at least as well to haue had the company of her husband,( being married) as to conserve her virginity, which they hold to be of no greater merit then marriage; whereupon it followeth that if M. Collins agree in opinion with his maisters Caluin, Beza,& other Sectaries( his brethren in the Lord) he hath no small affinity,& participation with the Antidicomarianita, whom Saint Epiphanius confuteth, and condemneth for enemies to the Blessed Virgin, and most blasphemous heretics.  
7. The second thing which I wish to be noted is, that albeit S. Epiphanius, make no particular mention of any other dishonour that those heretics did her, either in word, or dead; yet it may be gathered by this, which I haue here alleged out of him, that they refused to do her public honour, and service, with hymns, and glory, as the Church useth, which you see, he blameth and utterly condemneth, not only in them, but also consequently in M. Collins, and all his fellows, who do in that point fully participate with them.  
8. The third is, that it is evident by this place of S. Epiphanius, that he is so far from denying to the Blessed Virgin all adoration of what kind soever, that he expressly condemneth those which do not honour, and glorify her with hymns and praises, which is part of the worship, and adoration that the Church doth exhibit unto her, and is denied her by M. Collins, who therefore is here overtaken every way,& proved not only to be one of those blasphemous heretics( or at least cozen-german to them) but also to haue shamefully belied S. Epiphanius, in making him deny to the Blessed Virgin all adoration.  
9. Lastly, it is clear by all the premises, that S. Epiphanius denieth no other adoration or worship of the Blessed Virgin, then all catholics do, that is to say divine adoration, in which respect he condemneth, and worthily derideth the Idolatry of those fantastical women who made her a God,& did sacrifice to her as her priests, which we should no less detest, and deride, then he, if any used the like at this time.  
10. But perhaps he will say, that although we do not worship her with divin adoration, yet we give her more then is do unto her in the opinion of S. Epiphanius, who alloweth less honor unto her, thē to holy men, and far less then to Angells. This indeed M. Collins laboureth to prove out of S. Epiphanius; and as he is very ready to take hold of every thing that may seem any way to diminish the honour, and glory of the Blessed Virgin, he first observeth, that S. Epiphanius wisheth it to be noted in the holy Scripture, that our saviour called her Woman joan. 2. at the Marriage in Cana of Galilee, saying to her( when she told him that there wanted wine) Quid mihi& tibi est mulier? Nondum venit hora mea What haue I to do with thee woman? My hour is not yet come: to the end that some might not think that the holy Virgin was more excellent, as it were foreshowing what should happen in the world by sects, and heresies, that some through too great admiration of that holy woman, might not slide into heresy, and the dotage thereof; for in very truth all this passage is nothing else, but a mere mockery, and an old womans tale.  
11. Thus saith S. Epiphanius cited by M. Collins, wherein there is nothing that may justly be taken, as said in disgrace of the Blessed Virgin, if we consider that S. Epiphanius, writing against those giddy headed women, who made her God, had reason to urge what he could, concerning the infirmity of her nature,& sex, to correct their exorbitant conceit of her divinity; as he that would make streight a crooked stick, doth bend it back the other way, as far as he may without breaking it:& therefore when he wrote immediately before against those which were her enemies( to wit the Antidicomarianitae( M. Collins his Cozen-germans) he urged her eminent dignity in being the mother of God, and called her Matrem viventium, the Mother of the living, & causam vitae, and the cause of life to all true Christians, detesting the blasphemy and drunken madness of those which sought to extenuate her glory, as I haue partly signified before, and shall haue occasion to declare further hereafter.  
12. Therefore whereas our aduersaries are wont to make great use of those words of our saviour to his Blessed Mother, to prove the little esteem he made of her, in calling her woman, and saying unto her: Quid mihi& tibi est mulier? We may well say, that if the whole passage and story be well considered, it maketh exceeding much for her praise, and proveth clearly the force of her prayers,& intercession for us; seeing it appeareth thereby, that the only insinuation of her desire to haue the want of wine supplied( though it were by a miracle) was so powerful with our saviour, that he was content to satisfy her desire, the time being not yet come, for the working of that miracle, which he signified, saying, nondum venit hora mea, my time is not yet come, and therfore I say it may well be thought, that to the end it might appear how much he esteemed and honoured her, and of what force her intercession should always be with him, he ordained to do his first miracle, as it were out of time, and at her suite and request, or rather vpon the very insinuation of her desire, for she said only to him, Vinum non habent, they haue no wine. This may be confirmed out S. Ambrose serm. 16. in psal. 118. S. Cyril. lib. 2. cap. 23. and S. Chrysostome hom. 21. who affirm that our saviour did that miracle sooner then otherways he would haue done, at the request of his Mother,  
13. But then you will ask me, why did he reprehend her saying: Quid mihi& tibi est Mulier &c. what haue I to do with thee woman? whereto I answer, that it may well be gathered by that which followeth that it was no reprehension, but an honour to her; and therefore S. justinus saith quaest. 126 Non verbo matrem obiurgauit, cum eam sacto honorauit, Christ did not chide, or reprehend ●i● mother, when he honoured her with the fact. Also S. Cyril saith lib. 2. cap. 23. Quantus honor parentibus &c. Christ shewed how great honour is due to parents, seeing that he presently did the act( that is to say, he wrought the miracle) propter Matrem for his Mother; besides that it may well be thought that if he had reprehended her for it, she would not haue persisted in her desire, and much less would she haue insisted vpon the performance of it, as she did saying presently to the seruants: Quodcumque vobis dixerit sacite, do whatsoever he shall say unto you; whereby it appeareth that she and our saviour understood one another well enough, and that he was so far from reprehending her, that he granted her request, and that she knew it( notwithstanding that answer,) and also knew that he meant to give order to the servants to do somewhat for the execution of it, and thereupon she said to them, do whatsoever he shall command you, as S. Cyril teacheth expressly ubi supra cap. 24. saying thus: The Mother of Christ was not ignorant, that he did deserre, or attribute great authority and dignity unto her, who having persuaded( or induced him to do the miracle) in such manner as was convenient, did dispose, and exhort the seruants to do all that which he should command them. So he.  
14. Therefore albeit there are different opinions, and interpretations of those words Quid mihi& tibi est mulier? Yet that which is most common& most probable, is, that for as much as she demanded of him a miracle, which surpassed the power of nature, and was to be done by him as he was God, he used those words, knowing less respect unto her, then otherwayes might seem convenient from a son to his Mother; to leave us this document, that in things pertaining to Almighty God and to his service, no respect is to be had to flesh and blood; and therfore S. Bernard observeth very well serm. 2. Dom. 1. post octan. Epiphan. that Christ used that manner of speech, non propter Matrem, said propter nos, not for his Mother, but for us, that is to say, for our instruction; for which cause also he seemed to make small account of his Mother and kinsfolks, when some interrupted his preaching, and told him that his Mother and brethren sought for him Matth. 12. Quae, saith he, est matter mea &c. who is my Mother, and who are my Brethren? And then holding out his hands towards his disciples, he said: behold my Mother, and behold my brethren &c. In like manner he seemed to speak to his Mother, and to S. joseph with small respect luke. 2. when they found him in the Temple,& told him that they had sought him with sorrow: Quid est, saith he, quod me quaercbatis &c. Why did you seek me? Did you not know, that I must employ myself in those things which belong to my Father? And yet the evangelist testifieth in the same place presently after, that he went with them to Nazareth,& erat subditus illis, and was subject to them, that is to say, in all domestical duties, and such things as belonged to his humanity. And this interpretation of those words, quid mihi& tibi est mulier?( to wit that he spake to her as he was God, and not as he was man) is conform to the opinion of S. Augustine vpon this place tract. 119. lib. de fide,& simbolo cap. 4. lib. 2. de fide ad Catechum. cap. 5. S. Gregory lib. 8. Reg. cap. 42. Theophil. Antiochen. lib. 4. allegor. Gaudentius tract. 9. de evangel. lection. S. Beda& Euthymius in their commentaries vpon this gospel.  
15. And as for the observation of S. Epiphanius that our saviour called her woman, I say, that albeit there want not good authors, who do expound it rather to her commendation then otherways( as that he called her woman per excellentiam, for the excellency of her person, as being the chief woman, in which respect, she is also called only Mary, many times, as the chief Mary; which I observe here the rather, because M. Collins noteth in his margin out of S. jerome, that he calleth her only Mary, Mary) nevertheless I do not deny but that S. Epiphanius might among other reasons probably conceive that our saviour foreseing that heresy of the Collyridians( who esteemed& served her as God) called her a woman, to arm us against that heresy, and dotage of theirs; but this no way concerneth us who do know, and aclowledge her to be a woman, and a mere creature of God, as all others both men, and women, and Angells are; and therefore M. Collins sheweth more malice, then wit, to apply this to vs. Besides that, I cannot omit to note by the way, a pretty slight of his, not void of fraud, in his allegation and translation of this place of S. Epiphanius.  
16. For whereas that Father alleging those words of the holy Scripture, Quid mihi& tibi est mulier? addeth thereto curae, and hath them thus: Quid mihi& tibi est curae mulier? that is to say, Woman what haue I, and thou to do with it? M. Collins setting down the text of S. Epiphanius at large, leaveth out curae both in the Latin, and in the English, and translateth the Latin thus, what haue I to do with thee woman? Which words of our saviour, as S. Epiphanius readeth, and understandeth them, not only in this place( alleged by M. Collins) but also haeres. 51.00 not contain any asperity and sharpness at all, and therefore M. Collins thought it better to falsify S. Epiphanius, though he himself allegeth him, then by alleging him truly to give some inkling of a more mildred exposition and sense thereof; albeit the same is not the interpretation of S. Epiphanius only, but also of justinus quaest. 136. Euthymius in his Commentary vpon this gospel, and of diuers others both ancient and modern; but howsoever those words are to be understood, they do nothing prejudice our cause who do not deny our Blessed Lady to be a woman, and much less do make her a God: besides that, the whole context of that story which S. Epipha. only toucheth, doth notably prove the great power, and force of the B. Virgins prayers,& intercession to her son,( as I haue signified before) and therefore may very well incite, and move us to haue recourse unto her, that she may recommend us, and our necessities unto him.  
17. And now to proceed with M. Collins his comment; after he citeth these words out of S. Epiphanius: Quae vero Scriptura de hoc narrauit? Quis Prophetarum praecepit hominem adorari, nedum mulierem? that is. What Scripture informeth us hereof? Which of the Prophets commanded any man to be worshipped, much less a Woman? See you how he reduceth this controversy to Scripture? Yet the adjoinder makes no reckoning of Scripture in this question, so we haue miracles, and traditions, and other observations. Well it was lawful for Epiphanius to fly to that, Quae vero Scriptura, and Quis Prophetarum praecepit &c. See you also how he prefers not a few before the Virgin? For we must not worship man, saith he, much less a Woman, belike though it be the Virgin herself: Eximium quidem est vas, said Mulier,& nihil à natura immutata, that is, An excellent vessel she is no doubt, but yet a woman, and not a whit changed in regard of her nature. Thus saith M. Collins with more which shallbe examined anon.  
18. Now whereas he noteth very seriously in S. Epiphanius, that he reduceth this controversy to Scripture, and that nevertheless the adjoinder makes no reckoning of scripture in this question, truly he is very seriously idle in saying so, and the rather because he chargeth the adjoinder, with contempt of Scripture, without telling us where he findeth it, or what the adjoinder saith to that purpose; and therefore, I omit to answer it, as one of his fooleries, not worth the answering, and wish to be observed in the rest what a friend he is to the blessed Virgin, whom he depriveth of all honour, and worship, yea more then any man, by reason of the natural infirmity of her sex, as being stil a woman, and not a whit changed in regard of her nature; which reason as it is used by S. Epiphanius, might make it clear enough to M. Collins( if he were not wilfully and maliciously blind) that the worship whereof he treateth,& which he denieth more to women, then to men, is onely divine worship; for so the argument of Saint Epiphanius is very good, whereas otherways it were absurd, and he should contradict himself; to which purpose it is to be considered, that divine adoration, or worship can be due to none, who hath not true divinity; and for as much as divinity must needs be natural( for God is God by nature, and not by grace) it followeth evidently, that if a man, who is by nature more perfect then a woman, cannot haue true divinity( nor consequently divine worship( much less can a woman haue it, and therefore the blessed Virgin being still a woman( though glorified) is much less capable of divinity, and consequently of divine honour then a man; and thus I say the Argument of S. Epiphanius is good.  
19. But if we understand worship( not as it is divine, but as it may be due to creatures( participating of the divine excellency) the argument of S. Epiphanius will be nothing worth,& so will become to be the argument of M. Collins as indeed it is, and not of S. Epiphanius:& this I say, because a woman, though she be inferior to a man by nature, yet by grace may far excel him, and consequently deserve a far greater worship then he; so as that learned Father was never so simplo, to make such an argument as M. Collins would haue him to do, as first to exclude all men from all kind of worship( which were ridiculous) and thē to infer also thereupon, that no woman ought to be worshipped. For albeit Almighty God had not, or would not bestow so much grace vpon any man, as to make him worthy of worship, yet he might bestow it vpon some woman, or vpon all women if it pleased him, and consequently make them more worthy of worship, then any man, which is indeed verified in the B. Virgin, who albeit by nature she be inferior to any man, yet by grace she excelleth all men, yea and all Angells, as shal be declared after a while: whereupon it followeth that she deserveth more worship then they all.  
20. moreover I haue made it manifest already( and therefore need not to repeat it) that S. Epiphanius teacheth expressly that the most B. Virgin, is to be honoured, or worshipped with hymns and glory, and that he inveigheth bitterly against those, who refuse to do it, so as he should contradict himself most ridiculously if he should exclude her from all worship; either in respect of the infirmity of her sex, or for any other cause whatsoever, albeit he hath reason to debar her from divine honour, because neither she, nor human nature is any way capable therof.  
21. But let us follow M. Collins a little further, thus then he proceedeth. Honoured she is, but as the bodies of Saints:& if I may say any more towards the magnifying of her, sicut Elias, sicut joannes, sicut Te●la, like Elias, like John, like Tecla: only herein( saith Epiphanius more honourable then Tecla, that she was employed to be the instrument of the mysterious birth of our Lord; but suppose she be like only to other Saints may not they be worshipped? said neque Elias adorandus est, etiansi in vivis sit; neque joannes adorandus, neque Tecla, neque quisquam sanctus adoratur: not only no dead Saints, but not so much as they that never dyed may be adored &c. neither Elias is to be adored, nor John to be adored, nor Tecla nor any Saint is to be adored &c. So he, wherein it is to be observed.  
22. First, that S. Epiphanius doth even in these words alleged heer by M. Collins, not only distinguish betwixt divine adoration, and the honour due to the blessed Virgin; but also teach expressly, that she,& the Saints, yea& their very reliks are to be honoured, which also is more evident and effectual in the text of S. Epiphanius thē as M. Collins abridgeth, and glosseth it. For S. Epiphanius having asked the question, Quis prophetarum &c. Which of the prophets did ever command that any man should be adored much less a woman? addeth presently touching the blessed Virgin thus: Eximium est &c. truly the is a notable Vessel, yet a woman, and nothing changed in regard of her nature: Verum& intellect●& sensu in honore honorata, sicut corpora sanctorum &c. but honoured both in understanding and sense( that is to say both with internal, and external honour) as the bodies of Saints. Thus saith S. Epiphanius, with the rest that followeth set down by M. Collins concerning Elias, John, and Tecla; wherein it is manifest that he denieth to the blessed Virgin divine worship only, and acknowledgeth that there is due unto her an inferior honour both mental, and corporal, such as may be done to creatures, namely to the bodies, or relics of Saints, to Elias, to John, and to Tecla; affirming nevertheless that the blessed Virgin is more to be honoured then Tecla, because she was the mother of God; by which reason she is also more honourable then either Elias, or John, or any other holy man or woman, seeing she had that particular privilege above all other creatures.  
23. Therefore for as much as honour is to be exhibited to any one more or less; according to the greater, or lesser titles,& considerations that move thereto, it followeth that the blessed Virgin having the greatest title of honour that ever creature had,( to wit to be the mother of God) is more to be honoured then any other creature, even according to the argument of S. Epiphanius, yet so, as not to arrive to divine honour, and therfore he saith, said neque Ec●● adorandus est &c. but neither Elias is to be adored, neither yet John, nor Tecla, nor any other Saint is to be adored, that is to say as a God, or with divine honour; for if wee should take adoration here for any other the divine worship, S. Epiphanius should contradict himself in denying to Elias, John, and Tecla, the honour that here he alloweth them, acknowledging that the blessed Virgin is to be honoured like to them; besides that S. Epiphanius who was most conversant in the holy scripture( as appeareth in his works) should haue forgot himself very much in denying to Elias all odoration, seeing the scripture doth testify 3. Reg. 18. that Abdias( who although he was steward to the wicked King ahab, yet was himself a man that feared God) did an act of adoration to Elias, falling vpon his face before him, which the prophet would not haue permitted if it had not been lawful; whereto I may add the example of the adoration done by the children of the Prophets to Elizaeus when they saw, by his miraculous passage of the river, that God had given him the spirit of Elias, adorauerunt eum, saith the Scripture, proni in terram, they adored him falling flat vpon the ground 4. Reg. 2. and therefore when S. Epiphanius asketh quis prophetarum &c. Which of the Prophets, did ever command that a man should be adored, he meant not thereby to deny to men all adoration, but only divine worship, for otherways Abdias should haue erred greatly in adoring Elias; and the children of the Prophets in adoring Elizaeus.  
24. But will you see how well M. Collins gloseth those words. said neque Elias adorandus est etiansi in vivis sit, but neither Elias is to be adored, though he be living? whereupon he saith, Not only no dead Saint, but not so much as they that never dyed may be adored. So he. full wisely contradicting the text with his gloss, except he take adored there to signify divine honour; for you see S. Epiphanius, saith expressly that the Blessed Virgin is to be honoured, as the bodies of Saints,( that is to say, the dead bodies of Saints deceased) and albeit he say that Elias is still living, yet he acknowledgeth both John,& Tecla to be dead, and yet to be honoured, for otherways he could not say that the B. Virgin is to be honoured like to them, if they were not to be honoured at al; though it be true that neither they, nor Elias, nor the Blessed Virgin, are to be adored, taking adored to signify divine honour, as indeed S. Epiphanius useth it there, and throughout all his discourse.  
25. And as well to the purpose is also another gloss of his shortly after vpon the same words, saying: Was it not possible, that Epiphanius should light vpon your distinction of diminitiue adoration, that so often, so peremptory denies it to the Saints, that it is lawful to adore them, and never expounds himself? So he. To which wise question of his, I answer, that it was nor only possible, that S. Epiphanius should light vpon our distinction, but also that he did light vpon it indeed, and sufficiently expound himself; for when he saith, as you haue heard, let Mary be honoured, and God adored; and that Mary is holy and honoured, but not to be adored;& again that she is honoured both by understanding and sense( that is to say, both with internal, and external honour) and yet not to be adored, he light vpon our distinction of diminitiue adoration( as it pleaseth M. Collins to term it) or rather to give it the right term, our distinction of dulia, and latria; for by the adoration which he denieth to the Blessed Virgin he signifieth latriam, that is to say, divine honour, and by the honour which he granteth her he signifieth duliam, that is to say, an inferior honour due to creatures, for the honour of God; yea and when he saith further that she is more honourable then Tecla, because she was the Mother of God,( wherein she excelleth all creatures) he signifieth hyperduliam, that is to say, superlative honour above all other, which honour is indeed due, and proper to her in respect of her supereminent dignity, and excellency by being the Mother of God.  
26. Therfore when S. Epiphanius saith that she is to be honoured, as the bodies of Saints, as Elias, as John, as Tecla, his meaning is not that she cannot receive a greater degree of honour then they, but that she is to be honoured with the same kind of honour that they are, that is to say with an honour due to creatures,& not with that which is due to the creator, she being a creature as well as they, and no more capable of divinity, or of divine honour then they.  
27. For if we do not understand S. Epiphanius so, we must say also that his meaning was, that the bodies of Saints, Elias, John, and Tecla, should be all honoured with like and equal honour; as that neither Elias, nor John, nor Tecla could be honoured more or in any greater degree then the dead body of a Saint, nor that they could be honoured one more then another, which were absurd to say; for as there may be difference of their degree of merit, or participation of the divine excellency; so may also the degree and measure of their honour be different: to which purpose the Apostle saith of the glory of Gods Saints 1. Cor. 15. That as one star differs from another in brightness, so shal it be in the resurrection of the dead. And our saviour also saith joan. 14. That there are many mansions in the house of his Father; giuing to understand that there are different degrees of glory amongst the Saints in respect of their different merits, whiles they were heer on earth; and for this cause the Church doth solemnize the feasts of Saints with great difference, honouring some more then others, yet all as creatures, and seruants of God; in which respect the kind of honour that is given them is all one, but the degree and measure thereof is different.  
28. The like is also evident in temporal honour due to a King and his subiects; for the King is honoured with kingly honour due to none but to himself, and the subiects are honoured with an inferior honour, such as may be given to subiects, and the same also in a different degree, to some more, and to some less, as their different quality, or the Kings pleasure requireth, and the greatest honour of all, next to the King is given to the Kings Mother, yet as to a subject; even so I say of the honour due to God, and to his Saints, and seruants; for the honour due to him, is divine and peculiar to himself, and the honour that is done to his Saints and seruants is of another kind, not extending itself further then to the consideration of creatures, whom he will haue to be honoured; and yet within that limit, the degree of honour is different according to their different merits, and glory resulting thereon: and because the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, and thereby far surpasseth them all in dignity and merit, the honour due to her is of far higher degree, and yet of infinite distance from divine honour, as much as is betwixt the creator and the creature; so as neither the saints living, nor dead, nor the Mother of God herself is adored in the sense that S. Epiphanius forbiddeth it, that is to say with divine honour; and therefore M. Collins his gloss hitherto is most false, and absurd.  
29. I omit certain other impertinent fooleries of his, not worth the mentioning, and much less the answering. To come to his Achilles, I mean to his argument, which he thinketh doth overthrow us horse and foot, and therefore he bids me arrige aures Pamphile; albeit instead thereof, he might haue done well to haue made use of his Epphata, to open my ears; but I hope to stop his mouth with Obmutesce. well then you shal hear his whole discourse; thus he saith pag. 393. lin. 7. Yet let us go on with Epiphanius, a step further, Coluerunt enim& adorauerunt creaturam praeter Creatorem &c. It is a trespass with Epiphanius, to worship the creature, or to adore the creature( for he puts both) praeter Creatorem, besides the creator, that is, though you exclude not the worship of the creator, but only take in the worship of the creature: si enim Angelos adorari non vult, quanto magis eam quae genita est ab Anna? &c. non tamen aliter genita est praeter hominum naturam; said sicut omnes ex semine viri,& utero mulieris. here, heer, arrige aures Pamphile, heer you should do well to list a while, you Poliphilus, or rather Pamphilus, of all bastard Deityes. For if, saith he, God will not haue the Angells worshipped, how much more will not be haue her which was born of Anna,& yet not born otherways, then the fashion is, and nature of all mankind; but &c. Two great points assoiled by Epiphanius in these few words; one, that the Virgin Mary, was not conceived nor born after extraordinary manner, as the jesuits affirm, but even as others are, which must needs be in sin, and corruption. Another, that she is not so exalted in heaven, but inferior to Angells, or else the consequence were not good; if not Angells much less Mary the daughtes of Anne. Thus hath colyns spit out his spite against the blessed Virgin to impugn her immaculate purity,& the transcendent degree of glory which she worthily possesseth in heaven.  
30. But first to say somewhat though very briefly, to his preamble thereto; whereas he observeth out of S. Epiphanius, that he held it for a trespass to worship or adore the creature besides the creator, that is, saith he, to take in the worship of the creature, though we exclude not the worship of the creator, there is no doubt, but that it is most true; for God is a jealous God, and cannot endure to haue any fellows, or companions in divine adoration, that is to say, that any shalbe adored for God, or with divine honour besides himself, and therefore he saith of all kind of idols Exod. 20. Non adorabis ea, neque coals, ego sum Dominus Deus tuus, fortis, zealots &c. Thou shalt not adore them, nor worship them, I am thy Lord God, strong, and jealous. And again, Exodus 34. Noli adorare Deumalienum, Dominus zealots nomen eius. Do not adore a strange God, a jealous Lord is his name; and what doth S. Epiphanius in effect say more then this? For speaking there of the old error as he calleth it of the Pagan Idolatours, he saith: Coluerunt& adorauerunt creaturam praeter Creatorem,& stulii facti sunt, they worshipped and adored the creature besides the creator,& became fools; for whether a man do worship Idols together with God as the kings of Israell did, or alone without him, as the Pagans did, he committeth most abominable Idolatry, and becomes a fool; and when M. Collins shal prove that we do either of both, we will grant that S. Epiphanius taxeth us justly both of folly and Idolatry, no less, then the old Idolatours, or the Collyridian women against whom he wrote; and in the meant time M. Collins proves himself to be a notable fool to allege, and urge this discourse of S. Epiphanius against us, whom it no way concerneth.  
31. But now to come to his doughty argument, which is this: If God will not haue( saith Saint Epiphanius) the Angells to be adored, how much more will be not haue her, that was born of Anna, & yet not born otherways, then according to the nature of all mankind, but even as all others are by the seed of a man, and by the womb of a woman. Thus indeed saith S. Epiphanius, proving very well and substantially, that which we do not deny, to wit, that the Blessed Virgin being by nature inferior to Angells, is not to be adored with Godly honour, because the Angells cannot be so adored, nevertheless I would willingly know of M. Collins here by the way, whether he will say that S. Epiphanius denied hereby, that Angells might be adored in any sense, seeing that is most evident( and that holy Father could not be ignorant of it) that Abraham, Lot, and Iosue adored Angels prostrate vpon the ground Gen. 18.& 19. & Iosue 5. as I haue signified before; therefore M. Collins must either admit a diminitiue adoration( as he termeth it) or charge those holy men with Idolatry, and S. Epiphanius with ignorance, and error, in forbidding the adoration of Angels warranted by examples in holy Scripture. But taking adoration heer as S. Epiphanius meant it, for divine honour, it is most true, that Angells are not to be adored, because their nature is not capable of divinity, or divine honour, and much less the Virgin Mary, who is by nature inferior both to them,& to men; in which respect S. Epipha. also made the like argument before, à maiori ad minus, betwixt men& her; that because men who were by nature superior to her, cannot be worshipped with divine honour, much less could she be,& the reason is all one in both.  
32. And therefore S. Epiphanius urgeth here expressly, that the Blessed Virgin was not other ways born, then after the ordinary manner of all mankind, to show that his Argument is grounded only vpon the nature of men, and Angells; whereby the consequence is very good, that the Blessed Virgin cannot be adored as God, because her nature is less capable of divinity, then is the angelical nature, which can admit no such adoration; so as for this point there was no great need that master Collins, should say to me arrige aures Pamphile: and indeed it seemeth he thought so himself, for he doth not much enforce or urge it, though it is that which most concerneth the present question; but he hath found out two other points( yea, two great ones as he termeth them) and saith they are assoiled by Epiphanius in these few words; One, saith he, that the Virgin Mary was not conceived, nor born after extraordinary manner( as the jesuits affirm) but even as others are, which must needs be in sin, and corruption. This is the first point, which nevertheless you must understand to be his own inference vpon Saint Epiphanius, and not any consequence drawn by that holy Father, who doth not any way call in question,& much less impugn, the immaculate purity of the Blessed Virgin.  
33. Now then M. Collins his argument must be this. The Virgin was conceived, and born after the ordinary manner of al men and women, Ergo she was born in sin and corruption; and to make good his argument( which I will deny) he will say, no doubt, that the ordinary manner of the conception, and birth of all men, and women according to Epiphanius, is to be conceived, and born in sin, Ergo the Virgin Mary was also conceived and born in sin; but I will still deny his argument, and tell him that S. Epiphanius will teach him how to distinguish the ordinary manner of her conception, and birth; for he signifieth plainly, that his meaning was no other, but that she had both a Father, and Mother by whom she was engendered, and procreated as all other children are, but whether in sin, or without sin, he neither saith, nor insinuateth so much as a word; for he saith only: That she was born of Anna,& 〈◇〉 joachim data est Annae, and of joachim was given to Anna, and not otherways engendered then according to the nature of men, said sicut omnes ex semine viri,& utero mulicris, but as all are by the seed of a man, and the womb of a woman. And then addeth further: That although the history of Mary, and traditions do signify, that it was said to her Father joachim in the desert, Thy wise hath conceived, yet not that it was done sine coniugio, nec sine semine viri, without marriage, or without the company of man &c. Thus saith S. Epiphanius; so as by the ordinary manner of her conception, and birth whereof he speaketh, he signifieth nothing else, but that she had( as I haue said) a Father and a Mother, by whom she was engendered as all other children are, and not conceived without the company of man, as our saviour was; for so he signifieth also afterwards, saying that he alone was conceived and born besides the course of nature, and that soli ipsi natura cessit, nature yielded to him alone in that behalf.  
34. What then can M. Collins draw out of all this to prove that she was conceived and born in sin? May not all this be truly said of jeremy the Prophet, who nevertheless was sanctified in his Mothers womb Ierem. cap. 1. that is to say purified& purged from original sin, as the ancient Fathers of the Church do testify, to wit, S. Athanasius serm. 4. contra Arrianos, Origen. ho. 1. in Hierem. S. Ambrose de fide lib. 4. cap. 4. S. Hierom. li. 4. in Hierē. c. 23. The like is also testified by all the Fathers of S. John Baptist, as by S. Athan. ubi supra, S. Cyprian. Ep. 73. ad julian& ep. 76. ad Magnum. c. 4. S. Hierom. in c. 1. in Hierem. S. Ambrose in luke. Orig hom 4 in luke. S. Chrysost. ser. 1. in luke. S. Gregor. l. 3. moral ca. 4. and many others whom I omit as needles, seing the scripture itself doth clearly witness the same luke. 1. where the angel said of him, before he was born, & spiritu sancto replebitur adhuc ex utero matris suae, he shalbe replenished with the holy Ghost even from the womb of his mother: whereupon I infer, that as they were sanctified by particular privilege before they were born, being only to be the prophets of God; so might she also with far greater reason be preserved from sin, and sanctified in her conception by like privilege, being to be the mother of God, and yet be engendered by her father and mother, and born after the ordinary manner as they were: for it is not to be doubted but that God did give to his mother, far greater grace, and privilege, then he ever gave to any other creature: therefore hippolytus the Martyr saith well orat. de sanctificat. that, qui dixit honorae patrem& matrem &c. he which said honour thy father& thy mother, did bestow al grace, and honour vpon his mother, to observe the decree published by himself.  
35. For this cause Origen 1. ex varijs, calleth her immaculatam& dignam matrem dig●i& immaculati filii, the immaculate, and worthy mother of a worthy, and immaculate son. S. Cyprian. lib. de nativitate Christi, saith of her, that she was far different from all other, communicating with them in nature, but not in fault; and afterwards again, Matri, saith he, plenitudo gratia debebatur &c. the plenitude, or fullness, of grace was due unto her, as to the mother( of God) and more abundant glory, as a Virgin, who excelled in integrity both of body, and soul. S. Athanasius affirmeth ser. in evangel. de sanctissima Deip. that she was, semper& vndequaque beatissima, always, and every way most blessed; whereupon it followeth that she was never defiled with any sin original, or actual; which he also teacheth more expressly in the same place, a little before, saying that she had the virtue of the holy ghost per omnia tempora etiam conceptus sui; in all times even in the time of her conception. S. Ambrose also ser. 22. in Psal. 118. saith that she was, Virgo per gratiam,& integra ab omni labe peccati, a Virgin by grace, and pure from all spot of sin. Sophron in an Epistle of his which may be seen in 6. synodo Act. 11. saith that, she was delivered from all contagion, of body, soul, and understanding.  
36. Lastly to omit many others, S. Austin lib. de natura& grat. c. 36.( where he proveth against the Pelagians, that no man is without sin, no not the very infants, in whom there can be no sin but original) saith that when there is any speech or question of sin, 〈◇〉 will, saith he, make no question of the Virgin mother, for we know that more grace was given to her ●d vincendum omni ex parte peccatum, for the total overcoming of sin, because she deserved ●o conceive, and bring forth him, who, wee know, ●ad no sin. Thus saith S. Augustine, giuing ●o understand, that as our saviour Christ ●er son, was himself most pure, and ●ree from all spot of sin, so he gave her greater purity then ever was given to any woman, or infant that she might be free ●rom sin omni ex parte, wholly& fully like ●o himself, that is to say free, as well from ●riginall, as from all actual sin. For if 〈◇〉. Augustine did not conclude so, his excep●ion of her, from the common rule even of infants was of no force, seeing that he treated there of sin in general, proving against the Pelagians, that no human treature, not the very infants, could be wholly free from sin, and therefore if she were ever soiled with original sin( which is the only sin of infants) she could not be with reason excepted, in that question of sin, neither was she free omni ex parto every way.  
37. But although there were no testimonies of the ancient Fathers to prove her incontaminate purity in this behalf, yet very reason might suffice to teach the same, seeing that it cannot with reason, be thought that Almighty God, would suffer his mother to be at any time the daughter of wrath, and consequently slave to the divell; whereupon it would also follow, that his own flesh which he took of her, was once in the divels power, and subject to malediction, which me thinks no pious ears should endure to hear. If then it be conform to reason& piety, to think that the blessed virgin was conceived without sin, it must needs be absurd and impiou● to affirm, as Collins doth, that she was n●● only conceived, but also born in sin.  
38. For albeit there is, and alway●● hath been controversy( not yet decided by the Church) whether she contracted original sin in her Conception( as all other children do) or was preserved wholly from it by a particular priuiledg, yet it was never doubted( except by known heretics) but that she was sanctified and delivered from it in her Mothers womb; so as the catholic Church hath ever held that she was born immaculate and pure from all spot of sin, with a far greater sanctification, then Hieremy the Prophet, or S. John Baptist had. And of this, I say, neither S. Epiphanius, nor any other Father, or good Christian ever doubted, yea, and it is acknowledged by the very Turks,& taught by Mahomet in his Alcoran Aro. 75. in these words: Nullus nascitur de filijs Adam, quem non tangat Satan, praeter Mariam& eius filium. None is born of the sons of Adam, whom Satan doth not touch, except Mary& her Son: whereto may be added also the constant opinion of the rabbis of the Iewes, which may be seen in Galatinus contra judaeos cap. 7. which I haue only thought good to mention here, as also the foresaid testimony of Mahomet, not so much to confirm our doctrine, as to show that even Turkes, and Iewes haue a more reverent opinion of the Blessed Virgin then M. Collins hath.  
38. Now then to return to his argument out of S. Epiphanius; you may judge by this uniform and constant doctrine of the ancient Fathers touching the incontaminate purity of this glorious Virgin how impiously he hath argued, that she was conceived, and born in sin, and corruption, because S. Epiphanius saith that she was conceived, and born ex semine viri& utero mulieris, of the seed of a man, and womb of a woman, as all other children are, which ordinary manner of conception, and birth we easily grant not only of her, but also as I haue said of Hieremy the Prophet, and S. John Baptist, who nevertheless were purified,& sanctified in their Mothers womb, by the testimonies both of Scriptures, and Fathers; whereupon I say it followeth that seeing it was convenient( as S. anselm saith lib. concept. Virginis cap. 18.) that the Blessed virgin, who was to be the Mother of God, should shine, and be endowed with so great a purity, as a greater under God cannot be imagined, a greater sanctification was due to her, then either to those Prophets of God, or to the very Angels: in which respect the 7. Synod act. 3. doth style her not only immaculatam, immaculate, but also omni sensibili,& intellectuali ●●tura puriorem, more pure then any sensible or intellectual nature. lo then, how one of the two great points, which M. Collins saith is assoiled by S. Epiphanius, proveth to be a very little point, and not worth a pin, only it hath served to discover his beastly, and blasphemous humour in labouring in vain to stain the unspotted purity of the most blessed and glorious Mother of God.  
49. Now let us examine the other great point which he infereth vpon S. Epiphanius his words, that the Blessed Virgin is not so exalted in heaven as we believe she is, but that she is inferior to Angells; and this he saith because S. Epiphanius affirmeth that if God will not haue Angells adored, much less will he haue her to be adored which was born of Anna, whereupon M. Collins saith: That if she were not inferior to Angells, the consequence were not good, if not Angells much less Mary the daughter of Anna. So indeed argueth he, but not S. Epiphanius in that sense, whose consequence is very good to the purpose he maketh it, but not as M. Collins applieth it. You heard before the force of this consequence which S. Epiphanius drew from that ground; to wit that because the nature of Angels was uncapable of divinity, and consequently of divine adoration, therefore the nature of the blessed Virgin being inferior to the nature of Ang●ls, was less capable of both, whereupon it followeth that she is neither God, nor to be adored with divine honour: but how doth this make her now inferior to Angells in glory, seeing shee is not glorified by nature, but by grace, whereof there is neither mention, not question in this place of S. Epiphanius?  
41. For albeit she could not be God either by nature, or by grace, yet she might be, yea and was by grace capable of glory according to the measure of the grace, wherewith Almighty God did endow her, and therefore for as much as she was not only gratia plena, full of grace, and blessed among al women by the testimony of the Angel Gabriel, but also dignified with a greater title of honour then ever any creature had, being made the mother of God( whereby she was both more near, and deere to God her son then any other creature) therefore she is most worthily exalted in glory above all creatures, as well Angels as men.  
42. This is clearly and abundantly testified by the ancient Fathers, who I think are as well to be believed as M. Col●ins. The ancient Liturgy of S. james doth call ●e●: Omnibus modis irreprehensam, honorabiliorem ●uam Cherubim,& gloriosiorem quàm Seraphim. wholly irreprehensible, more honourable then the Cherubim, and more glorious then the Seraphim.  
43. S. Gregory Nazianzen in his Tragedy de Christo patient, saluteth her thus: All hail gracious maid, Mother, and Virgin of all other the highest, and fairest, more worthy then the heavenly Armies, Lady, queen, and Ioy of mankind. And in the same place he doth not only invocate her, and pray unto her, but also testifieth that he had been relieved,& helped by her, and delivered from many calamities which I shall haue occasion to lay down hereafter num. 56.  
44. Theodoret also vpon the Canticles, saith: Inter tot animas hominum &c. Amongst so many souls of men and women that shal be saved, that only one is the elected dove, who brought forth Christ, a Virgin, a Mother, a maid, who doubtless did excel in purity both the Cherubim, and the Seraphim.  
45. S. Athanasius in evangel. de sanctissima Deipara, saith to her thus: All the Hierarchies of the Angells, and earthly creatures do praise thee,& holding up their hierarchical hands do bless thee &c. Pray for us mistress, and Lady, and queen, and Mother of God.  
46. S. Ephraem in a most eloquent oration, which he made of her, entitleth her: The uncorrupt and most pure Virgin Mother of God, queen of all men, more sublime, and high then the heavenly inhabitants: more honourable then the Cherubim, more holy then the Seraphim, and more glorious without comparison, then all the rest of the heavenly armies; the hope of the Fathers; the glory of the Prophets; the praise of the Apostles; the honour of the Martyrs; the ioy of the Saints, the crown of the Hierarchies, of all Saints, and Virgins; inaccessible for thy brightness; the princess& guide of all men; a most sacred maid; by thee we are reconciled to Christ my God. So he, who doth also invocate her with exceeding devotion& fervour thus: Crebris te lachrymis ò celeberrima Materimploro &c. I implore, or invocate thee O most renowned Mother,& to thee I prostrate myself( O my Lady) humbly crying unto thee, lest thy sweet son, the giver of life to all, may, for many sins which I haue committed, take me out of the world, and cut me wretch up by the roots, like the barren fig three. So saith this ancient, and holy Father.  
47. Lastly S. Gregory the great vpon 4. Reg. cap. 1. affirmeth that, The blessed Virgin( to the end that she might arrive to the conception of the eternal Word) did raise the top of her merits above all the quyres of Angells, until she came to the throne of the Deity. Thus saith S. Gregory, giuing to understand, that she merited so much by the grace which God gave her, to make her his Mother, that she was elevated in glory above all Saints and Angels to be next to the Deity.  
48. I omit many other testimonies of the ancient Fathers for breuityes sake; for what need I allege such ancient witnesses, when I haue a modern testimony that may suffice, seeing I am sure M. Collins neither will, nor dare reject it, I mean the evident assertion of the Kings majesty, who in his Apology for the Oath pag. 37. saith thus: First, for the Blessed Virgin Mary, I yield her that which the angel gabriel pronounced of her, and which in her Canticle she prophesied of herself, that is, that she is blessed amongst all women, and that all generations shall call her Blessed. I reverence her, as the Mother of Christ, of whom our saviour took flesh, and so the Mother of God, since the divinity, and humanity of Christ are inseparable. And I freely confess, that she is in glory both above Angells, and men, her own son( that is both God, and man) only excepted. Thus saith his majesty.  
49. here then, heer arrige aures, good M. Collins( as you said to me a little before) here, I pray you, lay your hand on your hart, and examine your conscience, whether your belief agreeth with his Maiestyes in this point, yea, and how well you haue performed his Maiestyes will, and commandement, who you say gave you in charge to confute me; but I think his Maiestyes meaning was not, that you should also confute him, against whom your argument is as valide, and potent, as against me: so as it seemeth your belief( at least in this point) is flat contrary to h●s Maiestyes.  
50. For his majesty believeth as these ancient Fathers, whom I haue alleged, and we catholics, and all good Christians do, that the most glorious Mother of God is glorified not only above all men, but also above all Angells; but you believe, and labour to prove by the authority of S. Epiphanius, that she is inferior in glory to Angells, yea to men; for so it would follow, if your argument were ought worth; for S. Epiphanius doth not say that she is inferior to Angells otherways then in nature; and the same he affirmeth also of her in regard of men, to whom he saith she is also inferior in nature, by reason of her sex; if therfore she be inferior in glory to Angels, because she is inferior to them in nature, she is by the same reason inferior also to men in glory;& so should the thief that after a most wicked life, was saved in the end by the abundance of Christs mercies, be more glorified now in heaven, then she, albeit she was always immaculate, and spotless, replenished with grace& all virtues, and chosen amongst all creatures to be the Mother of God. Doth this consequence please you M. Collins? And yet this must follow of your argument, if it be good, therefore I remit it to the Readers iudgement, how well you understand S. Epiphanius, from whom you draw such an impious, and absurd conclusion, as to make the Blessed Mother of God inferior to Angels in glory, because she is inferior to them in nature, whereby you also contradict not only the ancient Fathers of the Church, but his majesty also, yea and most impiously abuse the most Blessed Virgin, extenuating her glory much more then did those heretics her enemies called Antidicomarianitae, of whom I haue spoken before.  
51. For if S. Epiphanius accounted them to be heretics, and her enemies, and to extenuate her glory, because they taught that she had children by her lawful husband after the birth of our saviour, that is to say, because they did derogate from the honour of her perpetual virginity, what would he say of you M. Collins, that seek to spoil her, not only of the honour that is done her in earth, but also of the eminent glory,& soueraingty( as I may say) which she hath under her Son our saviour Christ in heaven, yea,& do abase, and deject her even below the meanest Saints? He would no doubt say of you much rather then he did of them, that which I haue alleged out of him before num. 5. to wit, That you out of the abundance of an affencted madness, frame blasphemous opinions, open your mouth, and loose your tongue out of a wicked mind; and instead of hymns and glory( which are due unto her) invent, and utter drunken, and contumelious speeches against her, whereas you should honour, and worship that honourable vessel; to this effect I say, he said of those blasphemous heretics: and the same he would doubtless say of you, who do her no less injury if not more, then they,& abuse him most abominably, in making him the author, or a fauior of your blasphemy, wresting his words to a far other sense, then ever he meant, besides the injury you do not only to us catholics at this day, but also to the Church of God, in charging us with Idolatry, for yielding to her the honour which the whole Church hath always approved, and exhibited unto her.  
52. Whereas our books written of that subject, and our doctrine in schools and pulpits, do proclaim unto the world; and our consciences do witness it betwixt God, and us, that albeit we honour her, as the mother of God( and consequently as one that is more worthy, and eminent in grace, and glory, then al Saints or Angells) yet wee hold, believe, and teach that shee is no God, but a mere creature of God; neither is the honour which the Church doth yield her divine honour, but such as may be given to a glorified creature whom God will haue to be honoured, according to the testimony of our saviour John 12. Si quis mihi ministrauerit &c. If any man serve me, my Father will honour him, or make him to be honoured; which honour is referred finally, and principally to God, for whose sake she is honoured in respect of the participation of the divine excellency, and the abundance of grace, wherewith God hath blessed her more then any other pure creature, so as we are so far from dishonouring God in honouring her, that we do him special honour and service therein; for seeing he said to his disciples, qui vos recipit, me recipit, qui vos spernit, me spernit, he that receiveth you, receiveth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me; much more will he account the honour, or dishonour done to his mother, to be done to himself, so as the honour be not divine honour, called latria, proper to him alone, which we never give her, and much less to any other Saint or angel.  
53. This being so, and most manifest as well in our doctrine, as in our practise, how impudent is Collins that would face us down, that we make her God, and that we commit Idolatry unto her, yea and coupleth us therein with the Collyridian women, as if S. Epiphanius reproved us no less then them; to which purpose Collins saith of them, that they( no doubt) would say as we do now, that they stuck to the living God; and yet worshipped the Virgin as the notable instrument by a subordinate kind of devotion, which he would never say, if he had not a brazen face; seeing that it is flatly repugnant to the express text of S. Epiphanius, who testifieth clearly, as I haue already declared, that they sought to introduce her pro Deo, for God, and that therefore they adored her with sacrifice, which is cultus latriae, divine worship, and being given to any but to God is flat Idolatry.  
54. But such is the craft& slight of the devil the enemy of all mankind that he always covereth his malice with some pious pretext; and therefore envying the honour that is done to gods Saints( and specially to the mother of God) impugneth the same by his instruments under colour, and pretence to defend Gods honour: whereby it appeareth that you M. Collins are the true blood of that wicked serpent, which seduced eve, verifying in yourself, that which Almighty God said unto him, Ponam inimicitiam inter te& mulierem, seemen tuum,& seemen ipsius,& ipsa conferet caput tuum,& tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius: that is to say, I will put enmity betwixt thee and the woman, thy seed, and her seed, and she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lay wait to her heel: which words of Almighty God, not only many other Fathers, but also S. Epiphanius in his discourse against those blasphemous heretics, witnesseth to be fulfiled in the Blessed Virgin, whom he expoundeth to be the woman that shall bruise and crush the head of the serpent; and further affirmeth that as eve, was called matter viventium, the mother of the living, so the Blessed Virgin is also matter viventium, because she brought forth the Son of God, who giveth true life to the world: and that therefore, as eve was cause of death to men, so Mary was cause of life to men. Thus saith S. Epiphanius: whereupon it followeth that all those which receive life by Christ, the seed, and son of Mary( who taking flesh of her made himself our brother) ought to aclowledge her for their Mother.  
55. Therefore it is no marvel, that all true Christians do honour and serve her as their Mother, like good children, and so much the more, by how much the spiritual life which they haue received by Christ her son, excelleth the corporal life which they haue by their carnal parents. And again on the other side, it is no wonder, that the seeds of the serpent, following the nature, and will of their Father, do continually impugn her, and her children, labouring by all means possible to disgrace and dishonour her& them; whereby it appeareth, of what good brood you are M. Collins, who imitating the serpent your Sire, a●uisti linguam sicut Serpentis, haue whetted your Serpentine tongue against her, Psal. 139. and when you cannot sting her, yet at least you hiss at her,& lie in wait to bite her by the heel, and spit your venom, and poison against her children, who love, honour, and defend her; but when you shall haue done your worst, you will find, that ipsa conteret caput tuum, she shall crush your head, and the head of the Serpent in you, as Almighty God hath both foretold, and promised, Gen. 3.  
56. Pardon me good Reader, I beseech thee, if thou thinkest me over sharp with this blasphemous miscreant, whose impiety and blasphemy against the most Blessed Virgin hath justly kindled my zeal, and whetted my style against him in defence of her honour, as well for the common obligation that all good Christians haue unto her, being the Mother of God, as also for the particular devotion, I am bound to bear her, for innumerable benefits and favours spiritual, and temporal, which I haue received of Almighty God by her intercession, and special protection; in which respect I may justly praise, and thank her with Saint Gregory Nazianzen, who concluding his Tragedy de Christo patient, doth salute, and invocate her with an elegant hymn, whereof I think good to set down part in greek, as he wrote it.  
{αβγδ}  
{αβγδ},  
{αβγδ},  
{αβγδ},  
{αβγδ}.  
{αβγδ},  
{αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}.  
{αβγδ}.  
{αβγδ}.  
{αβγδ},  
{αβγδ}.  
{αβγδ},  
{αβγδ}.  
{αβγδ},  
{αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}.  
{αβγδ}. &c.  
To adorn thee( O sovereign) I offer up a crown gathered out of an uncorrupted meadow, because thou hast bestowed many favours vpon me, and delivered me from sundry calamities, from visible enemies,& much more from invisible. grant that according as I desired, I may end my life, enriched always by having thee patroness of my life, and an acceptable intercessor to thy son. Wherefore suffer me not to be delivered, and become a scorn unto the deadly enemy of mankind. Assist me, and deliver me from fire, and darkness, by justifying faith, and thy favour; for in thee hath appeared unto us grace from Almighty God;& to thee I do now offer this hymn of thanks. hail O Virgin, full of ioy, Mother Virgin, sayrest, and highest of all Virgins, above the celestial legions. Lady, queen, Ioy of mankind, be always favourable unto man, and to me every where greatest safeguard.  
57. Thus said that ancient Father( who for learning and sanctity of life was one of the lights of Gods Church in his time:) thus I say, did he invocate, praise and thank the most Blessed Virgin for benefits received from her; and the like I haue just occasion to say,& to yield her immortal thankes, and praise as to my special patroness, and( as S. Athanasius called her) my Lady, and mistress,& my heavenly Queen, whom with all humility I reverence, and honour above all other creatures, and in whom I repose my chief confidence next after our saviour Iesus Christ her son, whom therfore I humbly beseech to give me grace so to serve him, and her his most Blessed Mother, that I may be some way an instrument of her honour,& praises, to his greater glory; and finally, that I may both spend, and end the small remnant of my d●●es in his service under her blessed protection. And now to conclude this Chapter, I will say to M. Collins, as S. Ambrose said to others such as he, Epist. 79. Claudat ora sua perfidia,& obmutescat, nec Matrem Domini aliquo audeat temerare conuitio: let perfidiousness( or Infidelity) shut up her mouth, and become dumb,& not be so audacious as to seek to disgrace the Mother of God with any reproach. Thus saith Saint Ambrose. Therefore obmutesce M. Collins, obmutesce.   

M. Collins is convinced to haue shamefully abused diuers other ancient Fathers, to wit, S Gregory Nissen, S. Chrysostome, the council of Constantinople, S. Augustine, and Theodoret; and to haue left my Lord of Winchester in the Lurch vndefended, touching a most fraudulent abuse of cardinal Bellarmine, wherewith his Lordship was deeply charged in the adjoinder. CHAP. IX.  
you haue seen how M. Collins hath behaved himself in his sixth Chapter, in answering my objections out of three Fathers of the first, and second rank( according to my Lord of Winchesters division) to wit, S. Basil, S. Ephraene, and S. Gregory Nazianzen, touching their belief, and practise( yea, and the practise of the whole Church in their time) in praying to Saints; I will now pass to his seventh Chapter,& discover his frauds in answering some Fathers of the third rank, that is to say, true Fathers and truly cited, said nihil adrem, but nothing to the purpose, as my Lord saith; but how truly he saith it, and how substantially, and sincerely M. Collins doth maintain it, let the indifferent Reader judge.  
1. Amongst other Fathers which the cardinal cited in his Apology pag. 13. for prayer to Saints, and I alleged in my adjoinder one, was S. Gregory Nissen, brother to S. basil; who prayed expressly to S. Theodorus the martyr in an oration made publicly in his feast, where he saith thus: Intercede& deprecare &c. Pray, and make intercession for us to our common King and Lord, to obtain us grace &c. To this, as also to all other places of like quality, my Lord of Winchester give this general answer; that such prayers of the Fathers are but figurative, and rhetorical speeches, after the manner of Orators, who in panegyrical, and funeral orations do commonly use the figures of prosopopaeia and Apostrophe, speaking to dead men, as though they were living, yea, and to senseless things, as S. Ambrose ( saith he) doth to the water of baptism, Eusebius to piety,& Gregory Nazianzen to the feast o● Easter.  
2. For the confutation of this answer of my Lord of Winchester, I urged 4. reasons, whereof I will debate here only one, to wit the 4. because the other three were more general; whereas the 4. concerned particularly the place of S. Gregory Nissen before alleged, and most imported for the decision of this question; which I beseech thee good Reader well to note, that thou mayst the better consider of the importance of it,& of M. Collins his honest& sincere dealing in answering it. Thus then I said in the 7. Chapter of my adjoinder, pag. 263. num. 8. Lastly to put this matter out of all doubt, and to discover the impertinent vanity of M. Andrewes in this point, let us consider the circumstances of one of the places now here in question, betwixt the cardinal& him, I mean the same place of S. Gregory Nissen which I haue laid down before, taken out of his oration made in the solemnity of the feast of S. Theodorus the Martyr, wherein S. Gregory having first touched the great celebrity of the feast by the confluence of all sorts of people, far and near, moveth them to consider thereby how God rewardeth the just man, not only in earth, and thereby also incyteth him further to aspire to the like rewards by the imitation of the virtues of those whom God so honoureth; and to this end he discourseth amply of the great honour that was every where exhibited to the relics of martyrs, and particularly of that holy Martyr in that place, and feast, elegantly declaring the magnificence of the Church where his feast was celebrated, adorned with excellent workmanship of all sorts, and namely with pictures, lively expressing the particularities of his martyrdom; wherein, by the way, we may note, the use of the pictures of saints in Churches in those dayes, yea and that they were held to be very profitable for the instruction of the people, seeing that S. Gregory Nissen saith also vpon this occasion: Solet enim pictura tacens in pariete l●qui, maximeque prodesse: for the picture which is sylent vpon the wall, is wont to speak, and to profit exceedingly. So he giuing to understand, that the sight of the picture, or painted history did greatly edify the people, and stir them up to the imitation of the saints virtues, and holy life. But to proceed.  
3. After this the same Father relateth the fervent devotion of the people, greatly desiring to approach to the tomb of the Martyr; Credens, saith he, contrectationem eius esse sanctificationem,& benedictionem, believing that the very touching of it would be a sanctification& benediction; yea seeking to get but some of the dust about the tomb, esteeming the same as a thing of great price;& if they could haue the good fortūe to touch the relics themselves, he appealeth to their own experience and knowledge, how prosperous and happy they would think themselves, and how they would embrace the said relics, kiss them, and apply them to their eyes, ears, and all the instruments of their senses. Deinde saith he, deuotionis& affectonis lachrimas Martyri &c. And then powring forth tears of devotion and affection to the Martyr, as though he were there whole, and alive, they exhibit their humble petition unto him, as to the seruant of God,& as one that being invocated( for so signifieth the greek word {αβγδ}) receiveth what gifts soever he will. Thus saith this ancient& holy Father,& then concludeth: ex hijs omnibus, o popule pie, discite &c. O pious, or godly people, learn by all this, that the death of. Gods saints, is honourable, and precious in his sight.  
4. All this I haue thought good to lay down at large, first to confirm al that which hath hitherto been treated concerning the custom of the Church at that time, not only in the veneration of holy relics, but also in the express invocation of saints: secondly that this holy Father making all this discourse in the solemnity of that Martyrs feast, to stir up the people as well to devotion towards God, and the Martyr, as to the imitation of the martyrs virtues( for so he himself professeth) did highly approve all that which he hath here related; and consequently when afterwards in the conclusion of the Oration he himself invocated the Martyr, he did it of pure devotion, and not of vain ostentation of his eloquence, not as a flaunting Rhetoriciā, or orator, but as a Religious divine, and devout Christian, a pious pastor, and teacher of his flock, to whom he preached, for whom he prayed, and whom he sought to move by his own example, to concur with him in the invocation of the Martyr.  
5. Wherein also M. Andrews may if it please him note the word invocation used by this Father for prayer to the Martyr, of whom he saith, that the people prayed unto him, and called vpon him as the minister of God, and as one that received( or obtained of God) what gifts he would, {αβγδ}, that is say being invocated; for I think M. Andrewes will not deny that {αβγδ} in greek doth properly signify inuocare in Latin, and in English to invocate. And therefore because he is so curious to run to the greek in all occasions to examine our citations of the greek Fathers, I remit him here to the greek; for that I haue been in this no less( if not more) curious then he, having preached the old Manuscripts of the Vatican, where I haue seen two written copies of S. Gregory Nissen, both of them very ancient, and in them both haue found the greek words, as here I haue laid them down in the margin, with all the rest, very conform to the Latin translation; and therefore I hope he can take no just exception thereto.  
6. Thus then said I in my adjoinder, and to all this what think you will M. Collins say? Your fourth observation, saith he, in the eight number, is petitio principij, & the turning of the wheel,& therfore I will not meddle with it: let the Bishops answer be but applied to your objection, and it will salve it as before. So he. Professing plainly as you see, that he will not meddle with it, because forsooth it is petitio principij, and as he termeth it the turning of the wheel, which how true it is, I remit to the iudgment of any man, that knoweth what i● petitio principij; for how do I petere principium or turn the wheel( as he calleth it) when I do urge the circumstances of the place, which is in question, to no other end, but to confute my Lords exposition of it, which is thereby clearly confuted, it being manifest by all the circumstances by me alleged, that S. Gregory Nissen did pray to the Martyr S. Theodorus out of pure devotion, and affection, and not for ostentation of eloquence, not as a rhetorician, or as an Orator( as my Lord affirmed of him, and other Fathers praying to Saints) but as a devout Christian, and a pious pastor,& teacher of his flock to whom he spake,& whose devotion towards the Martyr, and invocation of him he greatly approved and commended; and this is so manifest in the Oration itself( as appeareth by the circumstances laid down by me) that M. Collin● had indeed great reason not to meddle with it, but to seek some colour, or shift to avoid it, albeit he could not haue found a more paltry& improbable shift then this, to charge me with petitio principij, whereof there is not so much as any show or appearance, in all that which I urged against my Lord; and therefore whereas M. Collins saith as you haue heard, that the Bishops answer will salve the objection, if it be but applied unto it, he could not for shane haue said so, if he laid down my Text, as I doubt not but you haue evidently seen; yea and noted withall his notable fraud in concealing it,& refusing to answer it vpon such a frivolous, and false pretence.  
7. But will you see how this fellow will play, as they say, small game rather then sit out? For although he said that he will not meddle with my objection, yet he hath found somewhat to descant vpon, which I would let pass for a mere foolery, but that there is notable fraud, and falsity in it. You haue seen before in the abridgement, which I laid down out of S. Gregoryes Oration, that I noted by the way the use of the Pictures of Saints in Churches in those dayes,& that they were held to be very profitable for the instruction of the people, seeing that S. Gregory having signified that the Saints martyrdom was painted vpon the walls, added, Solet etiam pictura tacens in pariete loqui, maximeque prodesse. For even the picture which is silent vpon the wall, is wont to speak, and to profit very much. whereupon M. Collins taketh occasion to utter forth a great deal of goo● stuff, worthy of him, whose special talen● is, to pervert, falsify, and corrupt all th● Authors that he hath occasion to deal with, whereof wee haue seen safficient proof already, and shall now see so much more, as no man would imagine could pass from any mans pen in so little space, to wit, in less then two pages, whereof, good Reader, I will desire no other judge but thyself, be thou never so partial to M. Collins.  
8. It is therfore to be understood, that yt was his pleasure to take occasion of my foresaid Parenthesis, touching pictures,& to make a large digression, for the confutation therof, labouring to prove, that the use of pictures in the Church,& especially of Almighty God is unlawful. And first he beginneth with a place of S. Chrysostome, alleging in his margin Tom. 7. {αβγδ}; and because the place seemed to me some what strange, especially with his gloss, and interpretation of it, I was desirous to see it in the Father himself, and not finding any where in our latin editions 7. Tomes of him, or yet that Sermon which M. Collins citeth, I sought for the greek Edition of sir Henry Sauill, ( whom I thought he was most like to follow) and found there indeed, that Saint Chrysostomes works were distributed by him into 8. Tomes, and in the 7. I found the Oration which M. Collins citeth, and having well considered the title, the substance, the drift, and the particular circumstances as well of the whole oration, as of the place, and words which he allegeth; I assure thee ( good Reader) I was amazed to see the impudence of the man, who is not ashamed to wrest that holy Fathers words, to a far different sense, then ever he meant them.  
9. For the Father seeketh only in that Oration to cure the disease( as he termeth it) of such as being over curious, busy, and bold to search into the incomprehensible mysteries of gods infinite wisdom, providence, and iudgments, are scandalised, because they cannot penetrate, and sound the inscrutable depth thereof, whose folly therefore, and audacious curiosity he sharply reprehendeth,& amongst many other Arguments, which he useth to confounded them, he proposeth the example of the Seraphim, who are described in the holy scriptures to stand before the throne of the divine majesty, covering their faces with their wyngs, to signify thereby, that the divine essence is so incomprehensible, and his iudgments so impenetrable, that those pure, and celestial spirits dare not so much as behold his face; whereupon S. Chrysostome infereth, that those men who presume to dive into the bottomless depth of the divine providence, are exceedingly audacious and temerarious; but in all this discourse, he hath not so much as one word of pictures, or of painting: whereas M. Collins maketh him inveigh most bitterly against such as had pictures of the Seraphim, for thus he saith pag. 256. lin. 9. S. Chrysostome, of them that would haue the pictures of the Seraphim, because they appeared in such, and such form, Esay 6. which is your very pretence at this day, why God should be painted( not the Seraphim only but God; a most monstrous shane) non te defodis? art thou not ashamed, O thou wretch, saith he, of such a gross collection? why dost thou not rather run under the ground,& bury thyself alive? And he adds in the same place, that the Seraphim are said to cover their faces with their wyngs at the appearance of God, only to show that God is incomprehensible; yet you paint them for their wings, whereas their wings are given them by the holy Ghost, says Chrysostome, to show the secrecy, and that it must not be painted, which cannot so much as be comprehended. Thus saith M. Collins, most shamefully belying S. Chrysostome, perverting his sense,& corrupting his Text, in so much that three notable fraudes may be noted in these few lines. For, first he saith that S. Chrys. speaketh,& treateth of those that would haue picturs of the Seraphim, for this special reason, viz. because they haue appeared in such& such form Esay 6 al which is flatly false; for there is no mention at all in that place, of the picture of the Seraphim,& much less of the reason, why some would haue them,& it seemeth that he addeth that reason craftily of purpose, to wrest the place the more probably to our painting of God in the form wherein he hath appeared; which he therefore exaggerateth for a monstrous shane; though he himself may be ashamed of such a monstrous lie, as he hath made therein.  
10. Secondly he not only applieth the words which he allegeth out of S. Chrysostome contrary to his meaning( to wit, to those, that would haue pictures of the Seraphim, of whom S. Chrysostome speaketh not at all) but also he corrupteth his Text, making mention in a different letter, of a gross collection, saying, Art thou not a shamed, O thou wretch of such a gross collection, whereof there is no mention in S. Chrysostome? and this he doth most fraudulently to persuade the reader, that S. Chrysostome condemned as well the reason of our painting God, and the Seraphim, as the pictures themselves, albeit S. Chrysostome doth not so much as speak of either of both.  
11. Thirdly, he falsifyeth also S. Chrysostom notably afterwards in affirming that he says, that wings were given to the Seraphim by the holy ghost, to show the secrecy; and that it must not be painted, which cannot be comprehended, whereas that holy Father, hath not one word of painting either God, or the Seraphim, or any thing else; and yet he setteth down the word painted in a different letter, as a word specially to be noted in S. Chrysostome, which is rather to be noted in M. Collins for a notable fraud and consenage of his Reader; besides that his folly also appeareth in that this falsification of his, is to no purpose: for put the case that S. Chrysostome had said, as he maketh him say, viz. that it cannot be painted which cannot be comprehended, yet it could not touch us for painting the form, wherein God hath appeared, seing that we do not thereby paint his Deity( which is indeed incomprehensible, and therefore cannot be painted) but we paint only the form, wherein it hath pleased him to appear, which form is both comprehensible, and visible; so as it is evident that this silly fellow hath neither honesty nor wit: no honesty in that he corrupteth and falsifieth S. Chrysostomes text, no less then his sense; no wit, in doing it so ridiculously, as you see, without proving any thing against us, or helping his cause any thing at all.  
12. But to the end that the Reader may evidently see the falsity, and corruption of this place of S. Chrysostome, I will set down the greek text of the Father here in the margin out of sir Henry Sauils edition, which is in English thus: 
{αβγδ}.  Why dost thou not hid and bury thyself in the bowels of the Earth, that with so great temerity wilt search into the providence of the ineffable& inenarable power of God, incomprehensible even unto the superior powers? for all things that belong to him, are fully manifest only to the son, and the holy Ghost, and to none else. These are the words of S. Chrysostome, which I pray you confer with that which M. Collins hath laid down in a different letter for S. Chrysostomes Text( or for the substance therof at least) and you will clearly see the difference; and that S. Chrysostome doth address his speech to those only that presume to search into the mysteries of Gods providence, without mention of Pictures, either of the Seraphim or of any thing else, and much less of any gross collection touching the same.  
13. Therefore I will now conclude this point with M. Collins his own words applying them to him as he well deserveth: Non te desodis? Art thou not ashamed, O thou wretch( Collins) at such a gross falsification of a holy Father, and doctor of Gods Church? Why dost thou not rather run under the ground, and bury thyself alive? This truly may be worthily said to this shameless wretch, who hath neither conscience, nor shane; for if he had, he could not possibly haue committed such a wilful corruption, and malicious falsity, as heer he hath done, yea& added so many more, as you shall see now in that which followeth.  
14. After this place of S. Chrysostome, he allegeth another out of a Synod held at Constantinople thus: I say nothing saith he, of the forbidding of the lamb to be painted, in the council of Constantinople, which Maldonate your fellow-Iesuit in his Comment vpon Daniel, answereth thus: That the Fathers in that council were not rightly instructed,& the Church saw more vpon better consideration in after times: Yet you make us believe that you reverence the Fathers, and we censure them. Thus saith M. Collins; wherein I wish to be noted two things; the one that what he allegeth& affirmeth of Maldonate, I find not in his Comment vpon Daniel, and therfore if his notebooke haue deceived him, and that he find it somewhere else, I will answer it hereafter when he shall produce it. The other is a notable fraud concerning his allegation of the council of Constantinople cited by him to impugn the use of pictures in Churches, which use nevertheless was ordained expressly by that Synod, yea and by that self same Canon which he citeth.  
15. For albeit those Fathers that were assembled in that Synod, did not think it convenient, that Christ should be painted in the form of a lamb( which they thought more fit, and proper to the old Testament, as a figure, and shadow of Christ, then to the new, wherein the verity is expressed) yet they so far allowed of the Image and picture of Christ himself, in the true form of his humanity, that they ordained the use of it expressly, in their 82. Canon, which is the same wherein they forbade the painting of the lamb; for there it followeth immediately thus: We command( saith they) that hereafter the Character, or form of Christ our God, who taketh away the sins of the world, shall be set, or placed instead of the old lamb, to the end that we comprehending in our mindes the humility of the word of God, may be moved to remember his conversation with us in flesh, and his passion and death, and that the world was redeemed by him. Thus saith that Canon, not only ordaining, as you see, the use of our saviours picture, but also yielding the true reason, which hath ever moved the Church to use the same.  
16. And if this Canon will not satisfy M. Collins in this point, another may also be produced out of the same council much more to the purpose, to prove not only the use of pictures, but also the adoration of them: I say the adoration, because M. Collins doth hardly brook that word when it is applied to pictures or Images, and yet it is used expressly by those Fathers in that council, to wit, in the 73. Canon, wherein they signify, that for as much as the cross doth show or signify unto us our salvation, we therefore ought to give unto it the honour that is convenient. Quamobrē say they, & mente,& sermone,& sensu, adorationem ei tribuentes, Crucis figuras quae à nonnullis in solo, ac in pauimento fiunt, omnino deleri iubemus, &c. Wherefore we attributing unto it adoration, both in mind, speech, and sense, do ordain that the figures or forms of the cross( which by many are made in flooers, or pavements) be abolished, lest the trophy of our Victory be injured by the treading or trampling of those that go vpon it; and therefore we decree, that those who shall hereafter make the sign of the cross vpon the ground, shall be excommunicated. Thus said those Fathers in that Canon: so as you see M. Collins gaineth nothing by his allegation of this council against the use of pictures, but that he hath notably entangled and disgraced himself thereby.  
17. nevertheless to do him some pleasure, and to help him out of the briars, I am content to aclowledge that this council of Constantinople, which made these Canons, is of no force, being a schismatical council assembled, and held by the schismatical Bishop of Constantinople called Callinichus, without any consent of the Roman,& western Church; besides that they ordained, and made diuers erroneous Canons, among the which I am sure there are some, that M. Collins himself will acknowledge to be such, especially if he love a black pudding; for they ordained that if any man do eat blood, or any meate dressed or made with it, if he be a Clergy man he is to be deposed, if a lay man, he is to be excommunicated; so as if this Canon be in force, M. Collins I think hath deserved to be deposed from the Clergy, and ministry many times.  
18. I omit for breuityes sake, to lay down other erroneous Canons of that Synod, which Venerable Bede, in whose time it was held, in his book de sex aetatibus, and Paulus Diaconus de gestis Longobardorum lib. 6. cap. 11. do worthily call Erraticam Synodum: Witnessing further that neither Pope Sergius, nor Pope John the 7. nor Pope Constantine could ever be induced either by force or flattery, or fraud to confirm the same; albeit justinian the younger Emperour in whose palace it was held, did persecute Pope Sergius for the same, in such sort that he made means to haue him taken, and brought prisoner to Constantinople; and had effected it, if the Romans had not rescued and delivered him. But he that desireth to see more concerning this council, and the inualidity thereof, may receive full sa●isfaction by the refutation of M. joseph Halls ●pologeticall discourse, written by C. E. a ●earned friend of mine, who hath amply ●reated thereof in his second Paragraph ●rom num. 45. to num. 81. and amongst di●ers other things worthy to be noted, set●eth down diuers Canons of that council, wherein the doctrine of our English Clergy at this day, is in many points ei●her contradicted or condemned, and therfore I remit M. Collins thereto for his further satisfaction.  
19. Now then, two things I hope are evident. The one, that it the authority of this council be ought worth M. Collins his cake is dow, as well for the adoration, as for the use of pictures. Secondly, that being the council valid, or void, he hath shewed himself a cogging companion in alleging it contrary to the true intent,& meaning thereof: for although he saith truly that those Fathers did forbid the painting of a Lamb, yet they did it not to the end,& purpose which he pretendeth( that is to say to forbid thereby the use of Pictures) but because they thought that such a form did not sufficiently and worthily express the humanity of our saviour, whom therfore they ordained to be represented and painted in his own form and shape. Can any thing then be more for our purpose, or more against him? Thus much for this his fraud; which I am sure you will grant to be a sound one; and so liberal is M. Collins in this kind, that he will not stick to give yet two or three more even touching this matter of Pictures.  
20. The next consisteth in his abuse of a place in S. Augustine which he wresteth in like manner against the use of Pictures, whereas it doth notably prove the same. Thus then he saith pag. 257. You may remember what S. Augustine saith de consensu evangel. lib. cap, 10. Sic errare meruerunt qui Christum non in codicibus, said in pictis parietibus quaesierunt. So they deserved to be mocked, that sought for Christ not in written books but in painted walls. Thus far doth M. Collins allege S. Augustine.  
21. But now to discover his cozenage therein, it is to be understood that S. Augustine in that place writeth against certain Paynims, who feigned that they had seen and red books of magic written by our saviour Christ to S. Peter and S. Paul; for the confutation whereof he sheweth what he conceived might be the ground or occasion of that their fiction: Credo( saith and) quod pluribus locis simul eos cum illo pictos vide●ant, quia meritae Petri& Pauli, propter eundem ●assionis diem celebrius& solemniter Roma commendat. I believe that they had seen them( to wit, S. Peter and S. Paul) painted together with Christ ●n many places, because Rome doth with great solem●ity and celebrity set forth the merits of Peter, and Paul, for that they suffered martyrdom both in one ●ay.  
22. Thus saith S. Augustine, giuing to understand, that those Paynims having many times seen our saviour painted together with S. Peter, and S. Paul, and judging thereby that they were two of his most ●amiliar, and best beloved disciples, feigned that he directed his books of magic, rather to them, then to any other, albeit S. Paul never lived with Christ( as we christians well know) but was converted, and made an Apostle after Christs Ascension. and because those Paynims could not haue been ignorant hereof, and haue erred so grossly, if they had sought to know the true history of Christ, and his Apostles, by the written gospel of the evangelists,& other books of Christians, and not by Pictures only, he added with great reason, Sic errare meruerunt &c. So they deserved, to be deceived who sought Christ not in books, but 〈◇〉 painted walls.  
23. Who now is so senseless, as n● to see that this place of Saint Augustine do● prove evidently the common use of the P●ctures of Christ, and his Apostles in t●● primitive Church, seeing he saith th● those Paynims had seen Christ paynte● together with S. Peter, and S. Paul in ma●● places? And what saith S. Augustine heer● to show, or so much as to insinuate any d● like of pictures, who only condemned, 〈◇〉 worthily derided the folly of those P●●nims in that they grounded their knowle● of Christ, and consequently their ficti●● vpon pictures only, whereby they wer●& might easily be deceived; whereas the● might well haue understood the truth b● the histories written by the Euangelist● and other Christians. And what is this 〈◇〉 the condemnation of the use of Pictures? 〈◇〉 doubt not therefore, but that this m●● pass also for a fraud, besides his notable folly, still to make rods for himself, by producing places that overthrow him.  
24. There resteth yet a fourth fraud o● his concerning what S. Gregory Nissen say● of Pictures in the place by me alleged, and urged before, whereof he saith thus, Nissen speaks of pictures for ornament only, for instruction either very faintly, or not at all. So saith this honest doctor, who durst not haue said so, if he had laid down the words of that Father alleged by me, viz. Solet pictura tacens in pariete loqui, maximeque prodesse: the picture which is silent vpon the wall is wont to speak, and profit exceedingly: whereby he signifieth( not fayntely, but resolutely) that pictures in the Churches serve for instruction, yea,& move to devotion, and virtue; for else, how could he say that they speak, and are exceeding profitable, but because men are not only taught by the sight of them, what to imitate in the Saints, but also moved, and stirred up thereby to the imitation of thē, which indeed must needs be very profitable, and avail very much to the obtaining of virtue. lo then how liberal, or rather how prodigal this man is of his frauds, who hath bestowed vpon us no less then half a dozen, in a discourse wherein he professed to be very brief, and vpon the occasion only of a Parenthesis of mine concerning a by-question touched by the way; what marueyle then that his whole work containing above 550. pages be fraught with so many fraudes, and loaden with so many lies, that I shall not haue time to discover the least part of them.  
25. But now to conclude concerning the place of S. Gregory Nissen, I doubt not, but that you haue noted therein the evident testimony that he giveth of the belief and practise of the Church in his dayes conform to ours, as well for the worship of holy relics, and use of pictures in the Church, as for the invocation of saints; and that M. Collins hath had no other means to answer it then by a pretence of petitio principij in me, to take occasion thereby not to meddle with it; whereas you haue seen how false his pretence is, and how well the place deserved a particular, and substantial answer, if he could haue given any to any purpose. But now let us see, what he will say to a place of another ancient Father, to wit Theodoret, which I alleged also in my adjoinder, pag. 289. nu. 44. Thus then I said.  
26. This acient Father writing against the Gentills of his time, and proving by many evident arguments that Christ is God, urgeth notably the great honour generally exhibited in those dayes to Martyrs in the sumptuous,& manificent Churches that were then dedicated unto them, whereof he saith thus: Neque vero ad haec per annum semel, aut bis &c. We do not use to come to these only once, or twyce, or five times in the year, but we do often celebrate festival dayes in them; we do often every day sing hymns, and praises to the Lord of those Martyrs; and men that are in health do pray to be conserved in it, and those that are sick do crave health; also barren women and men do desire to haue children, and those that are already Fathers do seek to haue their Children conserved. Also trauaylers 
{αβγδ}.  do crave the Martyrs to be their companions in their way, and guyds of their journey; and those that are safely returned, give thankes, confessing the benefit received, 
{αβγδ}.  not coming to them, as to Gods, but praying to them as to divine men, and beseeching them to be intercessors for thē. And that they do obtain those things which they piously, and faithfully crave, it is testified by the gifts, that are offered by such as haue made vows, which are manifest tokens that they haue obtained their desired health; for some do hang up figures( or representations) of eyes, some of feet, some of hands, all made of silver, or gold; and their Lord doth gratefully accept what gift soever is given, and disdaineth none, though never so small and mean, measuring them according to the ability of the giver. Therefore those gifts being set forth to the public view of all men, are most evident signs, and testimonies, that those which give them are freed from their diseases,& haue recovered their health. These I say, do show what is the virtue or power of the Martyrs; and the power and virtue of the Martyrs doth declare, that he whom they haue worshipped and served, is true God. Thus saith Theodoret.  
45. And can any man desire a more clear, and manifest testimony, either that the general custom of the Church was to pray to saints in his time, or that God approved it with miraculous effects? Yea, and that the same was held for a special argument to prove that Christ was God? Wherein also it is to be observed, that the use was in that age( about eleven hundred yeares ago) to hang up votiue Images and representations of hands, feet, eyes, and such like, to testify the miraculous recovery of bodily health by the intercession of saints, which therefore is no modern custom of these later ages( as our adversaries falsely affirm it to be) but an ancient practise of the primitive Church. whereupon it also followeth not only that prayer to saints is most lawful and honourable to almighty God, and profitable to men, but also that saints hear the prayers that are made unto them, seeing that they obtain the grant thereof, and give succour to the suppliants. Thus said I in my adjoinder.  
28. And now I am sure( good Reader) thou longest to see, with what sl●●ght he will ●eek to shift of this. The truth is, he undertaketh to answer it, and that very amply, but with such falsehood, as thou wouldst wonder to see it, if thou hadst not seen so many, and so exorbitant all ready that now it willbe no wonder unto thee. First he seeketh to cast vpon me some suspicion of fraud, or falsity, saying pag. 273. nu. 23. When I cast mine eyes, saith he, vpon Theodorets own text( not as you trenlace, and translate it at pleasure) I see very little to make for you, if ought at all. So he, seeming to charge me with some false translation, albeit he sheweth nor wherein, either here or else where, no not so much as of any one word; which he would infallibly haue done with no small triumph, and insultation if he had found any.  
29. But then he goeth forward and tells us, that Theodoret reports only fashion, and use, and that not general, which he saith I promised in the text of my seventh Chapter; wherein he saith truly( for so much as concerneth my promise) for indeed I promised there to show evidently that the invocation of Saints was generally practised in the primitive Church, as well by the ancient Fathers, as by all other faithful Christians; to which purpose I produced amongst diuers other testimonies this of Theodoret, who sheweth it manifestly as you haue seen, urging notably against the Paynims the great honour that was done generally to Martyrs at those dayes, to prove that Christ is God; and therefore whereas M. Collins tells his Reader, That Theodoret reports only fashion, and use, but not general, he seeks to delude him egregiously.  
30. nevertheless this is but a peccadilio, in respect of that which followeth a few lines after in these words: Neither does Thedoret say that the people made their prayers to the Martyrs, but having spoken in the last words of the God of Martyrs, he adds immediately of their praying for all such things as they stand in need of, but specifieth not to whom they pray for them, whether to God, or to the Martyrs, to whom then rather then to the God of Martyrs? Thus saith M. Collins; but with what conscience you may easily judge by reflecting a little vpon the place of Theodoret, set down by me a little before, where you see the flat contrary of that which he affirmeth; for whereas he saith, that Theodoret doth not specify to whom they prayed, you see that he saith expressly, they prayed to the Martyrs( not as to Gods) but as to divine men, beseeching them to be intercessors for them; and to the end that there should be no doubt of the translation of Theodorets words out the greek, I did set down the greek Text in the margin of my adjoinder( as I haue done also here) that the learned Reader might be the better satisfied of the truth thereof.  
31. Now then can any man think, that M. Collins hath any conscience at al, or any spark either of grace, or honesty who saw this, and not only dissembled it, but also affirmed the quiter contrary? Yet not content with this, he saith also afterwards in the next page., that whereas Theodoret said that the poor way-fayring men craved the Martyrs to accompany them in their way, he turned Rhetorical, and meant no other then only to oppose the exaltation of Christian Saints to the Gentill Gods so far, as was compatible with Christs true Religion: and how proveth he this? mary forsooth two ways; the one with a notable foolery, and the other with a manifest,& shameful fraud. I omit the foolery to discover the fraud. Thus then he saith: Theodoret correct●ng himself, is fain to say {αβγδ}; not absurdely distinguishing betwixt Dulia, and Latria, as your bray●es crow; but deprecating the scandal which his former words might seem to imply. So he.  
32. But to the end that his fraudulent and bad conscience may the better appear thou shalt understand good Reader, that immediately after those greek words, which he allegeth viz {αβγδ}( that is to say not coming to them, as to God) ther follow immediately in the greek text of Theodoret these words: {αβγδ} &c.( that is to say, but praying to them as to d●uine men &c. which words do quiter spoil M. Collins his devise, and overthrow all that he hath said here.  
23. For it proveth, that Theodoret did not turn rhetorical( as M. Collins terms it) that is to say, he did not speak rhetorica●ly, by the way of Amplification, when he said, that the way-faring men craved the Martyrs to be their Companions in their way, but spake truly as he thought& believed, seeing that he declareth presently after, in what sort they and the other supplyants of the said Martyrs, craved their help, to wit, praying to them not as to Gods, but as to divine men, beseeching them to be intercessors for them. hereby also it appeareth what an impertinent and idle gloss he maketh presently after vpon these words of Theodoret {αβγδ}, which he says, does not force that they prayed to the Martyrs to accompany them, whose company they might beg as well of God, and he licence them. So saith he, but it appears by that which you see is dissembled by him, that they prayed to the Martyrs themselves, though not as to Gods, but as to divine men.  
34. Lastly, whereas he saith, that Thedoret doth not distinguish between Dulia, and Latria( as my brains crow) because he correcteth himself, saying {αβγδ}( that is to say, not coming to them as to Gods) I think he was no less brainles then shameless, when he wrote so; for albeit those greek words alone( which he setteth down) do not distinguish betwixt Dulia, and Latria, yet being connected, and joined with the other which immediately follow(& were by him shamefully dissembled) they make a plain distinction betwixt dulia and latria though not in formal words, yet in substance, and effect. For when Theodoret saith, that those supplyants came not to the Martyrs as to Gods, he signifieth plainly, that they did not give to the Martyrs divin honour which is latria, and is due to God alone; and when he addeth, that they prayed to them as to divin men, beseeching them to be intercessors for them, he gave to understand, that they exhibited unto them an inferior honour due to Gods glorified seruants which we call Dulia, and is due to saints. So as you see how false& found he is in every thing.  
35. But yet the silly fellow hath not the wit to make an end here, but within four lines after falleth vpon two other greek words of the same sentence of Theodoret, to wit, {αβγδ}, that is to say, to become intercessors, which he glosseth thus: As for {αβγδ}, let the Saints pray for us as much as you will, that is nothing to our question of praying to them. So he, whereas two other words which immediately follow those that he allegeth, do utterly confounded him; for there followeth {αβγδ}, so as the sentence is, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}, that is to say, and beseeching( them) to be intercessors for them;& is this, trow you, nothing to our question of praying to those martyrs? Besides that the whole period being, as I haue said before( to wit, not coming to them as to Gods, but praying to them as unto divine men, and beseeching them to be intercessors for them) doth make the matter far more clear, and doth convince him of the most wilful, and malicious falsehood,& fraud that hath been committed by any writer of this age, though it aboundeth with men of his coat, and profession, that excel in that faculty.  
36. But let us yet see some more of his juggling. There followeth presently after in my adjoinder, a place of S. Augustine in his book de cura pro mortuis, first alleged by my Lord of Winchester pag. 46. to prove that the Saints do not hear our prayers, or know our actions, because S. Augustine saith that the dead are not present at the affairs of men; in answer whereof I said in pag. 291. num. 47. that his Lordship might haue learned in that book of S. Augustine, which he citeth, That albeit the dead do not naturally know what passeth in earth, neither are ordinarily conversant with us, yet they may know our actions as well by the relation of Angells, as by divine revelation, yea, and that they may be present with us, and help us, per divinam potentiam, by divine power. Thus said I, alleging for the same S. Augustine, de cura pro mortuis.  
37. And will you now see, what M. Collins saith to this? truly he thought good to say somewhat to it,& to do his best to prove that Saints: Do not know our prayers by the relation of Angells. But because he imagined that his reasons would weigh far less in the iudgment of his Reader, if he should seem to contradict S. Augustine, he thought it best to make no mention of him at al, but to lay all his battery against me, as though I alone had said it, and of my own head: so as now I must be beaten for S. Augustine, or rather he in my coat,& skin, but you, I think, will wonder what potent reasons could make this silly doctor so confident as to contemn and impugn the authority of one of the greatest Doctors of Gods Church. You shall hear them, for albeit I had determined, and promised to meddle no more with his fooleries, yet for as much as these are accompanied with a continual fraud, in that he dissembleth& impugneth S. Augustine his doctrine, through out the whole as if it were only mine, I hold myself obliged to answer for S. Augustine, and withall as well to discover his folly, as his fraud.  
38. Thus then he saith p. 276 n. 26. chambermaids you say num 47. that the Saints know our prayers by the relation of Angells. First, how shall the Angells know them to relate them? By revelation from God, you will say: but he that reveals to the Angells might reveal to the Saints, eadem opera; what needs this revelation then? Sic fieri per plura, quod potuit per pauciora. Thus saith this deep divine, who you see demands how the Angells do know our prayers to relate them, and assures himself( as it seems) that I will say, they know them by revelation.  
39. But truly he is much deceived as sure as he makes himself; for albeit I do not deny, but that they may know our prayers by revelation, yet it were great folly to think that they need revelation to know those things which they see& know by ordinary means. Hath not this great doctor trow you, red in the holy Script●res Haebr. 1. that the Angells are all Administratorij spiritus &c. ministering spirits sent for them, which shall receive the inheritance of salvation, whereby he may understand, that they are continually employed by Almighty God here in earth for the benefit and good of his elect? Or can he be ignorant of that which our saviour himself doth teach us, Matth. 18. to wit, that Angeli eorum &c. The Angells of his little ones do always see the face of his Father, which is in heaven? Vpon which place and diuers others in the holy Scriptures( which I omit) the ancient Fathers do teach both the continual presence of Angells amongst us, and also that every man hath a proper angel for his guardian or keeper.  
43. So saith S. jerome lib. 3. comment. in Matth. S. Ambrose lib. de viduis. S. August. Tom. 10. serm. 8. de natali Domini. S. Basil. in psal. 48. & contra Eunom. lib. 3. where he proveth it by diuers places of Scriptures. The like doth S. Chrysostome hom. 40. in cap. 21. Matth. Also Origen hom. 33. in luke. joan. Cassian. coll. 13. Cyril. contra julian. lib. 4. and to omit others, S. Bernard serm. 12. vpon the psalm Qui habitat; where he adviseth us to yield to our proper Angells, devotion for their benevolence, love for their care, and reverence for their presence, and continual assistance. Whereby M. Collins may fall into the account of his own beastly ingratitude, towards his proper angel, and all other holy Angells, seeing that he doth not aclowledge the continual benefits, that he and all other men receive by them, but also blasphemously impugneth the respect, reverence,& honour that is due unto them. Well then this being so, what need haue the Angels of an extraordinary revelation from Almighty God, or know our prayers, and actions which they understand, and see continually being amongst us?  
41. Furthermore he cannot be excused of a wilful, and fraudulent dissimulation of S. Augustins discourse in this place concerning this point, confirmed by him with the Authority of the holy Scripture, and therefore I think good to lay down S. Augustins words here. Possunt, saith he, & ab angels, qui rebus quae aguntur hic praesto sunt, audire aliquid mortui &c. the dead may also hear by the Angells( which are present here at such things as are done) some such thing as he, to whom all things are subject, doth judge fit for every one of thē to understand, for if Angells could not be present in the places both of the living, and the dead, our Lord Iesus would not haue said thus: It came to pass that the poor man dyed, and was carried by Angels into the bosom of Abraham; therfore they may be sometimes here, and sometimes there who by the will of God carried( Lazarus) from hence thither. Thus saith S. Augustine.  
42. And might not this haue sufficed to inform this Doctor that S. August. did not only hold that the Angells may know our actions by being present with us, but also that he confirmed the same with the authority of Scripture? whereto if I should add al the places of the old,& new Testament, which do testify the ordinary employments,& ministry of Angels on earth& their intercourse in human affairs, it might seem incredible that a Doctor& a public professor of divinity should be so ignorant of it, as to think that they cannot know our prayers, but by revelation.  
43. But put the case yt were so, how would it follow that the revelation were needles as he infereth? mary saith he, because God might reveal to the Saints eadem operâ, and so avoid the inconvenience of doing the things per plura, which may be done by pauciora. But how absurd,& ridiculous is this? for so should all secondary causes cease, as needless, because Almighty God might do all things by his omnipotent power, without using any instrument or mean; so then was it needless and superfluous, that an angel should be sent to the blessed Virgin, or to Zacharias luke. 1. or to S joseph; because God might haue revealed his will unto them himself immediately; so also was the ministry of Angels superfluous, and needless, when they were employed, and sent by Almighty God in the old Testament to the patriarchs,& Prophets; and to insist also vpon the example alleged by S. Augustine, it was needles that the Angels should carry the soul of Lazarus into Abrahams bosom, whither Almighty God might haue transported it by his only will, or word, by the which he made heaven and earth, and all things else.  
44. Finally, if M. Collins will tie Almighty God to do nothing per plura, which he may do per pauciora, he most needs confess, that it was superfluous, and in vain, that 7. dayes should be spent in the Creation of the world, which God might haue made in an instant; and the like may be said of our Redemption, and of the government of the Church:& of the whole world, wherein wee see God doth effect very many things, or rather all things by the ministry of his seruants, and other Creatures, which he might do by his own power immediately, if in his divine wisdom he thought it convenient.  
45. Do you see then what a wise Doctor we haue, who argueth so substantially, as not only to deny to Almighty God the service, use, and ministry of his Creatures( because he may do his will without them) but also to control the manner of our Creation, and redemption, because frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora. But let us see some more of his arguments. Secondly saith he, Who makes that the Angells work to be offerers of our prayers to the Saints in heaven? Is this worthy of them? Is it a fit work to employ Angells about? So he: whereto I answer, that S. Augustine was belike much overseen in assigning to the Angells so mean an office: but perhaps the oversight may be rather in M. Collins, who measuring the Angells by himself, imagineth that those celestial spirits are as proud and uncharitable as he, who if he were an angel( as he is never like to be, except perhaps some bad angel, and one of the worst) he would disdain to be so employed; but seeing that their humility,& charity is such, that they vouchsafe to undertake the guard and protection of men in earth( yea of the greatest sinners) S. Augustine had great reason to think, that they refuse not to do all the charitable offices, that are any way requisite for the good, and comfort of the elect, for whose salvation they are sent, and employed here in earth, as I signified before out of the Apostle to the Heb. cap. 1.  
46. But will you hear how he confoundeth S. Augustine, and overthroweth him quiter? He goeth forward thus: And surely if this be once entertained, that the Angells acquaint the Saints with our prayers, which else they should not know but for them, will not the Pagan opinion which S. Ambrose hissed out( and you with him even now) return; that God should be ignorant also of our affairs unless the Angells revealed them? For you make the Angells to offer our prayers to God, to a just reward of your perverting so the Apocalyps cap. 5. vers. 8. Thus saith M. Collins like a deep divine and a terrible Logician, in so much that S. Augustine was never so put to his trumps by any adversary of his( were he Manichaean, Donatist, or Pelagian) as he is now by M. Collins; but because S. Augustine cannot answer for himself, I will be so bold as to answer for him, and say somewhat briefly to this powerful argument.  
47. Therfore, first it is to be considered that Saint Augustine saith not, that the Saints cannot know our prayers but by Angells( as M. Collins seemeth falsely to suppose) but that the Saints do not naturally know what is done in earth, and yet that they may know it, either by the Angells, or by revelation from Almighty God. And put the case that S. Aug. had said as M. Colli●● relateth that they do not know our prayers but by Angells, how would it follow, that the Pagan opinion( hissed out by S. Ambrose) would return( to wit, that God should be ignorant of our affairs, if the Angells did not reveal thē to him?) Would any man be so absurd to think that the infinite wisdom, and knowledge of God doth any way depend vpon the limited knowledge of Saints, or Angells, and to infer thereupon, that God cannot know some things without the revelation of Angels because the Saints cannot? Who ever heard the like inference? Which therefore may well be hissed out with the Pagan opinion, and M. Collins also, for supposing, that any Christian man would be so simplo, and absurd to make it.  
48. Yea, but( saith he) you make the Angells to offer our prayers to God too? What then M. Collins? Will that bring in the Pagans opinion, that God can know nothing but by Angells? We make also the Priest( when he offereth sacrifice at the Altar) offer up our prayers to Almighty God, and must we needs think therefore that God could not know them but by him? The office of the Bishops,& Priests in the old Law was to offer to God the sacrifice, and prayers of the people( as mediators betwixt God and them) but was there ever any so ridiculous to think, that they did it, because God could not other ways understand the necessities and prayers of the people but by them? Yet this forsooth is the Club, wherewith this great Hercules hoped to beat down S. Augustine.  
49. But what he meaneth by his conclusion, That this is a just reward of our perverting the Apoc. cap. 5. vers. 8. I know not for my part, neither how we pervert that place in the Apocalyps, neither how we are rewarded for it; the place is clear to prove that the Angells offer up the prayers of the holy men on earth, by the interpretation of S. John himself, saying that the 24 Seniors had every one golden Phialas, plenas odoramentorum, quae sunt orationes sanctorum, full of sweet odours, which are the prayers of the holy; which words can haue no other literal sense, but that the Angells offer to God, orationes Sanctorum, the prayers of holy men. So as M. Collins, and his fellowes may be ashamed to deny it( what mystical sense soever is, or may be drawn out of it) therfore when he shall tell us, what other literal sense it hath, and how we pervert it, I will answer him further.  
50. In the mean time he may understand if it please him, that it is no new opinion of the catholics at this day, that the Angells do offer up our prayers to God, seeing that S. Hilary teacheth it in his exposition of the psalm 129. alleging the example of the angel Raphael in Tobias: the like doth S. jerome vpon the 10. of Daniel, expounding the Angels words to Daniel thus: I am that angel, which offers thy prayers to God. Also S Augustine in his Epist 120. cap. 92. affirmeth expressly that the Angells do not only signify the benefits of God to us, but also represent our prayers to him: and finally to omit others, S. Bernard serm. 7. in Cantica, saith: Credimus sanctos Angelos &c. We believe that the holy Angells are present with men when they pray, and offer their prayers to God. Therfore to conclude this point, 2. things are evident herein; the one, that M. Collins hath impugned S. Augustine most ridiculously, and childishly; the other that he hath done it with great fraud, and craft under my name only, whereas the discourse and doctrine which he taxeth, is S. Augustines,& as his only alleged and related by me.  
51. The like he hath done also afterwards with much more fraud, touching another place of S. Augustine in the same book, de cura pro mortuis, which I cited in my adjoinder to prove the apparition of Saints, and the help they afford to their supplyants; the occasion was, that the cardinal alleged the words of S. Augustine testifying the apparition of S. Felix in the siege of Nola, thus: audivimus non incertis rumoribus, said certis testibus &c. We haue heard not by uncertain rumours, but by assured witnesses, that the confessor Felix hath appeared not only by the effects of benefits, but also to the sights of men. Thus far the cardinal allegeth Saint Augustines words. Whereto my Lord of Winchester answered in his Apology cap. 8. pag. 178. that, de Felice Augustinus nihil praeter auditum habet &c. Concerning Felix Augustine hath nothing but by hear-say, and whether it were done by the very presence of the Martyrs, or by Angells taking the shape of the Martyrs vpon them, or perhaps by both these ways, Augustine dare not determine, so uncertain is he touching this question of apparitions. Thus said my Lord: whereto I replied in my Anioyder, that it appeared evidently by the words of S. Augustine before recited, that he giveth another manner of assurance of this apparition, then my Lord acknowledged in his answer, who maketh it a matter very uncertain, as depending vpon a bare hearsay, whereas S. Augustine excludeth all uncertainty of rumours, and fortifieth his relation, with the testimonies of assured witnesses. Thus said I, pag. 394. num. 42.  
52. And now that you may see how substantially M. Collins answereth this, and how faithfully he relateth the substance of my reply, you shall hear his own words; thus then he saith pag 383. num. 20. To your numb. 42.& 43. What we hear from witnesses, yet we do but hear, when you haue made the most of it, so as the Bishop might well say: Augustinus nihil praeter auditum habet, Augustine hath nothing more then hear-say, meaning, he reports not this of his own knowledge, though he would not seem to deny credit to those witnesses; which many a man to say truth is loth to do, I mean to detract any thing from the credit of the reporters, even then when he scarce believes that which is told. Thus saith M. Collins.  
53. But could he( think you) haue said this for shane, if he had set down S. Augustines words alleged, and urged by me, as before you haue seen? S. Augustin testifieth the apparition not vpon uncertain rumours( as he himself saith) but by the testimony of assured witnesses, confirmed also by the effects of benefits, no less then by the sight of men; and M. Collins maketh it doubtful, whether S. Augustine believed it or no; as if out of courtesy, and good manners only he would not derogate from the credit of the reporters, though he scarce believed it; for so M. Collins insinuateth, though he do not affirm it directly of S. Augustin, but of many a man, which nevertheless he would haue you to suppose of S. Augustine in this case; for else why doth he say it? May not this pass as well for a fraud, as for a miserable& poor defence of my Lord of Winchesters bare hearsay? But let us proceed to the rest of my Lords answer touching the manner of such apparitions, whereof I said thus, pag. 394. num. 43.  
54. Whereas M. Andrews addeth, that S. Augustine was so uncertain of this matter of apparitions, that he durst not define, whether they were made by the Saints themselves, or by Angels in their likeness, he saith true, though I know not what he can infer thereon for his purpose, seeing that S. Augustine maketh no question of the verity of apparitions( and much less of the benefit and help which devout people received thereby) but only of the manner how the same was performed,& therefore he saith in the beginning of that discourse, Ista quaestio &c. This question surpasseth the force of my understanding, how Martyrs do help those, quod per eos certum est adiuuari, who it is certain are helped by them. So he. And then proceedeth with the question, whether the Martyrs are themselves present in so diuers places, and so far asunder at one time, or whether Almighty God do satisfy the devotion of the people by the ministry of Angels, through the merits of the Martyrs, or else whether it be done both ways. This he saith he dare not define, confessing and teaching evidently as much as we require in this matter, to wit that devout people are certainly helped by the Martyrs. neither is it to be wondered, that S. Augustine would not take vpon him to determine how the same was wrought, saying that even in ordinary and natural things, the effects are evident and certain, and yet the causes are many times either uncertain, or else wholly unknown, which is to be granted much more in supernatural and miraculous events, as I haue shewed evidently in the last Chapter, where I haue confuted such another ridiculous argument of his against Prayer to Saints.  
55. For albeit he had resolved, that the Saints themselves do not appear or assist at their tombs, but Angels in their shape and likeness; yet it could not be said but that apparition is theirs, being made by Gods express ordinance for their merits, in their name& likeness, for the benefit of those that expect& crave their help; especially seeing it is usually said in the holy Scriptures, that God spake& appeared to Abraham Gen. 18.& Moyses Exod. 3. when nevertheless it was done by the ministry of Angels, and not in any shape that could represent him; and therfore S. Augustine had great reason to say, that S. Felix appeared,& that the Martyrs per divinam potentiam vivorum rebus intersunt, are by the divine power present at the doings or affairs of men: although afterward he moveth a question concerning the manner of it, and doth not deny, but that it may be done by the ministry of Angels. Hereby then it appeareth, that this place of S. Augustine so clearly proveth the Apparition of Saints,& that men are helped by their prayers and merits, that M. Andrews had no other way to shift it off handsomely, but to omit the words of S. Augustine as of small moment,& testifying only a slight matter o hearsay. Thus said I in my adjoinder.  
56 To all this M. Collins answereth thus pag. 384. lin. 15. But is not that pretty, number 44. that though the Saints appear not in their own persons, yet the apparition may well be called theirs, viz. because Angells appear for them in their name and likeness; as if the divell did not counterfeit their name and likeness too, and therefore he appearing, they may be said to appear, as well, as when the Angells, by this reason. So he: wherein it is to be noted, first that he passeth over with silence all S. Augustines discourse, without so much as mentioning it or him, to the end that he might seem to impugn me only, and not him: secondly that which he setteth down in a different letter, as my words( or at least as the substance therof) is far different from mine, which cannot by any means admit that devilish example which he bringeth of the divell appearing in the name,& likeness of a Saint.  
57. For the reason which I gave, why the apparition of an angel in the name, and likeness of a Saint, may be called the apparition of the Saint, had three grounds, to wit, because it is made first by Gods express ordinance, secondly, for the merits of the Saints, and thirdly for the benefit of those that expect, and crave his help; of which three respects or considerations, the too later do exclude all diabolical illusions ●nd therefore M. Collins doth not mention any of them in the words before alleged by him, as mine, but maketh me say; that the Angells apparition is the Saints appa●ition,& this for no other cause, but because Angells appear for the Saints in their name,& like●●es, as, saith he, the divell also doth. But when or where the divell doth it, or hath done it, he doth not tell us: nevertheless I do not deny, but that the divell may do ●t, if God will ordain, or permit it, in which case I grant also that his apparition may be called the apparition of the Saint, as in the opinion of some( especially of the heretics of this time) Samuel is said in the Scripture 1. Reg. 28. to haue appeared, when nevertheless they say the divell appeared in his likeness; so as( according to their opinion) M. Collins his devilish instance maketh directly for me, and against him.  
58. And therefore he goeth the more boldly forward striking stil at me by name ( but lighting indeed vpon S. Augustine) carping at one of those considerations of his, which before he omitted, and concealed, to wit, touching the Saints merits, whereof he saith thus: yet ridiculously you add, that Angel● appear for the Saints merits, and so the Angells apparition is the Saints apparition. So he, making S. Aug. ridiculous( or to say truly himself rather) especially considering how he perverteth S. Augustins sense, concerning the Saints merits; for thus he saith: But first we haue told you our mind about merits, in the former part of this book, which if any were in this life, yet none in the other, none in Patria where the saints are. They haue done meriting, and yet to merit for others is more abominable then for ones self. But for men to merit that Angells should come, and do offices in their names is most absurd of all, and therefore worthy of F. T. whatsoever he is.  
59. Thus saith this grave doctor, as if I had said, that the Martyrs, or Saints did merit in heaven, whereas I only relating briefly the substance of S. Augustines discourse, do make mention of the merits of the Martyrs in the same sense that S. August. doth, who divideth the question into two members, or parts: the one, whether the Martyrs themselves are present at their memories or tombs, where the supplyants ●eceaue help or comfort, or whether they ●eing loco meritis suis congruo, in a place answ●rable to their merits( meaning no doubt ●heir merits whilst they lived on earth) ●nd praying generally, pro indulgentiae suppli●antium, for the need of the supplyants; Almighty God hearing the prayers of the said Martyrs, doth give comfort, and relief by ●he ministry of Angells,& out of his mer●eilous, and ineffable power and bounty, ●uorum merita Martyrum commendat, doth commend or illustrate the merits of his Martyrs where, when, and how he will, and especially at their memories, Quoniam hoc novit ●obis expedire ad aedificandam fidem Christi, pro ●uius confessione sunt passi, because he knoweth that this is expedient for us, for the edifica●ion, or confirmation of the faith of Christ, ●or the confession whereof they suffered. Thus saith S. Augustine.  
60. And albeit he saith, that he dare not take vpon him to determine how the Martyrs do give help,& comfort to those, quos per eos certum est adiuuari, who it is certain are helped by them, as whether it be done by one of these two ways before specified, or by both; nevertheless 4. things are evident herein.  
61. The first, that he acknowledgeth expressly, that the help is given by the Martyrs, saying certum est, it is certain that me● are helped by them.  
62. The second is, that both these ways, are in his opinion not only probable, but also most conform to the catholic verity and faith: for otherways he would not haue supposed that God would give succour or help by either of them.  
63. The third is, that he holdeth,& teacheth here, that God doth these favours as well in respect of the prayers of the Martyrs,( exaudiens, saith he, Martyrum pretes hearing, or granting the Martyrs prayers) 〈◇〉 also in regard of the merits of his Martyrs Commendans svorum merita martyrum, commending his Martyrs merits, that is to say, showing or testifying their merits to the world.  
64. Lastly, it is manifest, that by which way soever the benefit be done( either by the presence of the Martyrs, or by Angells in their shape or likeness) the apparition may( in S. Augustins opinion) well be called the apparition of the Martyrs, in which respect he saith plainly that S. Faelix appeared in the siege of Nola; albeit he is doubtful, as you see, whether he appeared himself, on an angel for him, for by occasion of that apparition S. Augustine maketh all this discourse.  
65. This being so, I must beseech good M. Collins to avert his wrath, and indignation from me, and to lay it vpon S. Augustine, who is better able to bear it, and deserveth it more then I, seeing that all this discourse& doctrine is his, as well touching the merits of Saints, as the benefits which God bestoweth vpon men to testify the same;& therefore if I be ridiculous and absurd,( as M. Collins terms me) for relating only S. Augustines opinion and doctrine in this point, much more ridiculous, and absurd is S. Augustine himself for holding and teaching it; but howsoever the matter passeth with S. Augustine and me, M. Collins is ridiculous, and absurd above measure, not only in beating( as I may say) jack for Iill( I mean me for S. Augustine) but also in doing it sciens& volens, witting and wilfully; whereby it may easily be judged, that notwithstanding the pretence, and show he maketh, much to respect, and reverence the ancient Fathers, as if his and his fellowes doctrine were all together conform to theirs( thereby to deceive and seduce the unlearned Readers) yet in truth he bears them no respect at all, but rather a great tooth, and spleen, and that he would show it evidently if he durst, seeing that he doth it with such virulency, when he can do it by indirect means, and covertly as here you see he hath done.  
66. But now good Reader there remain yet two or three words more to be fifted concerning this matter, wherein we shall see( I know not how to term it) either a most foolish fraud, or a most fraudulent foolery. It followeth in M. Collins thus: At last, you grant( saith he) in the same number, that not only Saints may appear i● the shape of Angells, but that God himself hath done so de facto, as Genes. 18. Exod. 3. to Abraham, and Moyses, yet before you said, that the angel whom Abraham worshipped was a created angel num. 14. how does this hang together. Thus saith M. Collins, but how truly, I report me to my own Text, which you haue seen before nu. 55. cited out of my adjoinder, where I said the clean contrary to that which he setteth down as mine. For I said, that Angells might by Gods ordinance appear in the likeness of the Martyrs, suscipientes( as S. Augustine saith) personam martyrum, taking vpon them the persons, or shapes of the Martyrs, and not that the Martyrs or Saints might appear in the shape of Angells, as M. Collins affirmeth, turning as I may say, the cat in the pan.  
67. Also to prove that such apparitions of Angells, may be called the apparitions of the Saints, I added that the like manner of speech is usual in the holy Scripture, where it is said, that God spake and appeared to Abraham Gen. 18. and in Moyses Exodus 3. when nevertheless God himself did not speak, and appear, but used therein the ministry of Angells, who spake, and appeared for him; whereas M. Collins maketh me say the contrary, to wit, that God appeared in the shape of Angells. So as that which I said before in the 14. number( to wit that the angel which appeared to Abraham was a created angel) hangs very well together, with that which I say heer; for I signify in both places, that a crea●ed angel appeared to Abraham for God, although it is said in Scripture, that God appeared.  
68. Behold then the humour of this honest man, who sometimes dissembleth my whole text, or that which most importeth in it, and sometimes perverteth it, that he may haue somewhat to say with some show of probability, to cousin, and deceive such at least, as shall not see my adjoinder, which he knoweth few haue done, and are like to do, by reason of the prohibition of catholic books in England; said veritas temporis filia, but truth is the daughter of time; and as our saviour said, nihil est opertum quod non reuelabitur, nec occultum quod non scietur. Matth. 10.  
69. But forasmuch as this very place of S. Augustine touching the intervention of the dead in the affairs of men, hath been yet further abused by my Lord of Winchester in another place with no small abuse also offered to cardinal Bellarmyne( wherewith I charged his Lordship, very deeply in my adjoinder) I will therfore now lay it down here, and then consider how well M. Collins hath discharged his obligation to my Lord, in clearing him therof. Thus then I said pag. 410. nu. 62.  
70. Vpon the occasion of certain places of the Fathers alleged by the cardinal, to show the custom of praying to saints in the primitive Church, M. Andrews goeth about to prove that saints do not know what we do here on earth, either by seeing the same in God, or by seeing themselves present among us;& having alleged 3. or 4. authorities for the former point( which he may see sufficiently answered in cardinal Bellarmines controversies) he saith for the letter, mortuos autem rebus nostris non interuenire sensit Augustinus. Augustine was of opinion that the dead are not present at our affairs, for the which he quoteth no place of S. Augustine, but addeth, quis hoc refert? Cardinalis. Who relateth or affirmeth this? the cardinal: and for this M. Andrews citeth in his margin the cardinals treatise of the beatitude of saints, in his books of controversies, where indeed the Cardinal handling that question, and laying down the objection of heretics, hath amongst the rest a place of S. Augustine in his books de cura pro mortuis, where he affirmeth that the dead are not present at mens affairs, neither yet do know what is done vpon earth; nevertheless afterward the Cardinal answering the same objection in the same Chapter, proveth out of the very same treatise of S. Augustine( from whence the objection is taken) that albeit the dead are not usually present at mens affairs, nor do naturally know what is done vpon earth, yet they may know it, not only by Angells, but also supernaturally, to wit, by divine revelation, yea and that the holy Martyrs, and saints are present amongst men, per divinam potentiam, by the divine power.  
71. And to show this, the Cardinal allegeth these words out of the said treatise of S. Augustine, Non ideo putandum est &c. It is not therfore to be thought that every one of the dead may be present at the affairs of men, because the Martyrs are present in the healing,& helping some men; but rather it is to be understood, that because the dead cannot be present among men, by their own nature, therfore the Martyrs are present at mens affairs by the divine power. Thus saith S. Augustine: where you see he distinguisheth betwixt natural, and supernatural means, and betwixt the glorified saints of God( for such are the Martyrs of whom he speaketh) and other dead men, granting that the Martyrs do that by supernatural,& divine means, which other dead men cannot naturally do; and this is the same in effect that al catholics hold concerning the knowledge that the glorified saints haue of things done in earth, to wit, that they do not know the same naturally, but by supernatural means, whether they see it in seeing the divine essence, or know it otherwise by revelation; so as, thereby it is manifest that M. Andrewes hath notably abused both S. Augustine and the cardinal; S. Augustine, in making him to affirm of glorified Saints, that which he spoke of other dead men, as if he made no difference between the supernatural knowledge and power of the one, and the natural of the other, which he evidently distinguisheth. Also he abuseth the cardinal in taking hold of his objection, and dissembling his solution, which is one of the most gross and palpable frauds, or rather fooleries that may be imagined in this kind.  
72. Thus said I in my adjoinder: whereto M. Collins saith not one word, and therfore I remit it to the readers Iudgment, whether it was not convenient for my lords honour, that his Feed-man, advocate,& Champion( who saw him here so deeply charged) should haue dischardged and cleared his lordship of this imputation if he could considering as well the confidence which my Lord hath reposed in him, as also his Maiestyes express commandment imposed vpon him( as he himself confesseth) for the repulsing, saith he, of the lewd slanders of a nameless Papist, and to redeem the credit of a renowned Bishop: if this therefore be a lewd slander, why doth not M. M. Collins repulse it( to use his own phrase)& if it be none but a true objection of fraud and falsity in my Lord( as indeed it is) why doth he not labour at least to redeem my Lords credit, either by some colourable excuse, or some pretty fraud, or legier-dumain, as he is wont to do? For so at least he should haue shewed his good will, and desire to serve my Lord, as he is in duty bound having been well paid for his pains, as the report is, which may well be presumed to be true, my Lords liberality and bounty considered; but it seemeth that this fraud is so gross, and palpable that it passeth M. Collins his skill, either to excuse, or colour it handsomely; and therfore he thought best to smother it with silence, as he hath done diuers others heretofore, besides many more, which I could lay down, if I had time; but I do now make so much hast to end, that I mean to add but some few fraudes more concerning the relics of Saints, and the veneration, and reverence due to them; whereof I will say somewhat with what brevity I may in the ensuring Chapters.   

A manifest discovery of M. Collins his fraud in corrupting the Text, and perverting the Sense of the adjoinder, touching the adoration of holy relics; he belieth Gregory de Valentia, whom he understandeth not: He abuseth egregiously S. jerome many ways, in belying him, in clipping his text, in perverting his sense, and incalumniating him. Lastly he is proved to be most ignorant even in Grammar. CHAP. X.  
HAVING given thee, good Reader, in the precedent chapters some taste of M. Collins his treacherous dealing touching prayer to Saints, I will give in this, some examples of the like in his answers concerning the adoration, or veneration of holy relics, and for the better discovery therof, I think best first to say some what( by the way of preamble) touching the word adoration, and the controversy, concerning the same, as well betwixt the cardinal and my Lord of Winchester, as betwixt M. Collins and me.  
1. To this purpose it is to be understood that as my Lord of Winchester admitteth no invocation, but of God only; so he affirmeth the same of adoration pag. 49. And therfore to answer the Cardinals objection out of S Hieroms epistle to Marcella( wherein S. jerome speaketh of the adoration of the ashes of Elizaeus, and Abdias) my Lord saith that S. jerome did not speak there properly, but figuratively. Vpon which occasion I treated somewhat amply in my adjoinder pag. 371. num. 13. of the three kinds of adoration, specified in the holy Scripture; the one due to God alone, which we call Latria, the other due to Angells, Saints, or holy men, as to the seruants of God,& for the honor,& love of him( which being an act of Religion, I called a religious adoration,& is commonly called by our Deuins Dulia) the third is a mere civil worship or reverence exhited to men for some civil or temporal excellency.  
2. And of these three kindes of adoration I alleged very many examples and testimonies of holy Scripture, and for the proof of the two later( to wit, of the religious, and civil adoration) I produced above twenty places, and might haue done many more, if I had thought it needful;& then I observed thereupon pag. 375. num. 16. that the word adoration is to be understood diversly, as it is diversly applied, either to God alone, or to Angels, holy men and holy things, or else to men of dignity; and that the same is to be observed in the hebrew word sachah, which signifieth adorare, and is diversly understood of each of these three kinds of adoration, according to the different application therof, in so much that it cannot be otherwise distinguished in reading, but by the circumstances; and for as much as in the corporal exhibition of it the same exterior acts of submission, and reverence are common to all three kinds of adoration, therefore they are diuersifyed, and distinguished only by the intention, and will of him, that doth perform them; and finally I concluded, that is is not to be wondered, that as well the ancient Fathers, as the Catholiks of these dayes, following the custom,& phrase of the holy scriptures, do use also the word adoration in the same different manner, and sense that the Scripture doth.  
3. And albeit M. Collins in answer of this doth fond cavil about religious adoration, yet he denieth not the civil adoration; yea and saith also pag 360. lin. 26. that my Lord granteth it, and that his Lordship denieth only the sacred, or religious adoration; in so much, that he maketh the adoration, which Abraham, Lot,& Iosue used to Angells, to be civil adoration, most absurdly; seeing that there was not therein any civil or temporal respect( which cannot be understood to exceed the bounds of nature) the motive of their adoration being a supernatural excellency, including also a sanctity and holynes, which is evident in the example of Iosues adoration of the angel, who besides his falling prostrate vpon the ground before the angel, was commanded by him to do more reverence, to wit, to put off his shoes, because the place where he stood was holy, which place( as I said in my adjoinder) was not otherways holy, but in respect of the Angels presence, so as this adoration, having a supernatural respect, and consideration( that is to say, the sanctity of an angel,& the place) cannot be called civil without great absurdity.  
4. The like is to be said of the examples which I produced also in my adjoinder of the adoration exhibited by Abdias to Elias; and of the children of the Prophets to Elizaeus, of whom I said thus, pag. 372. although Abdias was in temporal dignity 〈◇〉 greater man, and more worthy then Elias the Prophet, yet he fell vpon his face be●ore Elias( 3. Reg. 18.) acknowledging ●hereby the spiritual excellency of Gods Prophet, and did therein an act of religion, ●s also the children of the Prophets did the ●he like to Elizaeus, when they perceived by his miraculous passage ever the river, that God had given him the spirit of Elias, ado●auerunt eum, saith the Scripture, proni in ter●am, they adored him falling flat vpon the ●round 4. Reg. 2. Thus said I in my Ad●oynder, expressly specifying a supernatural ●espect, and motive of this adoration, which ●herfore cannot possibly be civil;& this I ●ave thought good to note by the way, the ●ather to show you by this occasion, a fine ●iece of legier-du-main in M. Collins his an●were to these two examples of Abdias, and ●he children of the Prophets. For thus he ●ayth of the first pag. 354. lin. 12.  
5. Abdias, you say, was a man in temporal ●ignity, far greater then Elias, and yet Abdias fell vpon his face before him; and therein did an act of religion to Elias. believe it who list. So he. leaving out some words of my Text, vpon the which I inferred that he did an act of Religion. For I said thus of Abdias; he fell vpon his face before Elias, acknowledging thereby, the spiritual excellency, and sanctity of Gods Prophet, and therein did an act of Religion; whereas M. Collins maketh me say only, that Abdias did an act of Religion, because he fell vpon his face before him, without specifying the spiritual excellency, and sanctity of the Prophet, which being a supernatural gift of God doth not import any temporal, or civil consideration, but a religious respect.  
6. The like cozenage he also useth i● the other example, saying thus: Likewise the children of the Prophets worshipped Elizaeus wit● religious adoration, because they saw him pass th● river by miracle, a thing which every damned wretch might haue done, to haue wrough● a miracle, and yet this must challenge religious adoration. So he. Concealing the reason which I gave, why the children o● the Prophets adored Elizaeus, which was because they perceived by his miraculous passage 〈◇〉 the river, that God had given him the spirit of Eli●● so that the bare miracle was not the cau●● why they adored him, but because God had ●iuen him Elias his spirit, and made him ●is Prophet, which spiritual, and super●aturall excellency surmounted all civil ●espects, and belonged to religion,& therefore was acknowledged by them, with a ●eligious adoration.  
7. And to these I may yet add another like fraudulent devise of his in his an●were to the reason which I give in my ●dioynder why the adoration of Saints, and ●oly men is religious; for whereas I said in ●he 14. Paragraph( which he citeth pag. ●54.) that such adoration is an act of religion, because it is exhibited to them, as ●o the seruants of God, and for the honour and love ●f him; M. Collins, answereth thus: Lastly, ●ayth he, to your quiddity, that the worship of ●aints is religious worship, because yielded to Saints ●or their religious sake, I deny your reason. As well might you say, that the worshipping ●f a wooden Image is a blockish worship, because done to a block &c. Thus saith M. Collins. Wherein you see that the reason which he giveth( and saith it is mine) why the worship of saints is a religious worship, is, because it is yielded to them for their Religious sake, as though it had no further ●elation but to them, whereas I speak not a word of their religion, and do expressly refer the worship of the Saints, to the honour of God, whose seruants they are; for my words are( as you haue seen before) that the second kind of adoration is an act of Religion, exhibited to Angells, Saints, or holy men, as to the seruants of God, and for the honour, and love of him; so as the adoration, or worship relieth not in them, but hath a special relation to Almighty God, being ye●lded to them for his sake, because they are his seruants, and to the end to honour him in them, which therefore must needs be a religious act; whereby it is evident not only that he hath falsified my text( referring the worship of the Saints to the Religion in them) but also hath argued most idly vpon his own false ground, saying that I might as well say that the worshipping of a blockish Image is blockish worship, because done to a block.  
8. For indeed if the worship should haue no further relation, thē to the wood, or to the Image as it is wood, it were a wooden worship, bu● the worship being don to the Image o● Christ, or of a Saint, to honor Christ, or the Saint therein, the worship is religious; for otherways M. Collins must con●esse, that he hath done in his dayes wodden or blockish worship, when he hath stood bare in the presence Chamber before the Kings chair made of wood. And I doubt not, but he will say, that he hath honoured the King in his chair, and not the wood whereof it was made; and therfore as this may be called civil worship, because it is yielded for a civil respect( that is to say to honour the King) so also, the other which is yielded to an image, or a Saint, for the honour of God, may well be called religious worship, because all religious acts are of their nature referred to the honor of God. So as you see M. Collins hath made a very blockish and wooden argument, worthy of his wooden wit, besides his falsity, as well in corrupting my Text, as in perverting my sense.  
9. No less vain and idle, is the instruction which he taketh vpon him to give me presently after, saying: Rather say( it is religious worship) because it springeth from the virtue of religion in the mind of him that yieldeth it as the original of his act; and yet imperant only, not elicient, dirigent, not exequent, as your school men love to speak. Thus saith he, flourishing in his Schoole-tearmes, as though he could play the schoole-mā if he list, when the poor fellow prattles like a parrot, not understanding what he saith, as you shall see after a while by the good use he maketh of Gregorius de Valentia his doctrine against me, even for this point. But for the present I wish it to be noted that had he not falsified my words, he should haue had no cause, nor colour to tell me that Religious worship springeth from the virtue of Religion in the mind of the doer, for I say nothing at all to the contrary, as you may see evidently by my own words cited by me, a little before out of my adjoinder, so as he is no less vain, and idle, then false almost in every thing.  
10. moreover as frivolous, vain, yea and false is that which he affirmeth of Valentia pag. ●60. Who, he saith, doth flatly deny that the worship of Saints is properly religious worship, which is properly, and flatly a lie; for Valentia doth not deny, that it is religious worship propriè, properly, but proximè, or immediatè immediately, as it appeareth by 3. or 4. places which M. Collins himself citeth out of him; as when he saith of the proper act of religion, Actus propriùs virtutis religionis divinam gloriam spectat proximè,& idcirco ad Deum proximè pertinet, the proper act of the virtue of religion doth respect immediately the divine glory, and therefore it doth belong to God immediately; and then he addeth concerning the veneration of Saints; Actio vero qua veneramur sanctos &c The action whereby we do worship Saints, hath not any either immediate scope, or end, but the esteem, or respect which is convenient, and fit to be given to an excellent Creature, and this esteem say●h Valentia is procured for Saints immediately not by religion, but by a peculiar observance: for so he termeth that kind of honour, or worship, which we give to Saints, and is( as he saith) really,& alltogeather distinct from Religion.  
11. And this difference, and distinction, he saith, the catholic doctors do signify, and express by the words Latria& Dulia; applying Latria to the worship of God, and Dulia to the worship of Saints,& finally he concludeth( as M. Collins himself observeth) Exposuimus quemadmodum honor Sanctis, non per virtutem religionis proximè, said per aliam long diuersam exhibeatur, we haue shewed now honour is given to Saints not immediately by the virtue of Religion, but by another virtue altogether different. So he. Which M. Collins urgeth hard against me as directly impugning my assertion of a religious worship due to Saints, because Valentia teacheth that the honor due to Saints proceedeth from a virtue altogether different from Religion.  
12. But I must desire M. Collins by his leave to note, that Valentia doth not deny that honour is exhibited to Saints by religion, either properly or at all, but that it is not given to them immediately by religion, because religion doth respect the honour of God immediately, and doth cause the honour of Saints remotè or mediatè, that is to say, by the means of that kind of obseruancy, which we commonly call dulia,& is moved by the virtue of Religion imperative, whereupon it followeth that the action resulting thereon, is a religious action and this M. Collins himself doth plainly aclowledge: for having told me the distinction of imperant, elicient, dirigent and exequent, he addeth, that many acts not done to Religious persons, or done to them, not for their religious sakes, are nevertheless accounted religious actions, because they proceed from the virtue of religion in the doers.  
13. And either to persuade or to convince me in this point, he goeth forward thus: As even your own man acknowledgeth Gregory de Valentia Tom. 3. disput. 6. quaest. 11. &c. denying flatly that the worship of Saints is properly, or immediately religious worship, yet he adds in this wise, quamquam non est negandum &c. though it is not to be denied, that we may be moved, as to other offices of sundry virtues, so 〈◇〉 yield the Saints the honour of obseruancy, out of and virtue of religion towards God in our hartes. Thus far M. Collins allegeth Valentia his words, and then glosseth them thus: So as dieth he would haue Religion to be only towards God, ●nd yet an exciter, or setter on of our reverence to ●aints, per modum imperantis, as I said be●●re. So he: To prove against me, even ●ut of Valentia himself, that I should haue ●rawn the worship of Saints from the ver●ue of Religion, in the mind of him, that ●oth exhibit it, and not to haue made the ●use therof to be the religion of the Saint, ●r holy man that is worshipped.  
14. But this you see is nothing else, but vain flourish to show his skill in school ●arning, without any other ground or ●ause then his own falsification, as well of ●y Text, as of the sense therof. And as for ●alentia his doctrine in this point, it is most ●ue, and confirmeth my Assertion, that the ●orship done to Saints is religious wor●●ip, seeing that the power of religion is ●●ch, that it commandeth the actions of all ●ther virtues, to the glory, and honour of ●od, whereby they become Religious acti●ns. In which respect S. james in his Ep c. 1. ●yth of a work of Charity, or mercy, that it is religion: Religio munda( saith he) & ●●maculata apud Deum,& Patrem haec est, visitare p●pillos,& viduas in tribulatione corum &c. This i● a clean& immaculate religion with Go● and the Father, to visit pupils, and widows in their tribulations; thus saith S. james, calling this work of charity religi●●, because it is a religious action, proceeding from the virtue of religion imperatiuè, and done for Gods honour.  
15. And this may truly be said not only of all the actions of other virtues, but also of such actions as are of their own nature indifferent which religion commandeth, as occasion serveth, for Gods glory, and maketh them both good, yea and religious actions, because( as M. Collins saith) they proceed from the virtue of religion in the doers, and are referred to Gods honour, and service.  
16. This then being true concerning as well indifferent, as virtuous actions, much more it is to be granted of such actions, as haue a more particular relation to religion or connexion therewith, by reason of some particular respect or consideration in the object, as it is evident in the worship done for Gods honour to Saints, or holy men, who being made( as the Scripture saith) consorts divinae naturae 2. Pet. 1. ●artakers of the divine nature, haue in them a ●upernaturall excellency, which deserveth a supernatural honour or worship( I mean a greater honour then any respect of civility, or nature can challenge) and therfore I say, that such honour springing originally from the virtue of religion in them that yield it, and being exhibited to Saints, as having the foresaid participation of divine excellency, cannot be civil, but must needs be religious. And this as I haue said, is not d●nyed by Valentia, who affirmeth only that this honour it not exhibited to Saints by the virtue of Religion proximè, immediately, but imperatiuè, by the intervention of a different virtue called dulia, which doth immediately respect the honour, and worship due to Saints, and is commanded by the virtue of religion, so much the more properly, by how much more it is subordinate thereto, and hath more Analogy, and proportion with it, then other virtues haue.  
17. But for the better understanding of Valentia, it is to be considered, that the great difference which he affirmeth to be betwixt the virtues of dulia and of religion, consisteth in this, that dulia respecteth only the excellency of the Saint, resting therein without further relation to the participation of the divine excellency by me before mentioned; for so indeed, it is wholly distinct, and different from the virtue of religion, which doth not rest in any creature, but doth immediately respect the honour due to God; but if we consider the honour of the Saint, as not resting in him, but as having a further relation to the divine excellency, which the Saint doth participate: so there is no need to distinguish the said honour from religion, even according to Valentia his grounds, who also is so far from condemning the other opinion that he rather defendeth it against Caluin, to be no way derogatory to Gods glory, as it appeareth by that which M. Collins noteth very absurdly for a contradiction in Valentia, who saith he seeth not how Gods honour is any way impaired( as Caluin saith it is) if we give one honour to God, and another to Saints, by one and the self same virtue of religion; for as, saith he, we love God, with the self same virtue of Charity, with the which we love our Neighbour in his degree( without any injury to the divine majesty:) so also we may without any injury to God, give him his own honour intierely, and to Saints theirs, eue● by one, and the same virtue of Religion.  
18. Thus saith Valentia; giuing to understand, that whereas there is a question amongst the divines, whether the honour that is given to God, and to his Saints, proceedeth from one,& the self same virtue of Religion( as some hold it doth) or from two different virtues( which is Valentia his opinion) there is no prejudice, or injury done to Gods honour either way; because those who hold it to be one, and the same virtue of religion, which giveth honour to both, do not conceive that the honour given to the Saint resteth in him, but that it hath relation,& passeth to that divine excellency, which the Saint participateth, and is immediately respected by religion; whereas Valentia, and those which hold, that they are two different virtues( whereby God, and his Saints are honoured) conceive the honour given to the saints to rest in a certain degree of supernatural excellency of the Saint, without further relation to the excellency of God, and that the virtue which giveth the said honour to the Saint respecteth his excellency proximè and elicitiuè; whereas the virtue of Religion respecteth it only imperatiuè and mediatè( as I haue signified before) that is to say, b● the intervention of this other virtue of Dulia, or obseruancy( as he calleth it) which the virtue of Religion commandeth and useth to Gods honour, as it might do an act of charity, Piety, Iustice, Temperance, or any other virtue.  
19. And hereby it appeareth, that there is no contradiction in Valentia either to himself( as M. Collins absurdly imagineth) or yet to the other opinion of the divines, for as much as concerneth Gods honor( which Caluin falsely saith is impaired thereby)& much less doth Valentia deny or contradict my assertion of religious worship done to Saints; which is true according to both opinions; for according to Valentia doctrine( take it how you will) the honor done to the Saint is religious, imperatiuè at least and mediatè, and according to the other opinion clicitiuè and proximè; yea and if we understand all with formal relation to the divin excellency participated by the Saint( as I haue signified before) so the honour done to the Saint may be religious also proximè and elicitiuè in all opinions. And thus thou seest good Reader, how little M. Collins hath gained by playing the schoolman, yea, and how notably he hath played the fool, bewraying his own ignorance and folly, as well in alleging and urging Valentia against me, when he maketh for me, a● also in controling, and impugning him; seeing it is evident that the silly fellow doth not understand him,& doth notably abuse us both.  
20. I haue thought it not amiss, good Reader, to say thus much by the way of a preamble to the discovery of his fraudulent answers to my adjoinder, concerning the veneration of holy relics; partly to explicate thereby the state of the question betwixt us, and partly to lay open unto you diuers petty fraudes of his, which as you haue seen, haue occurred by the way, having forborn not only to display many solemn fooleries( where with his discourse about this matter is interlaced) but also to answer his objections out of some of the Fathers, as well not to pass my prescribed limits of meddling only with his frauds, as also to avoid prolixity which hath ever been my special desire from the beginning, albeit his extravagant impertinencyes haue extorted from me a far larger reply, then at first I determined.  
21. Now then to come to the matter, you may remember, that I signified in the beginning of this Chapter, how my Lord of Winchester answereth a place alleged by the cardinal out of S. jerome to Marcella, touching the adoration of the ashes of S. John Baptist, Elizaeus, and Abdias, saying that S. jerome doth not use the word adoration in that place properly, but figuratively; whereof he giveth two reasons, the one, because S. jerome saith also there that Marcella might pulverem lingere, lick the dust, Quare vt hoc, ita& illud non propriè, said figuratiuè, wherefore, as this, so also that, is not properly spoken, but figuratively. And albeit I confuted this at large, yet because the matter itself is not of much importance, I omit the examination of what M. Collins answereth thereto, except only of one point wherein he giveth us a taste of his great skill in grammar, which also I think good to differre until I haue discovered his notable fraud in answering my reply to my Lords second reason, and by occasion thereof lay down very important matter for the trial of the truth in this controversy. Thus then I said in my adjoinder pag. 376. num. 21.  
22. His second reason why adorare is taken figuratively in that place of S. jerome is this. ubi vero, saith he, propriè ei loquendum erat &c. For when S. jerome was to speak properly, to wit, to Vigilantius his adversary( who pressed him strictly, and would not suffer him to speak at large) then he denieth it earnestly, saying, Nos autem, non dico Martyrum reliquias &c. We do not worship and adore( I do not say) the relics of Martyrs, but neither the sun nor the moon, nor the Angells, nor the Cherubim, nor the Seraphim. Thus saith M. Andrewes out of S. jerome, ending his citation there; because that which followeth would mar all his market, as you shall see after a while,& in the mean time he concludeth thus, What I pray you will the Card●nall say here, seeing that the old Fathers of the Church do cry out, we do not adore the relics of Martyrs? here the cardinal is held so fast that he cannot slip away. Thus triumpheth M. Andrews before the victory, or rather having lost the victory, being himself a captive, and having no other remedy left him, but to brag and face out the matter.  
23. For thou shalt understand good Reader, that S. jerome here speaketh( as the Logicians say, ad hominem, that is to say according to the sense and meaning of his adversary Vigilantius( one of M. Andrews his worthy progenitors) who impugning the adoration of relics in the same sense that that M. Andrewes doth, held it for no other then Idolatry, as S. jerome testifieth in the same Epistle to Riparius, which M. Andrews allegeth. Ais, saith S. jerome, Vigilantius &c. You say, that Vigilantius( as we may say M. Andrews) openeth again his stinking mouth, and casteth forth a most filthy savour against the relics of holy Martyrs, and calleth us, who reverence them, and worship the bones of the dead, Cinerarios,& Idolatras, worshippers of Ashes,& idolaters. So he. And in his tract. against Vigilantius himself, he setteth down Vigilantius his own words thus: Quid necesse est &c. What need hast thou not only to honour with so great honour, but also to adore that( I know not what) which thou worshipest, carrying it in a little vessel from place to place, and why dost thou kiss and adore dust leapt in a linen cloth? And again a little after, We see you, according to the custom of the gentiles &c. every where kiss and adore I know not what little dust carried in a little vessel,& leapt in a precious linen cloth. Thus wrote Vigilantius.  
24. Whereby you see how he charged the catholics of those daies with flat Idolatry, for worshipping, or adoring the relics of saints, taking adoration for worship due to God alone, in which respect he calleth the Catholiks idolaters. And therefore S. jerome answering him in the same sense, saith that which M. Andrews allegeth, to wit, Non adoramus reliquias Martyrum &c. We do not adore the relics of Martyrs( that is to say, we do not give divine honor to the relics of Martyrs, committing Idolatry as Vigilantius chargeth us:) but, honoramus( saith he presently afterwards) reliquias Martyrum, vt eum cuius sunt Martyres adoremus &c. We honor the Religues of Martyrs, that we may adore( or yield divine honor to) him whose Martyres they are. Honoramus servos &c. We honour the seruants, to the end that their honor may redound to the honour of their Lord, who said, He which receiveth you receiveth me. Thus saith S. jerome; which M. Andrews thought good to dissemble, as if he had not seen it, for that it fully explicateth the state of the question betwixt S. jerome and Vigilantius( as also betwixt master Andrews and us) and cleareth all the matter. For who seeth not here that albeit S. jerome denieth the adoration of relics in the sense that Vigilantius objected it, as we also do( to wit as signifying a divine honour) yet he approveth and teacheth it in the sense of catholics, that is, as adoration signifieth a veneration and worship done to Saints, for the honour of God who is honoured and glorified thereby.  
25. To which purpose two things are to be noted in this matter, the one, that whereas Vigilantius chargeth the catholics to adore& kiss every where the relics of Martyrs, he shewed sufficiently, that the custom of the faithful was at that time to do corporal reverence thereto, not only by kissing them, but also by inclining or bowing the body, which the word adoration signifieth, and S. jerome denieth not, though he denieth the inference of Idolatry, that Vigilantius made thereon.  
26. The other is, that as Vigilantius did not herein reprove the particular custom of some particular men, but the pactice of whole Church at that time; so also S jerome did not impugn him only with private reasons and arguments of his own, but also with public examples, as of the public translation of the holy relics of S. Andrew, S. Luke, and S. Timothy ●o Constantinople by Constantine the Emperour, apud quas, saith he, daemons rugiunt &c. at which relics devils do roar, and the inhabitors and possessors of Vigilantius do confess that they kneel their presence. So he, And then produceth also another example that had passed not long before of a most solemn translation of the relics of Samuel the Prophet from judaea ●o Chalcedon in Thracia, which were sump●uously and triumphantly carried by bishops in a golden vessel, and met, received, and accompanied by the people of al ●he Churches by the way( in so much that ●here were, saith S. jerome, continual ●warmes of people even from Palestina to Chalcedon, sounding forth the praise of Christ with one voice all a long as they went:) whereupon he asketh Vigilantius, whether and took Arcadius the Emperour( who cau●ed this to be done) and all the Bishops which carried these relics, and all the mul●itude of people which accompanied them ●or sacrilegious persons and fools; and finally concludeth, deriding his folly, thus: Viz. ●aith he, adorabant Samuelem, non Christum, ●uius Samuel& Leuita& Propheta fuit. Belike ●hey adored Samuel,& not Christ, whose levite& Prophet Samuel was. This saith S. jerome, showing the absurdity of Vigilantius, who did ●hinke that Christ was not adored in al this, but only Samuel. Whereas all the reverence, honor, and adoration used by those Bishops, and people to the relics of Samuel, was indeed done to Christ, because( as S. jerome said before) juramentum hon●s redundat ad Dominum, The honor of the seruants redoundeth to their Lord.  
27. So that S. jerome doth not deny 〈◇〉 that holy relics may be adored in any other sense, then as M. Andrews( following his progenitor Vigilantius) will needs understand the word adoration, that is, for a divine Cult, and worship; in which sense neither S. jerome nor the Catholiks in his time, nor we now do use, or take it, when it is applied to holy things, but only for a devout& religious veneration, as S. Hirome himself doth also use it, not only in the place before cited by the cardinal( touching the adoration of the ashes of S John, and other Prophets) but also when he said of himself, Praesepe Domini& incunabulae adoraui. I adored the manger, and cra●le of Christ. And again expounding that verse of the psalm, adorate scabellum pedum eius, adore the footstool of his feet, he taketh the footstool to be the cross, giuing thereby to understand that the cross is to be adored. And therefore I leave it to thee, good Reader, to judge what a vain vaunt it was of M. Andrews to sa● v●on the former place of S. Hieroms, Tenetur his Cardinalis vt elabi non poffit: here the cardinal is taken, and held so fast, that he cannot slip away. Whereas you see, that the whole place and the circumstance, being laid down with the state of the question betwixt Vigilantius,& S. jerome( all which he craftily concealed) he is caught himself like a mouse in a trap, in such sort that he shall never be able to get out with his credit.  
28. Thus far I haue thought good to lay down the words of my adjoinder, because they be sufficient not only to answer my Lord of Winchester fully, and to discover his fraud in the lame allegation of S. Hieromes text, but also to decide the controversy betwixt the cardinal, and my Lord(& consequently betwixt M. Collins, and me) which is, What was the faith,& practise of the primitive Church touching the veneration of holy relics, which you see here testified to be the same that we catholics profess, and practise at this day, impugned then by the heretic Vigilantius in the same sort, and sense, that now it is impugned by my Lord of Winchester, M. Collins, and their fellow Protestants of this time, and then also defended by S. jerome in the same sense, and with the same terms, and circumstances, that we Catholiks defend it at this day. besides that, it is evident that S. jerome doth not defend here his own private opinion, but the public practise, and consequently the general faith of the whole Church( from whence the public, and universal practise proceeded) and this appeareth by the examples which he allegeth of the most solemn, sumptuous,& triumphant translation of the holy relics of S. Andrews, S. Luke, S. Tymothy,& Samuel the prophet with admirable celebrity, applause, and devotion of infinite numbers of people, singing continually praises to our saviour Christ all the way they went. This then being so, let us now see, what M. Collins saith to all this, and how he defendeth my Lord of Winchesters lame, and fraudulent allegation of Saint jerome objected to him by me in my adjoinder: you shall hear all he saith, even in his own words, and then judge of it as you shall see cause. Thus then he saith pag. 360. nu. 10.  
29. You brook not, that S. Hieroms adorare cineres Abdiae, in his epistle ad Marcellā, should be expounded by the same S. Hierom writing to Vigilantius, and that not paulò vigilantiùs, perhaps, by non adoramus; we worship not only not relics but neither Cherubim nor Seraphim nor any such like: yet if it be true, which wee are often taught by S. Augustine, that ecclesiastical writers are not so absolute in their writings, but that they may fall into error now and then, and be reformed by the Iudgment of after comers, much more may they be corrected by their own selves in other places, and their suddener, or less advised phrase of speech one while, be qualified, and tempered by their more deliberate resolution at another. As heer S. jerome. Thus saith M. Collins, with more which I will lay down, when I shall haue said some what to this.  
30. First, you see, that hitherto he doth not set down so much as one word of my text( neither doth he afterward)& the mention he maketh of it, is only this, that I brook not, that S. Hieromes adorare cineres Abdiae should be expounded by S. jerome, himself( writing against Vigilantius) by non adoramus. But I wonder where he findeth, or how he gathereth of my text, that I do not brook it, seeing that I had reason both to brook it, and to be glad of it, as of that which turneth to M. Collins his confusion, and to the clear proof of the catholic faith, touching holy relics. Secondly you see, he saith, that S. jerome wrote to Vigilantius, not paulò vigilantiùs perhaps, that is to say, not carefully and warily enough, whereby he contradicts not only my Lord of Winchester, but also himself; for my Lord appealeth specially to S. Hieroms non adoramus, written to Vigilantius to expound his adoramus written to Marcella, saying, as you haue heard before, that when S. jerome was to speak properly, to wit to Vigilanti●● who pressed him strictly, then he denieth the adoration of relics with non adoramus, we do not adore them. So as my Lord presumeth that there S. jerome wrote very warily, which also M. Collins himself affirmeth afterward expressly, saying thus of S. Hieromes writing first to Marcella, and after to Vigilantius.  
31. In the full source( saith he) of his rhetoric, and when he spake without an adversary, or to one that could understand him inoffensively,& with discretion sufficient, he speaks for adoring Abdias his ashes, that is, for the zealous resorting to the place of his burial( for that is all:) but where he speaks before his adversary, before Vigilantius, like the bide which sleeps with the throne at her breast, then more vigilantly, more accurately, and more circumspecth he denies it utterly, that they adore either relics, or things better then relics, even those for whose sake the relics are made much off. So he: affirming expressly that S. jerome to Vigilantius wrote more vigilantly, more accurately, and more circumspectly, whereas before he said, that he wrote to him perhaps not paulò vigilantiùs, not vigilantly, or warily enough: and though he say it with a ( perhaps) yet how it agreeth with that which now he affirmeth, I know not for my part, but I think that perhaps he was scarce awake when he wrote it.  
32. But then he goeth forward, and allegeth some part of S. Hieromes Text thus. There, error iuuenum, and culpa muliercularum non est imputanda religiosis hominibus; the error of young men, and the default of light giddy women is not to be imputed to religious persons. There paucorum culpa non praeiudicat religioni, the aberration of some few is no prejudice to religion. Lastly there, non adoramus &c. We worship neither relics, nor Martyrs, nor Angells, neither any name that is name either in this world, or in the world to come, but God only. Thus saith M. Collins, seeking notably to cousin, and guile the unwary Reader and to make him believe, that S. jerome not only renounceth the veneration of relics with his non adoaramus but also that he attributeth the same as a fault to a few young men and light giddy headed women, whose error should not be imputed to religious persons, or to Religion itself; wherein truly I cannot but admire, and detest the impudent falsity of this fellow.  
33. For he not only useth the same fraud that my Lord of Winchester did in the fraudulent, and lame allegation of S. Hieromes text, leaving out that which followeth, and clearly proveth the veneration of relics( as you haue seen in that which I haue alleged out of my adjoinder) but also he craftily dissembleth what the fault was, which Saint jerome blameth in these young men, and light giddy-headed women, to the end his Reader may conceive it to be the veneration ●f relics; whereas the fault was that some delicts of incontinency were committed by young men, and women in Churches in the night, whiles they watched at the tombs of Martyrs( as then the custom was) which custom Vigilantius impugned vpon pretence of that abuse, and S. jerome condemning the abuse, defended the custom, as not to be rejected for the fault of a few.  
34. And this also would haue been clear enough, if M. Collins had not curtalled S. Hieromes Text in two or three places, even in those few lines which he allegeth out of him. For S. jerome having first signified that Vigilantius carped at the said custom of night-watches in the Churches of Martyrs, saith thus after a while: Error autem& culpa &c. The error and fault of young men, and most base women, qui per noctem sape deprehenditur, which is often discovered in the night, is not to be imputed to religious men, Quia& in vigilijs Paschae tale quid fieri plerumque conuincitur, for it is manifest that some such thing is also committed in the vigils of the paschal Feast, and yet religion is not prejudiced by the fault of a few, qui& absque vigilijs possunt errare vel in suis, vel in alienis domibus, who without watching may offend also either in their own houses, or in other mens; Apostolorum fidem judae proditio non destruxit,& nostras ergo vigilias malae aliorum vigiliae non destruent. The treachery of Iudas did not destroy the faith of the Apostles, and therefore neither shall the evil watching of others destroy our watchings. Thus saith S. Hieromes with more that followeth to the same purpose, which I omit for breuityes sake, seeing that this may suffice to show M. Collins his fraud in nipping, and clipping off here, and there such pieces of S. Hieroms text, as do show the matter, whereof he treateth: and this no doubt he doth to the end, that the Reader may be the more easily deluded therwith, and imagine that the veneration of holy relics was the abuse which S. jerome blamed; whereas you see, he speaketh of a far different matter.  
35. And can there be a finer piece of cozenage then this? But all this while, you see nothing answered to all that ample discourse which I made in my adjoinder out of S. jerome, nothing I mean to the reason why S. jerome said to Vigilantius non adoramus, we do not adore the relics of Martyrs( to wit in the sense of Vigilantius who took adoration for divine honour) nothing to Saint Hieromes reason, why the holy relics of Martyrs are to be honoured, to wit, that we may adore, saith S. Hierom( that is to say yield divine honour to) him, whose Martyrs they are: we honour the seruants, saith he, that their honour may redound to the honour of their Lord. Nothing is said to the public practise of the Church expressly testified by S. jerome, with the examples of the most solemn, and sumptuous translation of the holy relics, first of S. Andrew, S. Luke,& S. Tymothy in the time of Constantine the first Christian Emperour,& after of Samuel the Prophet in S. Hieromes own time, with wonderful concourse and devotion of all sorts of Christian people; nothing to the testimony which S. jerome giveth that the devils( the inhabitors, saith he, and possessors of Vigilantius) did roar at the presence of those holy relics. To all this, I say, M. Collins obmutuit, for he saith not one word.  
36. Neither doth he seek to defend, and much less doth he clear my Lord of the double fraud, wherewith I charged his lordship; double I say, as well in changing the state of the question about the word adoration, as in the lame allegation of S. Hieromes Text, cutting it off there, where it would haue evidently convinced him, if he had alleged it. And it is no marvel, though he laboureth not to clear my Lord of that crime, seeing he falleth into it himself, alleging the same words that my Lord did, with the same fraud, as if I had not discovered it in my Lord, and charged his Lordship directly with it. Can there be greater falsity,& impudence then this?  
37. nevertheless, that you may see, how narrowly he hath pried into my discourse vpon S. jerome, to the end, to take some advantage, if he could. You shall understand that for lack of better matter he taketh exception to my translation of two or three words, saying to me thus pag. 361. num. 11. here also we haue another cast of your sweet latinity num. 22. Ais, Vigilantius &c. which breaking off, you construe thus: You say that Vigilantius, how fitly for Grammar let the Grammarians judge. So he. But is it possible, that he could see these two or three words to cavil vpon, and not see himself, and my Lord notably taxed by S. jerome( together with Vigilantius their progenitor) in that which followeth immediately, and maketh up the sense of my words?  
38. For whereas my Lord had objected to me S. Hieromes non adoramus &c. and I had signified in my adjoinder, that S. jerome spake there of adoration, as it signifieth divine honour, according to the sense, and meaning of his adversary Vigilantius( who held the adoration of relics for Idolatry) my adjoinder hath S. Hieromes words to Riparius, thus: Ais, saith S. jerome, Vigilantius &c. you say, that Vigilantius openeth again his stinking mouth, and casteth forth a most filthy savour against the relics of holy Martyrs, and calleth us who reverence them, and worship the bones of the dead, Cinerarios,& Idololatras, worshippers of ashes, and Idolaters. Thus far I alleged S. jerome, wherein you see what languague he would use to M. Collins, if he were now living.  
39. But first to speak a word or two of his exception to my translation, as not fit for grammar; it is evident that if he saw the text in S. jerome( as I doubt not but he did) he could not but see the error to be in the print, and not in my translation, which is very literal, according to the true words and text of S. jerome, whose latin is this, Ais, Vigilantium as foetidum rursum aperire &c. which I translate in my Adioyder thus, you lay that Vigilantius openeth again his stinking mouth &c. by which ●ranslation of mine( being most proper) and according to the very letter of S. jerome, any man may easily see, that the text in my adjoinder( having Vigilantius and not Vigilantium) is erroneous, by the negligence of the Printer, for otherwise the fault would haue been in my English translation, as well as in my Latin text; and therefore M. Collins sheweth himself no less impertinent then malicious to take exception to my Latinity for this; but of his translations, and latinity, I shall haue occasion to speak else where, and make no doubt to prove him to be most ridiculous for both.  
40. But that which I wish to be noted here is, that his diligence to search out,& to take hold of such trifles as this doth comdemne him of wilful malice in balking such an evident testimony of the catholic truth as heer he saw, and dissembleth, excolans culicem,& camelum glutiens( as our saviour said of the Pharisees Matth. 23.) straining a Gnat, and swallowing up a Camel. For in this very place which he calleth in question for my translation, he saw three things, which sufficed to confounded both my Lord and him. The first, that he and his fellows( who charge us with Idolatry for the veneration of holy relics) are the true brood of Vigilantius the heretic. The second, that as often, as they inveigh against holy relics, they open their stinking mouths,& cast forth a filthy savour in the opinion of S. jerome. The third, that S. jerome meant by his, non adoramus reliquias Martyrum, only to clear the catholics of that time of the imputation of Idolatry;& therefore he denieth that the catholics did adore them with divine honour, but denieth not the worship and veneration, which the Church useth, and he expressly acknowledgeth presently after, as I haue amply declared before,& M. Collins himself confesseth it a little after in the same Paragraph though very absurdly saying thus: S. jerome expounds his adorare, in one place by non adorare, said honorare in another; when the passion was cooled,& the iudgment awaked. Non colimus& adoramus, said honoramus &c. lib. 1. cont. Vigil. Thus saith he. Giuing to understand, that when S. jerome wrote to Marcella, and used the word adorare, he was in heat of passion, and his iudgment was a sleep; but when he wrote against Vigilantius, his passion was cooled, and his iudgment awaked,& that therefore he tempered it with a more moderate word, to wit, honorare.  
41 hereupon it may be gathered, that in the opinion of M. Collins, S. jerome being in the heat of his passion, when he wrote to Marcella, used adorare to signify divine worship; and so when he invited her to adore the ashes of S. John Baptist, Elizaeus,& Abdias, he would haue her to commit flat Idolatry; else why was he more in passion, when he wrote to her, then when he wrote against Vigilantius? For if he understood no more by adorare, writing to Marcella, but honorare( as M. Collins saith he expounds it in his book against Vigilantius) wherein did then consist the heat of his passion? Perhaps M. Collins will say, that it consisted in that he applied adorare to creatures, which is due only to the creator, but if he say so, what will he say of S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and other Fathers, yea and of the penners of holy Scriptures themselves, who apply it very often to the worship of creatures, as I haue amply shewed in my adjoinder.  
42. Besides that M. Collins himself granteth pag. 369. lin. 18. that S. Augustine acknowledgeth in his tenth book de ciuitat● Dei cap. 1. that not only Adoratio, but Religio, and Pietas are words equivocal, or of diuers significations; and he saith also a little before in the same Paragraph, that adorare is transferred to men whom we adore civilly; yea he confesseth afterwards pag. 372. num. 15. and pag. 373. lin 4. that the cross may be adored in Kings civilly, because S. Ambrose saith that Helē did wisely to cause the nail of Christs cross to be set in the diadem of the Emperour Constantine her son, vt crux Christi adoretur in Regibus, that the cross of Christ may be adored in kings; and finally he granteth that S. Augustine applieth the word adorare to the sacrament of baptism, and Circumcision, saying to Faustus the Manichee, adoratur in gestante, it is adored in the bearer.  
43. Now then, I would gladly know of M. Collins, why S. jerome is to be thought more passsionate, or less judicious in applying adorare to the worship of creatures then S. Ambrose in applying it to the cross, and S. Augustine to Ba●tisme, or Circumcision; yea, or master Collins himself, who granteth it to be applied to the worship of men; for if it signify only divine worship, then they were as much overseen as S. jerome; and if it signify also an inferior honour( which may be more or less according to the different objects) then truly S. jerome had as good a warrant to use it in that sense as any other; so as M. Collins hath shewed himself no less simplo then saucy, to censure so deeply this learned, and holy Father for using a word in a sense no less frequent in holy Scripture, then in the ancient Fathers.  
44. Much more modestly( though absurdly) did my Lord answer this place of S. jerome, saying that he used adorare( not properly but) figuratively, and namely by the figure called Catachresis, which I confuted amply in my adjoinder, by the iudgment of Quintilian, and Isidore, who teach that Catachresis doth import the abuse of a metaphor, when there wanteth a proper word, which cannot be said in this case; for honorare and venerari might haue expressed S. Hieromes meaning, much better then adorare, if it did properly signify nothing but to yield divine honour.  
45. And now to the end you may see what a good grammarian M. Collins is, who often carpeth at my little skill it grammar( though hitherto little to his credit) you shall understand that he answereth to this, pag● 362. lin. 8. that the Grammarians will te●● me, that there is a Catachresis in the verb sperare, in this verse of Virgil; Hunc ego si pot●● tantum sperare dolorem, albeit there want no words to supply the sense of it, as timere prouidere, metuere &c. So saith he.  
46. But if it please him to take the pains to turn his Dictionaryes, he shall find that sperare doth not signify only to hope, but also to fear; and therefore Virgil useth it in that sense else where, as sperare Deos, to fear the Gods; and Terence also hath it in the same sense as in Andria Act. 2. Sce●. 3. Quod tu spears propulsabo facile, I will easily deliver thee from that fear; nevertheless I will not deny but that it doth signify more commonly and properly to hope, then to fear; and therfore Seruius in his Comment vpon that verse of Virgil, saith sperare dolorem pro timere, is a figure called Acyrologia, that is to say, an unproper speech, which Quintilian lib. 8. cap. 2. confirmeth saying: Id quod apud 〈◇〉 improprium, {αβγδ} apud graecoes vocatur, tha● which with us is called unproper, is among the Greekes called {αβγδ}; and this he exemplifyeth with those words of Virgil, Tantum sperare dolorem; and presently after distinguisheth the same expressly from Catachresis, signifying that every thing which is not proper, is not presently to be counted viciously unproper, because many things haue no names, either in Greek or latin,& therfore, saith he, Catachresis is necessary, giuing to understand, that it is necessary for ●uch things as haue no proper names.  
47. To Quintilian, and Seruius may be added Despauterius de figuris, Calepine,& Thesaurus Linguae latinae, in the word Acyrologia, who do al of thē city those words of Virgil for an example of the figure Acyrologia, besides that, not only they, but also Donatus,& Festus do expressly require to Catachresis, that the thing expressed by that figure, should want a proper name; so that it shalbe well that M. Collins do, for his own credit, name unto us those Grammarians, who, he saith, will tel me that there is a Catachresis in sperare; seing I haue told him, in the mean time, of so many of principal note, who find in it another figure, viz. Acyrologia, and do confirm that which I said in my adjoinder of Catachresis, to wit, that the want of a pro●per word or name is necessary thereto; so as M Collins hath now utterly lost the reputation of a grammarian( wherein he is wont to glory exceedingly, as you may haue seen, by his frequent recourse to Grammar and Grammarians) and therfore I cannot but wonder how such an ignorant fellow as he, got to be master of the Chief chair in Cambridge, seeing he is not fit to be so much as usher of a Grammar school, having learned no better his Tropes, and Figures, which every boy( at least in these parts) that is past his rhetoric, understandeth better then he.   

A serious discourse of M. Collins against the veneration, reservation, digging up and carrying about of holy relics is thoroughly examined, and his incredible impudence, fraud,& falsehood therein discovered by the manifest abuse of S. Ambrose, Sozomen, Theodoret, S. Chrysostome, Optatus, S. Gregory the Great, S. Gregory of Towers, Origen, Victor uticensis, and S. jerome. CHAP. XI.  
THERE followeth in M. Collins a large discourse, and truly a strange one, partly against the digging up, and keeping of relics, and partly against the translation and circumgestation of them( to use his own terms) but so fraught with falsity,& folly, as I know not whether of the two doth more abound therein; and therfore for as much as I make no doubt, but that he hath pleased himself exceedingly in it, and beaten his brains well fauouredly about it, in hope to crush our Cause, and to stop our mouths eternally for the matter of relics, I will take a little pains to examine it throughout, and answer it as briefly as conveniently I may, not doubting but to stop his mouth, and, besides the discovery of his fraudes( which is my principal intention) to haue sufficient occasion to prove,& confirm the verity of our catholic doctrine concerning this controversy.  
1. Well then he allegeth 2. places out of S. Ambrose, the first is lib. 1. de Abraham cap. 9. where he byds us, saith M. Collins, non diutiùs inhaerere mortuis, but only, officij quantum sat est defer, that is, in effect to bury the departed, but not to dwell long vpon dead corses: which how can it stand with preserving of relics, I say not, honouring, observing& worshipping them? So he; as wisely as he is wont. For whereas S. Ambrose saith that we must not dwell over long vpon dead bodies, it is to be understood, that he saith it vpon the occasion of Abrahans moderate lamentation for the death of his wife Sara insinuated in the 23. Chapter of Genesis, which therfore he proposeth for an example to Christians, exhorting them to use moderation, as well in their mourning, and lamentation for the dead, as also for the time that they bestow therein, because no doubt, he had noted in his dayes some great cxcesse in both, as yet also may be observed in some Countreys far more then in ours. But what is this to the keeping, or worshipping of relics, except M. Collins can prove quidlibet ex quolibet? Besides that, he●seth here a notable fraud very ordinary with him, and his fellowes, to wit, to change the state of the question, from Saints to ordinary dead men, of whom we do not now treat, as shal be further declared after a while.  
2. His second place of S. Ambrose is taken out of his second book of Offices cap. 28. where he saith thus: Nemo potest indignari, quia humandis fidelium reliquijs spatia laxata sunt: nemo potest dolere, quia in sepulturis Christianorum requies desunctorum est. No man can grudge that the ground should be enlarged for the burial of the bodies of the faithful deceased: no man can be sorry, that the rest or repose of the dead is in the burial or graues of the Christians. Thus saith S. Ambrose: whereupon M. Collins asketh this question. Is this man likely, saith he, to countenance relics or the worshipping thereof? Yes truly M. Collins, the man is so likely to do it, and doth it indeed so fully( which you shall see after a while) that you may be ashamed to demand this, especially vpon no better ground then vpon this place here alleged, which might indeed prove somewhat against such as would deny that Christians ought to be buried, or affirm, that is it not a work of mercy to bury the dead, and to provide Church-yards, or convenient places for it: but against the worshipping, or preserving of the relics of Martyrs or Saints, S. Ambrose in this place saith nothing at all, for that he speaketh not of such dead men, but only of the dead bodies of ordinary Christians, amongst whom very many die without all opinion of sanctity, and many with doubt whether they be saved or no,& many others, though in respect of their known virtue they may haue a great opinion of holiness, yet because the Church hath not given any public approbation thereof, either by their Canonization, or otherways, they are not reputed, nor ranked among the Saints whose relics are are reserved or honoured, but amongst the rest of the faithful deceased; whereas the known, and canonised Saints are not reckoned amongst the dead, but amongst the everliving.  
3. For this cause the Church doth celebrate the feasts of the Martyrs,& Saints with the title of Natalis, or Natalitium, their birth day, although it be indeed the day of their martyrdom, or death, as it is evident not only in the public office,& service of the Church, but also in the homilies, and Sermons of the ancient Fathers made in the said feasts, and therfore( to omit others) S. Ambrose( of whom we now specially treat) beginneth his Sermon in the feast of the Apostles S. Peter,& S. Paul thus: Natalem beatissimorum Apostolorum Petri& Pauli hody celebramus &c. This day we celebrate the birth-day of the most blessed Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul.  
4. The like he saith of the feasts of the Saints Cantius and Cantionilla, and diuers others. Whereof he yieldeth the reason, in his foresaid Sermon of S. Peter, and S. Paul saying: Non enim mortui sunt &c. For they are not dead, whose birth we celebrate this day, but being born again, they live with bread, because they are made partakers of Christ, who is the bread of life to all; for although their bodies were slain by their passion( or suffering) yet the order of the living is not interrupted thereby; therefore it is not to be called a death, by the means whereof we are free from persecutors, and united with Christ for ever &c. Thus saith S. Amboose, whereby M. Collins may see, that when he speaketh in general terms of the buryalls, and graues, or of the bodies of the dead, he doth not comprehend the sacred tombs, shrynes, or holy bodies, and relics of the everliving martyrs, and Saints of God, whose neuer-dying memories the Church doth celebrate.  
5. And therefore now to answer to his question propounded before( as you haue heard) whether this man( he meaneth S. Ambrose) was likely to countenance relics, or the worshipping thereof? I must needs say, that if he be not ignorant above measure, he cannot be excused from exorbitant malice, in making a question of that whereof no man can doubt that is conversant in S. Ambrose, or S. Augustine, and much less a Doctor,& public Reader of divinity; for who knoweth not, if he haue red either of those Fathers, that S. Ambrose did not only countenance, but also reverence, and worship holy relics, seeing that the holy bodies of diuers Saints, to wit, SS. Geruasius and Protasius, SS. Nazarius& Celsus, SS. Vitalis& Agricola, were at three several times found out by S. Ambrose( according to the revelation which he had from Almighty God) and by him translated, and honoured with great pomp, and solemnity; which also Almighty God approved and authorised with manifest miracles, as S. Augustine witnesseth concerning the SS. Geruasius and Protasius, in two of his best known, and most undoubted works, to wit, in his Confessions lib. 9. cap. 7. and in his 22. book de civitate Dei cap. 8.( which latter my Lord of Winchester calleth opus palmare Augustini, the principal, or most excellent work of Augustine) in both which, this holy Father affirmeth, that a blind man was restored to his sight at the translation of the bodies of SS. Geruasius and Protasius, whiles he himself was at Millan.  
6. And this miracle he saith was done when the Emperour was there, & immenso populo teste, and an infinite number of people being witnesses of it:& in his Confessions he addeth, that the blind man having touched the Coffin with a handkercheffe and applied it to his eyes, was presently cured: and saith further, that those who were vexed with vnclean spirits were disposessed, cum propalata& effossa, digno cum honore ad Ambrosianam Basilicā transferrentur, when the bodies being discovered,& digged up, were translated to Ambrose his Church, with worthy, or convenient honour.  
7. lo then how these holy bodies, and relics of the Saints were by the authority of S. Ambrose digged up, and translated with worthy honour from one Church to another, according to the irrefragable testimony of S. Augustine, who was an eye-witnesse of it; whereof also S. Ambrose himself relateth the history very particularly as well in an epistle to his Sister Marcellina, as also in another to all the Priestes and clergy of Italy, wherein he declareth the manner how it was revealed unto him,& that the Coffin wherein the holy bodies were, lay twelve foot dee● in the ground, that he assembled many Bishops, and the whose Clerg●, and that he himself was the first digger of the ground, to find them( primus ego, saith he, terrae fossor accessi)& that afterwards all the Bishops digged with him, and finally that they found the coffin and the saints bodies therein, as fresh as if they had been newly put into it, & mir●●dore fragrantes, and breathing forth a marvelous sweet odour. Thus saith S. Ambrose, who now you see, is become a digger up of relics, notwithstanding that M. Collinss would persuade us, that he would haue them confined to the perpetual obscurity of sepulchres, and Graues, when he said, that in sepulturis Christianorum est requies defunctorum, in the burial of Christians, is the repose of the dead.  
8. But will you see what S. Ambrose saith further concerning those holy Body●s in his Sermon made to the people at the finding thereof? This may be seen in his Epistle 54. to his Sister Marcellina, wherein he declareth, that he told the people(& for the proof of it, appealed to their own knowledge& eye-sight) that divels were expelled out of many possessed persons, that many diseased were cured of their infirmities, that some were healed with a certain shadow of the holy bodies; that the handkercheifes, and garments, which were cast vpon the most sacred relics became tactu ipso medicabilia, medicinal even by touching them, and that therfore all men were desirous, and glad to touch them, & qui contigerit, saluus erit, and he that shal touch them shal be safe or cured. Thus doth S. Ambrose testify, what great benefits Almighty God bestowed vpon those, that honoured his Saints, and their relics, or rather him in them.  
9. And so far was S. Ambrose from desiring that the holy relics of those Saints should be hide again, and buried in oblivion( after they were found) that he distributed some parts of thē to his friends far and near, whereby many Churches were built in honour of them, not only in Rome, and diuers places of Italy, but also in France, Germany, and Africke, as may be seen in Baronius Tom. 4. Ann. an. 387. And now to show further how much S. Ambrose reverenced, and honoured holy relics, and for what reason, I will lay down his own words in his 14. sermon of the two holy Martyrs SS. Nazarius& Celsus, where speaking of the great worthiness of their relics, he saith thus.  
10. Quod si dicas mihi quid honores &c. If you say unto me what dost thou honour in flesh now already dissolved and consumed, whereof God hath no care, then where is that, my dearly beloved, which truth itself spake by the Prophet: pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors Sanctorum eius, the death of Gods Saints is precious in his sight? And again: mihi autem nimis honorificandi sunt amici tui Deus. O God, thy friends are to be honoured of me exceeding much. We ought to honour Gods seruants of whom it is said in another place, Dominus custodit omnia ossa eorum,& vnum ex his non conteretur: our Lord preserveth all their bones, and one of them shall not be consumed, or perish. I honour therefore in the Martyrs flesh the scars or marks of the wounds received for the name of Christ. I honour the memory of him that liveth with the perpetuity of virtue. I honour the ashes that are consecrated by the confession of the name of Christ. I honour that body, which hath shewed me how to love my Lord,& hath taught me not to fear death for his sake. And why should not the faithful honor that body which the devils do also reverence; and albeit they afflicted it in punishing it; yet they do now glorify it in the sepulchre. Therefore I honour that body which Christ hath honoured by the sword, and which shall reign with Christ in heaven.  
11. Thus far I haue thought good to lay down S. Ambrose his own words, to persuade M. Collins, if it may be, that this man( as he calleth him) is not only likely to countenance relics, and the worshipping of them, but that he also performed it indeed, yea and with great reason, as you haue seen by this his own pious,& very elegant discourse: how then can M. Collins red this without blushing? Or henceforth look any man in face, who he may think hath red it,& seen withall what he hath written here; seeing that it is evident hereby, and by the premises, that he maketh no conscience or scruple at all to delude, and deceive his Reader, with a vain show, and ostentation of the authority of Fathers, when they are flatly against him, as here you see, he allegeth against holy relics some patches, pieces, and scraps, as I may say, of S. Ambrose, nothing at all to the purpose, when nevertheless he knoweth in his own conscience, that the said holy Father doth both in deeds and doctrine, utterly condemn him; besides that I may note heer the same fraud that he used in the former place, to wit, his changing the state of the question from Saints to ordinary dead men, which are of far different condition, and do therefore require, and admit far different considerations.  
12. And now albeit I hast to make an end,& am looth to detain myself vpon trifles, yet I cannot omit to say somewhat to a parenthesis of his, in the allegation of the aforesaid place of S. Ambrose, to wit: Nemo potest indignari humandis fidelium reliquijs, spatia esse laxata, which he translateth thus: It is no fault, nor thing to be grudged at( unless then by the Arians, who carpt at S. Ambrose without cause, and so now by the jesuits) that the ground is enlarged to bury the remnants of the faithful bodies massacred. So he, giuing to understand, by his Parenthesis, that the jesuits carp at S. Ambrose now without cause, as the Arians did then; but wherein trow you, do the jesuits now, or ever carp at S. Ambrose? truly I think that no man but M. Collins ever hard, or imagined any such matter.  
13. The Arians carped at him( as he signifieth himself in his 2. book of offices cap. 28.) not because he enlarged Church shepherds, but because he broke the Chalices, and silver vessels of the Church for the redemption of captives, by the occasion whereof he giveth 3. instances, when,& in what cases the sacred vessells of the Church may be alienated; to wit, for the redemption of captives, for the relief of the poor, and for the enlarging of places to bury the dead when need requireth it. But I hope M. Collins will not be so shameless to say, that the jesuits ever carped at S. Ambrose for any of those things; then let him tell us for what else, which I am sure he shall never be able to do; and therefore you see, how idly he tatleth, either not knowing, or not caring, what he saith▪ so that he say some what to make up his muck-heape of absurdities, fraudes, and fooleries, and by the way to spit out now and then some part of his spite against the jesuits.  
14. But now let us proceed: he goeth forward in the same vein, adding examples to the authorities of S. Ambrose, to prove that the translation and circumgestation of relics is alltogeather unlawful. His first is out of Sozomen. lib. 4. cap. 20. where speaking of an intent that Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople had to remove the body of Constantine the Great, out of a Church in Constantinople( where it was first interred) he saith that the orthodox,& godly Christians opposed themselves thereto, holding it for no less a sacrilege to translate dead bodies, then to break open tombs violently or feloniously: whereupon M. Collins saith. And do not these( orthodox Christians) comdemne the use of relics, which in you is accompanied with translation, with circumgestation, and such like pomps? So he, as well to the purpose, as before when he alleged the two places of S. Ambrose; for here he changeth the state of the question, no less then there, from a matter of religion, to a mere civil matter.  
15. This willbe evident by the Circumstances of the history, concealed by M. Collins, though they be set down by Sozomen himself, whom he citeth. Thus then it passed. Macedonius the heretical Bishop of Constantinople, beying resolved to translate the body of constantine the great, from the Church where it was buried( because he thought it was like to fall) was resisted by the people, who nevertheless were divided in opinion concerning the same; for some of them held it for impyety to translate the body, no less then if it should be digged up again; and others thought it not to be a matter of any moment, because( as Socrates saith, lib. 2. cap. 30.) it seemed to them, that a dead body could receive no hurt thereby. The Catholiks also( saith the history) resisted with common consent, because they held it for an injury, and dishonour to the Emperour constantine, who had been of their communion, that is to say a catholic, as they were, besides other Considerations, which shalbe declared after a while. nevertheless Macedonius removed the body, though with great bloodshed, and slaughter of people, that resisted him; whereupon the Emperour Constantius( who before favoured Macedonius very much) was much alienated from him, for the outrage committed in the slaughter of so many, slain by that occasion, and for the dishonour, and injury done to his Father; and lastly because it was done without his consent. This is the substance of the history, wherein you see, there is nothing at all that maketh against the translation of Saints bodies.  
16. First, because the motive which moved Macedonius to translate Constantynes body, was not any respect of holynes therein, or to honor God in his seruants, or for any other religious consideration, but for a mere civil, or temporal respect, to wit, because the Church wherein he was buried, was( as it seemed to Macedonius) in danger to fall, albeit there was no such present danger, as experience shewed, for the Church stood still on foot, and was repaired a hundred yeares after by justinian the Emperour.  
17. Seconly, the motyues, which moved the Catholiks to resist the translation, might be diuers, whereof one might well be, that they saw no such danger that the Church would full as Macedonius pretended; another cause undoubtedly was, the great aversion that they had from the wicked heretic Macedonius their capital enemy& persecutor, in which respect they were easily induced to adhere to those that withstood him in that action; and the third motive is declared in the history, to wit, because they held it for a great injury to the worthy Emperour deceased.  
18. Hereof two reasons may be yielded, the one because Macedonius being a pernitions heretic, was not of Constantines communion, but sought by that translation of his body, to persuade the world that Constantine was of his sect, which no doubt was most injurious, not only to the memory of that catholic Emperour, but also to all catholics who were of his Communion; the other reason was because constantine had built that Church most sumptuosly in honour of all the Apostles, with intention to be buried there, to which end, he caused also some of the Apostles relics to be brought thither, as Socrates witnesseth lib. 1. cap. 26. whereof he yieldeth this reason( which I desire M. Collins to note by the way) least and ( saith Socrates) and other Emperours his successors should be destituted of the Apostles relics: therefore I say, the catholics had great reason to take it for an indignity, and great injury to that pious Emperour, that his body should be removed by an heretic, from such a famous Church built by himself for his own burial, in honour of the Apostles, and enriched with their relics, to a Church of far less note, as that was, whither Macedonius translated it, being dedicated only to S. Acacius the martyr.  
19. Furthermore, if Macedonius had meant to haue translated the body of Constantine in quality of a Saints body, with such religious devotion, and solemnity as is usual, and requisite in such translations: neither the catholics, nor yet Constantius the Emperour either would or could haue taken it for an injury to Constantine, who should haue received more true honour thereby, then ever he did by his triumphs, or trophies, or any other secular honour that was ever done unto him, whiles he lived; so as you see, this case of the removal of Constantines body, for mere temporal respects, is far different from ours, which admitteth only religious Consideraions, as well for the motyues, as for the manner and execution of it, all to be intended,& performed with reverence, and devotion to the greater honour of God, and his Saints. And therefore M. Collins still shooteth wide of the mark, and is here as well beside the Cushion, as beside the question; let us then see how he goeth on, which I beseech thee( good reader) well to note, and thou shalt see him play his part kindly, I mean of a notable cozening, and cogging companion.  
20. Thus then he saith. When Babylas his body was translated from Daphne to Antioch by Iulians appointment, and the divels instigation( not by any seeking of the Christian people) they cried that accompanied it all the way as they went: confundantur omnes qui adorant sculptilia; confounded be all they that worship carved images. Doth this please you? Thus saith he. To whom I answer, that truly it doth both please me,& displease me: it pleaseth me, and that very much, that this example of the translation of S. Babylas being truly related, will notably confirm the translation and veneration of holy relics, whereby M. Collins himself may be confounded, no less then they that worship carved Images. again it displeaseth me exceedingly, that any Christian man( especially one that taketh vpon him to be a Doctor, Teacher,& Preacher in Gods Church for the salvation of souls) is so impudently wicked as to pervert all kind of Authors, histories, and examples to the destruction of such simplo souls, as will bel●eue him, whereof you haue had sufficient experience already in M. Collins, and shall haue now further, not only in this example, but also in three, or four others which follow in him immediately, concerning this question of holy relics.  
21. Three things you see he seemeth to urge against us in this example: the first that S. Babylas his body was translated by the appointment of julian the Apostata; the second, that it was done by the divels instigation( and not by any seeking of the Christians;) the third, that they which did accompany it, cried all the way as they went, Confounded be all they that worship carved Images. By the two first he would haue his Reader to conceive, that the good Christians of those dayes, did not seek to translate the bodyrs of Saints, but that the divell suggested it,& julian the wicked Apostata caused it to be performed;& by the third he thinketh that he hath given a great blow to our worshipping of holy Images.  
22. Now then to discover his treacherous falsehood in these three points, it is to be understood, that this S. Babylas, being a very holy man, and Bishop of Antioch was martyred in the time of Decius the Emperour, and that being buried in that city, his body was held in great veneration there amongst the Christians, until the time of Constantine the Emperour, when Gallus his sisters son, and brother to julian the Apostata, being declared Caesar, and governor of all the ●ast parts, translated it into Daphne near unto Antioch, vpon this occasion.  
23. There had been in Daphne in ancient time a famous temple, and Oracle of Apollo, whereto there was continually great confluence of people, especially of young men and women, in respect of the pleasant situation of the place, which gave occasion at the first to the poetical fable, that Daphne was there turned into a Bay-tree, flying away from Apollo, who was enamoured of her; for which cause also the superstitious Pagans thought that Apollo made special choice of that place for his Temple, and Oracle, by the which the divell deluded the people for many ages; and for as much as that place, was as it were a nursery, not only of abominable superstitions( by reason of the Oracle) but also of all intemperance, incontinence, and riot( by reason of the deliciousnes of the place) Gallus being a very good Christian,& a pious Prince built a Church there for the Christians, and translated thither the holy relics of S. Babylas, hoping by that means to purge the place in time, as well of the Idolatry, as also of the 'vice,& wickedness that was continually exercised there; and therefore I must now here by the way desire M. Collins to note that the relics of S. Babylas were translated first by Gallus out of Antioch to Daphne, not by the devils instigation, nor by an Apostata, or wicked prince but by a virtuous Prince and a pious Christian, who was moved thereto by the inspiration of the holy Ghost, 
{αβγδ}( Imperatori) {αβγδ}. Ex edi. Sauelliana.  Deo ipsius animum ad id impellente( saith S. Chrysostome lib. contra Gentiles) God moving his mind thereto, for the confusion of the divell, as it appeared evidently by the event, which was this.  
24. The holy body was no sooner placed in Daphne, but it strocke the divell dumb, which not only Theodoret( whom M. Collins allegeth in his margin, and seemeth to follow for this story) but also al other Historiographers do affirm with vnanime consent, yea and S. Chrysostome, who lived at the same time, doth testify in his said book against the gentiles, in these words: Illi as ita obstruxit, vt vel lapidibus ipsis magis mutus redderetur; he( to wit, S. Babylas) did so stop the devils mouth, that he became more dumb then the very stones:& then after a few words he addeth: He which was wont to deceive all men every where, could not endure to see the very ashes of Babylas being dead, Ea enim est Sanctorum potestas &c. for such is the power of Saints, that devils cannot endure their shadows, or clothes whiles they live, and do fear their tombs when they are dead; therfore if there be any man that doth not believe those things which are said to haue been done by the Apostles, let him but consider the miracles done at this memory( that is to say, at the relics of this holy Martyr) and let him be no longer impudent; for he which in times past did triumph over all the Gentills being now rebuked( or checked) by the Martyr, as by his master, was silent, and barked no more. Thus saith S. Chrysostome. Now doth this please you M. Collins? Do you like it that God moved Gallus to translate these relics, and that they were of such force to strike the divell dumb? Doth it please you, that the divell, and you are proved here to be of one humour, seeing that neither of you both can abide holy relics? But let us hear the rest.  
25. After this both Gallus and Constantius being dead, and julian the wicked Apostata in possession of the whole Empire, it chanced, that he being determined to make war against the Persians, came to Daphne to consult with his God Apollo, touching the issue and success of the war, but having given many donatives, and multiplied sacrifice vpon sacrifice, he could get no other answer, but that there were many dead bodies there about; which must be removed before he could answer him, this was presently understood as well by julian himself, as by Apolloes Priests, that it concerned only the body of S. Babylas; w●ereupon he gave present order, that the Galileans( for so he called the Christians) should remove his body to some other place whither they would, which being understood, a great multitude of men, and women, old and young flocked thither from Antioch,& placing the holy body in a chariot, carried and accompanied it to Antioch with exceeding great ioy and exultation, leaping, dancing, and singing of the psalms of david,& often repeating this verse: Consundantur omnes qui adorant sculptilia, confounded be they which adore graven Images, meaning julian and his Paynims, who committed Idolatry to the Statua, or Image of Apollo, and other false Gods, adoring them with divine honour.  
26. And that this only was their meaning, it is evident by all the Historiographers,& therfore Theodoret( whom M. Collins citeth) having said that the people continually repeated that verse, addeth: Nam Martyris translatione Diabolum victum existimarunt, for they thought that the devil was overcome by the translation of the Martyrs. Socrates saith lib. 3. cap. 16. that, Psalmi quos cecinere, reprehensionem Deorum Gentilium,& eorum qui in idola credebant, complexi sunt, the psalms which they song did contain the reprehension of the Gods of the gentiles,& of those who believed in Idols. Ruffinus, who lived at the same time, witnesseth the same lib. 2. c. 35. saying that all the Church of Antioch did sing that verse in auribus prophani Principis, in the ears of that profane Prince, for six miles together, with such exultation that the heauens did ring with the noise, and that julian was so extremely offended therwith, that he caused many of the Christians to be apprehended, imprisoned, and tormented.  
27. And amongst the rest, there was one Theodorus a young man, who being found to be one of the ring-leaders of that holy, and devout dance, was tormented a whole forenoon, with so great cruelty, and variety of torments, that Nulla aetas( saith Ruffinus ibid. cap. 36.) simile factum meminerit, no age hath made mention of the like. nevertheless God did so miraculously preserve,& assist him in his torments, that he continually song most cheerfully the same verse, which he song the day before, wherewith the tormentors were so astonished that they set him free; and afterwards he told Ruffinus and others, that he was all the while comforted by a young man, who stood by him continually, and wiped the sweat from him with a towel, and refreshed him with could water, which seemed so delectable unto him, that he was sorry when he was loosed from the rack. And thus did Almighty God approve al the honour that was don to his Martyrs relics by a most manifest miracle, testified by as many as writ this story.  
28. By all this then it appeareth: first that the Emperour Gallus translated the holy relics of this holy Martyr Babylas from Antioch to Daphne, Deo, saith S. Chrysostome, ad id animum ipsius impellente, God moving his mind unto it. whereby M. Collins may see that it is no devilish, or evil work to translate relics, as he would haue his Reader suppose.  
29. Secondly that the divell incited julian to remove again those holy relics to his own confusion, because he acknowledged thereby, that he was vanquished by them: whereby M. Collins may also see, how true it is which S. Chrysostome saith, viz. that the devils fear the shadow of a Saint whiles he liveth, and his ashes when he is dead.  
30. Thirdly, that the verse of the psalm, which the people song, to wit, Confundantur omnes qui adorant sculptilia, did no way concern the worship, and veneration of holy Images, but the adoration of Idols, to the confusion, not only of julian, and the Gentills, but also of the divell, and M. Collins: for as that verse triumphantly song in the translation of the Martyrs relics did then confounded the divell, and his instruments( julian, and the Gentills;) so also the history of it alleged by M. Collins, doth now confounded the divell and him, who by the divels instigation, is no less enemy to holy relics, then julian, and the Gentills were.  
31. Fourthly, that Almighty God shewed evidently by the miraculous constancy and patience of Theodorus, that all this honour done to the holy Martyr, and to his relics in the translation of them, was most grateful to his divin majesty,& that therefore it is most true, which you haue heard before out of S. jerome, Honor juramentum redundat ad Dominum, the honour done to the seruants redoundeth to their Lord.  
32. Lastly, it appeareth that M. Collins hath most shamefully abused, and perverted this history, urging it so mangled and maimed, as you haue seen against the translation, and worship of relics; whereas being wholly, and truly related, it doth notably confirm the same. judge then good Reader, what consciene, and honesty there is in this man.  
33. And that the same may yet more manifestly appear, I cannot omit to observe by the way, how he seeketh to delude his Reader with the quotation of S. Chrysostome for this history of S. Babylas, as if that holy Father had applied it, as he( I mean M. Collins) doth against the use of translation or veneration of holy relics; whereas he r●counteth it purposely to show the wonderful virtue, and power of Gods Saints, and their relics, to prove thereby that Christ( whose seruants they are) is God; so as S. Chrysostome is so far from denying and impugning the virtue of holy relics, that he maketh the same to be an argument of Christs divinity; besides that he also giveth so clear, and ample testimony elsewhere, of the spiritual benefits which the faithful,& devout Christians receive by holy relics, that I think good to relate some part of it heer, vpon this occasion.  
34. In his sermon vpon the feast of S. Ignatius( wherein he treateth of the solemn translation of his body from Rome, where he was martyred, to Antioch whereof he had been Bishop) he saith thus: All the cities ( saith he) in the way receiving the Saint, 
{αβγδ} &c. Ex editione Sauelliana.  and carrying him on their shoulders, accompanied him to Antioch, celebrating the praise of the crwoned Martyr, and deriding the divell, whose craft had succeeded very contrary to his expectation; and then truly the Saint was beneficial to all those cities, and hath enriched this country, even until this day, non aliter quam thesaurus quidam perpetuus &c. no other ways then as a certain perpetual Treasure, which is daily spent, but never exhaust, or consumed: so also this blessed Ignatius doth bless all those that come unto him, and sendeth them home full of confidence, alacrity, and comfort; and therefore wee do repair unto him not only now, but also every day, receiving of him spiritual benefit; for whosoever cometh to him with faith, is benefited exceedingly; for not only the bodies of Saints, 
{αβγδ} &c. Ex Editione Sauelliana.  but also their very tombs, and monuments, are replenished with spiritual grace. Thus S. Chrysostome, and then having confirmed this with the Example of Elizaeus the Prophet, whose bones revived a dead body which was cast by chance into his sepulchre 4. Reg. cap. 13. he saith further thus: And much the rather this should be done now at this time, 
{αβγδ} &c. Ex editione Sauelliana.  when the grace of God is more abundant, and the force of the spirit greater: so as if any do touch but the tomb, or coffin, he may receive thereby great virtue; and therefore God hath granted us the use of the relics of Saints, that he may bring us to him by the imitation of them,& that they may be to us, as it were, a certain haven and a convenient comfort of those evils, which do continually afflict vs. Wherfore I exhort you all( brethren) if any of you be pressed with any grief of mind or sickness of body, or other calamity, that he come hither with faith( or confidence) whereby he may be freed from the same and return with great Ioy, yea and by the very sight thereof, he may haue his conscience more peaceable, and quiet. So saith this holy and ancient Father.  
35. Doth this please you M. Collins? Is this man( as you said to me ere while of S. Ambrose) like to countenance and patronyze you in impugning holy relics? and here it is also to be noted, that this solemn translation of S. Ignatius, which S. Chrysostome recounteth, was made in the very infancy, as I may say, of the primitive Church, to wit, in the time of trajan the Emperour within nine or ten yeares after the death of S. John the evangelist, and presently after the martyrdom of this holy Bishop, who( as S. Chrysostome testifieth in this same oration) conversed with the Apostles, and was ordained by S. Peter himself to be his successor in Antioch. Besides that, he himself witnesseth in his Epist. ad Smyrnaeos, that he knew our saviour Christ, both before& after his resurrection; whereby it appeareth that the solemn,& devout translation of holy relics is no late invention, but derived from the Apostles time to ours; whereof I hope M. Collins cannot desire a more substantial witness then this holy Father, alleged by himself, who you see doth not only testify the said translation, but also the devout manner of it, and the spiritual benefits, which did redound thereof, as well to the cities by the way, as also to Antioch itself, where they were reserved: and by the same occasion he doth also manifest his own belief concerning the spiritual graces, and benefits, which faithful& devout Christians do ordinarily receive by the holy bodies and relics of Saints, yea, by their very tombs& monuments, and therefore seriously exhorteth his Auditors to haue recourse thereto.  
36. Now then, to conclude concerning S. Chrysostome, and the translation of S. Babylas( from the which I haue somewhat digressed) I may well say now to M. Collins, Obmutesce, and bid him be as silent, and dumb, as Iulians divell was at Daphne, by the virtue of S. Babylas his relics, which( as you haue heard out of S. Chrysostome) so stopped his mouth, that he was as dumb as a ston; for what can Collins say to defend or excuse such manifest, and palpable falsity, to wit, his lame,& corrupt allegation of the history, his absurd and false application of it, and his most fraudulent quotation of S. Chrysostome, who you see urgeth,& proveth directly the admirable virtue of Holy relics, even by the same history of S. Babylas, for the which Collins citeth him against relics. But let us now hear what followeth.  
37. After this M. Collins telleth us of a woman called Lucilla, a factious Dame,& special patroness of the Donatists, of whom he saith, Optatus recounteth, that she was so wicked, that she would not receive the Sacrament of our Lords body, and blood unless she had kissed the relics of a certain Martyr that morning, if at least a Martyr, saith Optatus: Yet you are( saith M. Collins) for kissing them very definitively in your number 24. And if it be lawful to kiss them, why not also to begin the Communion with such a service? And may not we say of your Martyrs, as Optatus doth of hers( of Lucilla's I mean) si tamen Martyres, if at least they be Martyrs, either your ancient, or your modern? But Optatus mislikes this doting vpon Martyrs relics though true Martyrs, as the place sheweth. Thus saith M. Collins, wherein there is notable fraud, and a great deal of folly: but I omit the folly, to say somewhat briefly of the fraud.  
38. You see, he saith, that Lucilla used to kiss the relics of a Martyr every morning, before she received the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, and he urgeth it very much against me, because I am, as he saith, for kissing relics very definitively. The truth is, that Optatus saith, that Lucilla( who was a most wicked schismatic, and therfore like enough to serve also from the customs of true Catholiks in many things) used always before she communicated, to kiss a bon of a dead man, which no doubt as she used it, was a most ridiculous, and superstitious ceremony,& was taught her by Donatus the first Author of the Donatistes schism and heresy, of whom we red in Balsamons Commentary vpon the council of Carthage cap. 61. that he did hold, and teach that no man could be partaker of the divine Mysteries, except he first held a bone in his hand, and saluted it; which doctrine of his she undoubtedly practised before she communicated, in kissing the bone of some dead man, whom the Donatists held for a Martyr, though perhaps he was none, at least nondum vindicati, saith Optatus, not so approved to be.  
39. Therefore this being a most superstitious act, it was worthily noted, and derided by Optatus; but what proveth this against the kissing of relics? Yes saith M. Collins, for if it be lawful to kiss them, why not also to begin the Communion with such a service? whereto I answer, that albeit there is no doubt, but that we may lawfully kiss relics before we communicate, yet to think that the worthy receiving of the divine mysteries dependeth thereon( as no doubt she did, according to the doctrine of her master Donatus) is, not only ridiculous, and superstitious, but also impious; as the like may also be said of other good works, if they should be done in the same manner.  
40. As for example, if any man would not otherways receive the blessed Sacrament, except he had first given alms, with this conceit that the worthy receiving therof depended vpon the giuing of that alms, this act no doubt should be superstitious, and unlawful: so as M. Collins hath herein notably perverted the sense and meaning of Optatus, to the end he might say somewhat with more show of probability against the kissing of relics; because I do approve the same in the 9. Chapter of my adjoinder num. 24. vpon occasion of certain objections, which Vigilantius made to Catholiks in S. Hieromes time, saying thus: We see you( saith Vigilantius) according to the custom of the Gentills &c. every where kiss, and adore, I know not what little dust carried in a little vessel, and leapt in a precious linen cloath. Thus wrote Vigilantius. Whereupon I noted, that it appeared evidently by the objection of Vigilantius, that the common custom of the faithful was at that time to do corporal reverence to relics, not only by kissing them, but also by inclining, or bowing down the body unto them, which the word adoration signifieth, and S. jerome denieth it not, though he denieth the inference of Idolatry, that Vigilantius made thereon.  
41. Thus indeed I said then in the 24. number now cited by M. Collins, out of time, and place; for where I said it, he passed it over with silence, because he durst not undertake to answer that which I alleged together with it out of S. jerome against Vigilantius concerning the worship of relics,& therfore he fraudulently dissembled the whole, as you saw before in the the last Chapter num. 29.30:& 35. Neither doth he tell heer what I said in particular concerning the kissing of relics, but only saith in general terms, that I am for the kissing of relics difinitiuely in the 24. numb.  
42. And much less will he seem to remember what I alleged to the same purpose in the seventh Chapter of my adjoinder num. 9. out of S. Gregory Nissen, who in his oration vpon S. Theodore the Martyr speaking of the fervent devotion of the people in seeking to approach to the tomb of that holy Martyr, appealeth to their own experience, and knowledge, how happy they did think themselves, when they could haue the good fortune to touch his relics, and how they embraced,& kissed them,& applied them to their eyes, ears, and all the instruments of their senses, to all which M. Collins had not a word to say, where I alleged it, but did let it slip without answer, together with the whole place of S. Gregory Nissen; and now belike he thinketh he hath sufficiently confuted it by this example, which nevertheless you see doth make no more against the kissing of relics, then against any other good work, done in the same manner and vpon the like consideration.  
43. Yea but Optatus, as M. Collins saith, mislikes this doting on martyrs relics, though true Martyrs; so indeed saith M. Collins, and affirmeth also that the place sheweth it; wherein he belieth Optatus manifestly, who blameth Lucilla only because she did praeponere calici salutarios cuiusdam hoins mortu●,& si Martyris, said necdum vindicati, that is to say, she preferred before the holy cup, the bone of a certain dead man, who if he were a Martyr, yet was not approved so to be; whereupon it may well be gathered that Optatus accused her, to value and esteem more the kissing of that bone, then the holy Communion; and that he signified the same by the word praeponere, which doth commonly signify to prefer in worth or dignity; which also is the more probable in this place, because so the sense is conform to the foresaid doctrine of her master Donatus, who placed the fruit of receiving the holy mysteries in that, or such a Ceremony.  
44. And albeit praeponere should be taken only to set before in order or place, as that she did it first, before she communicated, yet it maketh nothing for M. Collins, seeing that Optatus doth not speak at all of a true approved Martyr, but only giveth to understand, that her fault was the greater, because she used that ceremony to a bone of one that either was no Martyr, or at least not received, and approved for a Martyr; as who would say, that her superstition had been yet more tolerable if she had done it to a relic of a true, and vnapproued Martyr. And therefore M. Collins hath not only notably perverted the meaning and sense of Optatus; but also belied his text, affirming that this place sheweth that he misliketh the kissing of true Martyrs relics, when nevertheless he doth not speak of a true Martyr, but only of a dead man( as he calleth him) who was either no Martyr, or at least an uncertain Martyr, not received and approved to be honoured in the Church.  
45. I omit his notable folly, in asking by the way, whether he may not say of our martyrs both ancient, and modern, as Optatus said of Lacilla's martyr, to wit, sitamen martyres, for howsoever it may please him to call in question our modern matyrs, yet I see not why he should doubt of our ancient Martyrs, seeing we haue no other ancient martyrs thē such as all the Church alloweth as well as we, and of whose martyrdom no true Christian hath hitherto doubted: but I say, I omit this for a foolery, not worthy of further examination, that I may enlarge myself somewhat( as I shalbe forced to do) to discover his notable falsehood in an objection which he maketh out of S. Gregory lib. 3. Registr. Ep. ad Constant. August. Thus then he saith of S. Gregory.  
46. It amazed him to hear that dead bodies should be digged up again or, as the fashion before had been( S. Augustine so witnessing, S. jerome, and diuers more) that the fragments of Martyrs should be carried up and down, under pretence of devotion, but indeed for sale, or for gaze of idle people. Thus saith M. Collins of S. Gregory, and by the way also of S. Augustine, and S. jerome with diuers more. And therefore first to speak of that which he allegeth out of S. Gregory, it is very true, that S. Gregory saith, in that epistle; that he wondered much at a custom which he heard was in Greece( although he could scant beleeue it) to take up the bones of Saints. And the cause of this his wonder was, for that certain greek monks who had been at Rome. 2. yeares before, digged up in the night dead mens bodies in a field near to S. Pauls Church, and hide the bones thereof until they should depart, and being examined after to what end they did it, they confessed, that they meant to carry them to Greece at their return for the relics of Saints. whereupon S. Gregory saith, that he became more doubtful thē before, whether it was true, which was reported, that the Greekes did indeed take up the bones of Saints, or that the report only grew of the imposture of such as the aforesaid monks; who meant to haue given abroad the bones of ordinary dead men, for the true bones, and relics of Saints.  
47. To this effect doth S. Gregory speak of this matter, worthily dislyking, and reprehending that abuse of the Grecians( if it were true) that the bones of Saints should be ordinarily taken up, and distributed abroad at every mans pleasure, which must needs open the way to a far greater abuse, and give occasion to evil disposed persons, to deceive the people with counterfeit, and false relics, in which respect it is not convenient, neither ever was permitted in the Roman Church, that the tombs or graues of Saints should be opened, nor their relics taken out, without just cause, and the licence of the Bishops, or other ecclesiastical magistrates; therefore that which S. Gregory misliked, and reproved concerning the digging up of Sains bones, was no other, but the ordinary custom of it, without the licence and warrant of Superiors, and without some just occasion; for S. Gregory was so far from dissallowing it, when it was done vpon urgent, and just cause, with the leave of Superiors, that he practised the same himself, both giuing leave to others to do it, and sending holy relics himself to dyvers persons and places.  
48. This appeareth in diuers epistles of his, as in the 11. Epistle of his seventh book Indict. 2. wherein he gave order to seven Bishops to give satisfaction to a noble man called George, who had required leave of him to haue some relics of such holy Martyrs as were buried in their dioceses, with promise to build a Church in their honour, at his own charges; also ep. 73. lib. 9. Indict. 4. he gave the like order to the Bishop of Hidruntum, to give some relics of the body of S. Leontius( which was buried in his diocese) to the Abbot of the Monastery of S. Leontius, because certain relics of the said Saint had been stolen out of that Monastery. Also epist. 50. l 5. Indict. 14. he wrote to Palladius Bishop of Xaintonges in France, that he sent him the relics of S. Peter, S. Paul, S. Laurence, and S. Pancrace, because the said Bishop had built a Church and altars in honour of them.  
49. In like manner ep. 31. lib. 12. Indict. 7. it appeareth that S. Augustine our Apostle being in England, and finding that the people were persuaded, that the body of S. Sixtus the Martyr was there( which he thought altogether unprobable) required of Pope Gregory to sand him some undoubted relics of S. Sixus, which he did with this charge, that if there were no miracles don at that body, which was there honoured for a Martyrs body, neither yet that any of the ancienter sort could testify that they had heard of his martyrdom by their parents, then the place where the body lay should be stopped up,& the relics which he sent, should be placed a part by themselves, Nec permittatur populus, saith he, certum deserere,& incertum venerari;& let not the people be suffered to leave that which is certain, to worship that which is uncertain. Thus saith S. Gregory to S. Augustine the first Apostle of our English nation, by whom we were converted from paganism to the Christian faith.  
50. And this I wish M. Collins to note for three causes: the first, that he may see S. Gregoryes practise of sending relics, so far as from Rome to England, to be there held in veneration: the second, that he may also observe what care as well S. Gregory as S. Augustin had to preserve the people from the worshipping of false relics, which care is still had in the catholic Church, as shal appear after a while: the third, that we received in our country the doctrine, and practise of worshipping holy relics, together with the knowledge of Christ, and the first rudiments of our Christian faith, now more then a thousand yeares ago.  
51. And he that desireth to see more abundant testimony of S. Gregoryes faith,& practise, concerning this point, let him red his Epistle 51. lib. 5. Indict. 14. ep. 12. lib. 7. Indict. 2. ep. 86. 87.& 88. lib. 7. Indict. 2. & epist. 62. lib. 8. Indict. 3. to omit diuers others, by all which it appeareth, that either he himself translated and sent relics, or else gave leave to others to translate or sand them for the dedication, and consecration of Oratoryes, or Churches, with order that they should be laid up, and kept cum reuerentia,& debito honore, with reverence,& due honour, as he wrote to Brunechilda queen of France concerning the relics of S. Peter, and S. Paul, which he sent her at her request. And this custom of dedicating, or consecrating Churches with the relics of Saints, was observed not only in S. Gregoryes time( as it hath been ever since) but in the time also of S. Ambrose, who sent part of the relics of SS. Geruasius and Protasius to diuers of his friends abroad, by the occasion whereof Churches were built,& dedicated to those Saints in diuers countries, as I haue signified before.  
52. But to show the extraordinary respect, reverence, and devotion which S. Gregory bare, and thought to be due to holy relics, there can be no greater testimony then that very Epistle of his to Constantia the Empresse, out of which master Collins hath picked this scrapp, whereof I haue hither to treated; and therefore, to the end you may see his bad Conscience, and wilful blindness, I will take a little pains to give you the substance of the whole. This Empresse being to build a Church in the honour of S. Paul, wrote to S. Gregory to sand her his head, or else some part of his body, to which he answered, that he nei- could nor durst do it, whereof he gave this reason; because( saith he) the bodies of S. Peter, and S. Paul the Apostles do shine with so many miracles,& terrors in their Churches, that none can come so much as to pray there, without great fear; and of this he giveth diuers examples; first of his predecessor, who going about to change the silver which was over the most holy body of S. Peter( at the least 15. foot from it) was not a little terrified with a sign or miraculous sight which appeared unto him. said& ego( saith he) aliquid similiter &c. And I also was desirous to mend some thing about the most sacred body of S. Paul, and for that it was necessary to dig some. what deep near unto the tomb; he who had charge of the place, found there certain bones somewhat separate from the tomb, and because he presumed to take them up, and to remove them to another place, he dyed suddenly, besides that other doleful signs, or spectacles also appeared there. Thus saith S. Gregory of his own experience.  
53. And having after related the like miraculous punishment inflicted by Almighty God vpon diuers who presuming to see the body of S. Laurence, died all with in ten dayes after, he addeth, that the custom was at Rome, when relics were to be given, not to touch the Saints bodies, but only to apply a handkerchiffe thereto, and to keep yt, cum debita veneratione, with due veneration, in the Church which was to be dedicated, Et tantae( saith S. Gregory) per hoc ibidem virtutes fiunt, ac si illuc illorum corpora specialiter deserantur; and as great miracles are done thereby, as if the Saints bodies were speically carried thither; whereupon it happened( saith he also further) that in the time of Pope lo of happy memory( as we haue received by tradition from our fore fathers) he did cut in sunder such a hand-cherchiffe with a pair of Cyzers for the satisfaction of certain Grecians who doubted of such relics, and there issued blood out of it; for amongst the Romans,& in all the East parts, it is held to be altogether intolerable, and sacrilegious to touch the bodies of Saints; and if any presume to do it, Certum est, quia haec temeritas impunita nullo modo remanebit: it is certain that their temerity shall not remain unpunished.  
54. Thus saith S. Gregory, and concludeth vpon these premises, that he therfore meruaileth very much, and can scantly believe it, that the Grecians had such a custom as was reported, to take up the bones of Saints; and then vpon this occasion he recounteth that which I haue laid down before, concerning the greek monks, who digged up dead mens bones to carry into Greece for relics. By all which it is evident, that albeit he blameth and greatly disliketh the abuse of the said greek Monks( which indeed was detestable, and therefore worthy to be blamed,& ●euerely punished) yet he acknowledgeth 〈◇〉 manifestly the honour due to relics, 〈◇〉 if M. Collins did red the Epistle itself 〈◇〉 not take the objection out of some other mans note-booke without seeing the circumstances) he sheweth himself to a a man of no conscience, or honesty, to object it against the veneration of relics, seeing it doth so testify, and prove the holynes of them, that it may rather terrify any man from touching them, for the reverent respect due unto them, then move him to reject or disesteem them.  
55. But M. Collins will say perhaps, that he allegeth this to prove two things, the one, That the fragments of Martyrs are not to be carried up& down under pretence of devotion, for sale, or for gaze of idle people( for so indeed he saith;) the other, that dead bodies should not be digged up again, or translated: both which points, he will say this Epistle proveth directly; whereto I answer, that if he did aclowledge the truth of S. Gregoryes doctrine in this Epistle, concerning the veneration of holy relics, he might with more reason allea●ge this other, as he doth; to prove that they should not be translated or digged up; but seeing he maketh use of this only, which may seem to serve his purpose; and not only condemneth the other, but also craftily concealeth it( to make his Reader believe, that S. Grego●y disaloweth the digging up of Saints bones, because he condemneth the veneration of them) this, I say, is an intolerable fraud, and much the more because the circumstances( which he fraudulently dissembleth) being considered, do plainly show, that al that which he allegeth is nothing to the purpose.  
56. For as for the first of the two points for which he produceth this testimony( to wit to prove that the relics of Martyrs, are not to be carried about for sale under pretence of devotion) it maketh nothing at all against us, who condemn the same as much, or more then he, a● he may see by the Canons of the catholic Church, namely the 62. Canon of the great council of Lateran, where it is expressly forbidden to sell holy relics, as also to expose new relics to veneration except they be first approved by the Authority of the Pope. And this is also expressly noted by all the Canonists, as may be seen in Panormit. cap. Cum ex eo num. 1. Rub. de reliquijs& vener. Hostien, lib 3. Rubr. de reliquijs. sylvest. verb. Reliquiae& to omit others, Nauar. in sum. cap. 17. num. 169.  
57. Finally the council of Trent hath had such care to prevent, and remedy all such abuses concerning holy relics, that they haue given very strict charge& commandement sess. 25. to all Bishops to use all diligence to that end, and in questions, or cases of doubt or difficulty to use the mature aduise, not only of divines, but also( if need require) of the Metropolitans and provincial Councells, and yet so, that no new thing, or custom that hath not been used in the Church before shal be introduced without the consent of the Sea apostolic: such care hath the catholic Church to avoid all inconveniences,& abuses which may arise either by the inordinate zeal of ignorant people, or by the malice of wicked men. And therefore if M. Collins will condemn the use and worship of holy relics, because they haue been, or may be abused, he sheweth himself to be very absurd, and sottish; for he may by the same reason condemn whatsoever is good, and holy in the Church of God; for there is nothing which is used, but it may be,& hath been at one time or other abused. And this shall suffice for this point.  
58. As for the other point which M. Collins seeketh to prove by this epistle( to wit that the bones of Saints, are not to be digged up or translated) it is to be understood, that S. Gregory affirmeth it specially concerning those bodies of the Apostles S. Peter, and S. Paul, and of S. Laurence, because Almighty God had shewed by evident signs, and miracles, that it was not his will they should be removed or touched, as you haue heard, which S. Gregory sheweth also afterwards more manifestly, saying; that very many Christians came to Rome from the Easts parts( when the Apostles were martyred) to demand their bodies, as of their citizens, or countrymen, and that going to the place where they were buried called Catacumbas, two miles out of Rome, they used al their endeavour to carry them away, and that they were so terrified with extraordinary thunder, and lightning, that they gave it over, and presumed not to attempt it further; whereupon( saith S. Gregory) Exuntes Romani, eorum corpora qui hoc ex Domini pietate meruerunt, leuauerunt,& in locis quibus nunc condita sunt, posuerunt, The Romans who deserved it through our Lords piety, went forth, and took up their bodies, and placed them where they are now buried. Thus saith S. Gregory.  
59. wherein it is to be noted, that those holy bodies being first buried in Catacumbas, two miles out of Rome, were taken up, and translated from thence into Rome by the Romans, which could not haue been lawfully done, if it were absolutely unlawful to take up and translate Saints bodies. But afterwards when Almighty God had shewed evidently that it was his holy will and pleasure, that they should not only remain in Rome, but also be unseen and untouched( in respect of the great veneration wherein he would haue them to be held) S. Gregory had great reason to fear Gods punishment, in case he should suffer them to be touched or seen, as King david feared with like reason to touch the ark, or to bring it into his city, after that Oza was strocken with sudden death for staying it, and holding it up when it was like to fall 2. Reg. 6. And therefore S. Gregory refused in like manner to sand to the Empresse the napkin( wherein S. Paules head was wrapped) saying to her thus: Sudarium quod similiter transmitti iussisti● &c. The winding-sheet which you also command to be sent you, is with his body; and as the body may not be approached, so neither may the said sheet be touched: but because the religious desire of so gracious a Lady ought not to be frustrated, I will with speed sand you some part of the chains, which the holy Apostle S. Paul bare vpon his neck, and hands( by the which many miracles are shewed) if I can get from them any part thereof with a file; for it falleth out often that when many come, and demand some benediction from those chains( by having some little part of the filings of them) the Priest standeth by with the file; and for some of those who demand it, some little is easily and speedily filled of; but for some others, nothing at all can be gotten from the chains, though they be filed never so long.  
60. Thus saith S. Gregory; and with this he endeth his Epistle, having recounted as you see, so many stupendious things, to show the great respect, and honour due to holy relics, that master Collins may be thought no less senseless then shameless to produce this Epistle, or any thing in it, against the veneration of them, especially, seeing that which S. Gregory saith also in general( touching his mislike of the taking up of Saints bones) tendeth only to the greater honour of them, his meaning being no other( as I haue declared before num 42.) but that they should not be taken up( in respect of the reverence due unto them) without just cause, and leave of superiors which is always justly granted, when it may be to the greater glory of God, and of his Saints, in which case S. Gregory himself practised it, as you haue seen in the examples alleged before out of his own Epistles in this Chapter, num. 48. 49.& 51.  
61. Whereby it appeareth that albeit he neither would, nor durst consent that the bodies of S. Peter, S. Paul, or S. Laurence should be taken up, or any relics taken from thē( by reason of the manifest demonstration, which Almighty God had shewed of his will, that they should not be so much as touched or seen) yet he gave leave that relics should be taken from the bodies of other saints, for the dedication of new Churches, and Altars, and other just respects; yea, and he himself sent also to others abroad relics even of S. Peter, S. Paul and S. Laurence; such relics, I mean, as were already separated from their bodies and had been in former times reserved, as it appeareth in his Epistle to Palladius cited before num. 48. as also in his Epistle to Brunechilda Queen of France num. 51. and the same is in like manner evident enough even in this Epistle to the Empresse: for although he denied to sand her S. Pauls head, or the linen cloath wherein the same was wrapped( for the reason before declared) yet he promised to sand her some of the fylings of his chains, which were kept separate from his body; so as there can be no doubt of S. Gregoryes belief, and doctrine concerning the use and veneration of holy relics; but it may well be doubted, whether M. Collins hath any spark of shane or honesty in him, who seeing such abundant testimony in S. Gregoryes Epistles of the reverent respect and honour which he bare to holy relics, doth nevertheless witting& wilfully abuse his authority against them; and no marvel, seeing he doth the like with S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. jerome, and S. Chrysostome alleging them against the translation, and veneration of holy relics, when they, as you haue already seen do all of them clearly testify and approve the practise thereof.  
62. This being so, what need I trouble myself, and my Reader, with any other answer to his Parenthesis concerning S. Augustine, and S. jerome, who, he saith, do witness, that the fashion was before S. Gregoryes time, to carry fragments of Martyrs up and down for sale? For is it not evident by the premises, that both S. Augustine, and S. jerome did highly approve the solemn, and devout translation of holy relics? With what face thē, doth this brazen-faced fellow object against us, their dislike, and reproof of the abuse of holy relics, which we also condemn no less thē they, punishing the delinquents, when occasion requireth? But because he setteth down in his margin these words of S. Augustine: novi multos sepulchrorum adoratores &c. I know there are many that do adore sepulchres &c. and addeth also afterwards, a testimony of Gregorius Turonensis, touching one that had a satchel of Rats bones, and roots, and teeth of moles, and the fat of Bears, which he distributed to the people for relics; S. Augustine himself shall answer M. Collins for both in the same place, where he hath the words objected by M. Collins, to wit, in his first book de moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae cap. 34.  
63. But first it is to be understood, that the Manicheans in those dayes objected against the catholics( as M. Collins doth now) as well certain abuses of ignorant, and superstitious men, as the bad lives of some others, and among other things, that there were some who adored the tombs of Martyrs( either with divine honour, or with some superstitious Ceremonies, in which respect they called them, sepulchrorum adoratores) which S. Augustine acknowledgeth to be true, and therfore answereth them, that they should not object unto him such as profess the Christian religion, and either do not know the force of their profession, or do not practise it; neither yet that they should object a Company of ignorant men, who either are superstitious in religion itself, or so given over to their lust, and pleasure, that they forget, what they haue promised to God. And he saith further to the Manichees thus; It is no marvel, that in such multitudes of people( as profess the Christian religion) there want not some, by whose bad lives you may deceive the unwary, and avert them from the salvation which they may haue by the catholic faith &c. Nunc autem illud vos admoneo &c. but now I do admonish or aduise you of this, viz. to leave your railing vpon the catholic Church blaming the manners of men, whom the Church itself condemneth, and daily laboureth to correct and reform as bad Children. Thus saith S. Augustine to the Manichees; and so say I to M. Collins, to make him capable, if it may be, that neither the abuse of some catholics in the exercise or practise of religion, neither yet the bad lives of some others can prejudice the integrity, and purity of the catholic faith, and doctrine; and so he himself and his fellowes would quickly tell us, if we should object against them, the monstrous bad lives of their Ministers( manifest to all England at the public assizes, and Sessions) and the manifold abuses committed by diuers of them in the exercise of their function, and ministry.  
64. Therefore whereas he objecteth against us the foresaid abuses of relics, reproved by four ancient Fathers,( S. Augustine, S. jerome, S. Gregory the great,& S. Gregory Bishop of Towers) we require of him, that as we condemn the same abuses with those Fathers; so also he will aclowledge and approve with them and us, the veneration of holy relics, which they acknowledge and approve as you haue seen already in three of them, that is to say, in Saint jerome, Saint Augustine, and Saint Gregory the great. And the same is no less evident in the fourth, to wit, in Saint Gregory Bishop of Towers, who hath written two notable books de gloria Martyrum, and de gloriae Confessorum; the substance whereof is nothing else, but a relation of m●nifest miracles done at the tombs, or by the relics of Martyrs and Confessors, vpon such as with devotion, and reverence had recourse unto them.  
65. Therefore a man may wonder at the impudence of this fellow, who is not ●shamed to make this holy father an abettor of his impiety in impugning holy relics, only because he doth with detestation recount the history of a sacrilegious necromancer, who deceived devout people with counterfeit, and false relics; in which story nevertheless there is most evident testimony as well of the Authors reverent respect and devotion to holy relics, as also of the praictise of the Church in the veneration of them which I omit for breuityes sake. And therefore whereas M. Collins concludeth his marginal note concerning the testimony of this Father, with this question, Is it not pitty, that we Englishmen will not traffic with the jesuits for such ghostly commodities( meaning rats bones, the teeth of moles,& such like;) I would gladly know of M. Collins what jesuits( yea or what other catholic man in this age) he can name that hath ever made traffic with such wears;& if he cannot name any( whereof I am well assured) then I may well ask him, whether it is not great pitty, and shane, that Englishmen should haue such pastors of their souls, such preachers, teachers, and writers, as make no conscience to lie, slander, and backbite, quorum as maledictione,& amaritudine plenum est. psal. 13. whose mouth is full of malediction and bitterness; whose throat is sepulchrum patens, an open sepulchre; and the venom of Aspis is under their lyps; yea, & voloces pedes eorum ad effundendum sanguinem, their feet are swift to spill blood, as wee find by experience when we fall into their fingers: but God forgive them, and sand them more Charity, and the light of his grace.  
66. There followeth in M. Collins a place out of Origen contra Celsum lib. 8. which he saith he had omitted, so as it seemed to him to be of such importance, that it might not be passed over with silence. We haue learned, saith Origen, to recommend honourably to the grave the instruments of the soul reasonable, that is,( saith M. Collins) the bodies of men, and the members thereof: Therefore not to make relics of them. So he; which he might very well haue stil omitted, and kept in store, until he had met with some man, who would deny that dead men should be buried, which we do not; for we do bury not only every dead man( holding it for a great work of Charity) but also the holiest men, albeit we do also afterwards honour their tombs, bodies, and relics when Almighty God hath given undoubted testimony of their sanctity, by miracls, or by the iudgment of the Church; yea and sometimes we take them up again,& translate them with greater honour, and solemnity, for Gods greater glory, and theirs; so as we do thē honour in burying of them, and more honour in translating them, as it is evident in the examples of the Saints before mentioned; to wit, the Apostles S. Peter, S. Paul, S. Andrew, S. Luke, S. Tymothy, Samuel the prophet, S. Ignatius, S. Babylas, S. gervase, and Protase, who were buried honourably by the Christians then living, and translated after with far greater honour to God, and them. And therefore M. Collins his argument out of Origen is such a silly one, as that he might very well haue omitted it, and I also haue let it pass for one of his ordinary fooleries, but that I note in it the same fraud that he used before in the like places of S. Ambrose, whereby he changed the state of the question from Saints( of whom we speak) to ordinary dead men, of whom Origen,& S. Ambrose speak; for of them there is to be had far different considerations, as I haue declared before.  
67. Next after this, he addeth two other exampls against relics out of Victor uticensis de persecutione Vandalica lib. 1. The first of Armogastes, saith he, a godly Christian who desired Faelix( another of the profession) sepeliri sub arbore siliquae, i. that being dead, he might be buried under a homely three( if a three) not with triumph, and favour, or solemnity. So he. And then addeth further thus: As for the Sarcophagus which appeared, as it were by miracle, in the place by him allotted for his burial, I impute that to the satisfaction of his godly desire, about a quick consumption or turning into nothing, then which nothing can be more repugnant to your ceremony of relics. Thus saith M. Collins, telling us a tale of a tub, speaking of a Sarcophagus, so obscurely, that no man who hath not red the history can tell what it meaneth. Therfore that you may understand the whole, and see his fraud withall, I will briefly relate the matter as it passed.  
68. This Armogastes having been many ways extremely tormented by the vandals for the catholic faith, and having endured the same with invincible courage, and constancy, was at length made to keep Cattle near to Carthage,& having after a while a revelation from Almighty of his death, to succeed within few dayes, he most earnestly entreated a friend of his called Faelix( who did often visit him) to bury him under a three, when he should be dea●; which Faelix denied to grant him a long time, telling him that he should be buried in a Church cum triumpho& gratia, that is to say with triumph and solemnity, as was convenient.  
69. nevertheless in the end being charged deeply by him in conscience as he would answer it before God, he promised him to satisfy his desire. Within a few dayes after Armogastes dyed, and Faelix meaning to perform his promise, digged with great difficulty, through the roots of the three, Et tandem( saith Victor) abscissis radicibus, multò altiùs terram cauans, invenit Sarcophagum splendidissimi marmoris praeparatum, qualem fortè nullus omnino habuit Regum: And at length digging much deeper, and the roots of the three being cut away, he found a tomb of most bright shining Marble ready made, such a one as perhaps never any King had the like. Thus saith Victor.  
70. Now good Reader, I leave it to thy Iudgment, whether any thing can be justly picked out of this history against relics; or rather whether the contrary may not be gathered thereof, seeing it appeareth thereby, how much Almighty God honoured the dead body of this his seruant, for the which he miraculously prepared so rich and magnificent a sepulchre. And whereas M. Collins urgeth two points therein for his purpose: the one, that Armogastes would be buried simply under a homely three, not cum triumpho& gratia, not with favour, and solemnity: and the other, that he desired a quick consumption, which saith M. Collins is most repugnant to your ceremony of relics, he is most ridiculous in both, and in the later not only ridiculous, but also fraudulent. I say ridiculous, because the contrary of that which he supposeth doth rather follow thereof.  
71. For what can be gathered of either of both, but that Armogastes was so humble, that he esteemed himself unworthy of all honour,& respect, or so much as of any memory amongst men, which made him most honourable, and glorious in the sight of God, according to the saying of our saviour, qui se humiliat, exaltabitur, and therfore this humility was so far from hindering his desert to be honoured after his death, that being testified by Almighty God, with the honour of such a miraculous burial, it made his very memory and relics much more venerable and honourable; besides that, what a silly fellow is M. Collins to think that any holy man doth esteem himself worthy to be held for a Saint, or his body, and relics worthy of worship after his death, which only conceit might suffice to deprive him of Gods favour, and grace,& consequently of eternal bliss. will he then argue thus; Armogastes desired a homely burial, and to be quickly consumed; Ergo there ought to be no relics of him or of any else? Or therefore relics are not to be worshipped? Who seeth not the absurdity of these consequents? Seeing that which may be inferred vpon those premises, is this, that he himself desired out of his humility that there should be no relics, nor further memory of him, which as I haue said, did greatly increase his merit, and make him much more worthy of honour.  
72. But if I should ask M. Collins where he hath found that Armogastes desired to be quickly consumed to nothing, he would tell me( no doubt) that he found it in the Sarcophagus, which Faelix found by digging under the three, because Plyny telleth of a kind of ston found at a city called Assus, near to Troy in Phrygia, the property whereof is to consume dead bodies, all but the teeth, within forty dayes, which ston is therfore called Sarcophagus in Greek compounded of {αβγδ} flesh, and {αβγδ} to eat; so as M. Collins must by this means imagine that Armogastes knowing by revelation, not onely that there was a tomb under that three, where he desired to be buried, but also that it was made of that ston, ordained to be buried there, to the end he might be presently consumed, and nothing left of him to make relics off.  
73. nevertheless if we should grant all this to be true, the matter would not not be altogether clear; for so Armogastes must also know( if he knew the property of that ston by revelation) that his teeth would remain unconsumed, and in danger to be made relics, whereby his desire of a total consumption should not be satisfied, nor M. Collins his argument against relics, proved altogether so sound as he would haue it. But truly, albeit I cannot but commend him for his fine devise, showing his pretty wit, and that he hath som● smack as well in grammar, as in Plynyes natural history; yet I must needs condemn him of no small fraud, in that he wresteth the sense of the word Sarcophagus from th● common use thereof, to a particular sense 〈◇〉 to wit, to one kind of tomb, made only of that ston, which the very words of the Author, and the circumstances do contradict; for as for the common use thereof in greek or Latin, I report me to the Dictionaryes of either language, as to Henricus Stephanus, and to Scapula for the greek, who do expound {αβγδ}, as it is an adjective by Carniuorus, and as it is a substantive, they say it is taken pro sepulchro, for a sepulchre, meaning that it is a general word for a sepulchre, and therefore they add withall, that it signifieth also a ston which consumeth flesh speedily. The Latin Dictionaryes, also say the same;& our Latin Authors do use it likewise for a sepulchre in general, as Iuuenall speaking of Alexander the Great( satire. 10.) saith Sarcophago contentus erit, and S. Augustin saith expressly in his 18. book deciuitate Dei cap. 5. that all men do call Sarcophagum, that which in greek is called {αβγδ}, and signifieth a tomb, wherein dead men are laid; and this I note the rather out of S. Augustine, because he was an African, as Victor was, who writeth this story of Armogastes in the same age,& therfore no doubt used the word Sarcophagus in the sense, which S. Augustin saith was common to all, as all other Latin authors of the ensuing ages haue done, namely S. Gregorius Turonensis, who hath the same words in the same sense.  
74. But to put the matter out of all doubt, the very text, and words of Victor do expressly exclude this conceit of M. Collins, seeing he saith, that Faelix having digged very deep, invenit Sarcophagum splendidiffimi marmoris, found a tomb of most bright, and shining Marble; and therefore it was not made of the ston called Sarcophagus, which according to Dioscorides lib. 5. cap. 142. is levis, fungosus,& friabilis, light, spongy, or soft like a musrumpe, and easily to be crumbled, whereas marble is a most hard and solid ston; and albeit some kind of Marble is soster then other( as the white which is called Alabaster) yet there is none among all the kinds( which Plyny, or any other recounteth) that is light, spongy, and crumbling as Dioscorides describeth Sarcophagus to be,& therefore Iacobus Delachampius in his annotations vpon Plyny lib. 36. cap. 17. observeth that some authors do say, that Sarcophagus or lapis Assius is a kind of the ston called Pyrites, which is of the nature of fire( according to the Etymology of the word)& that others hold it to be a kind of pumishston; which is the lightest, and most spongy ston that is; so as, in the opinion of all these it is very different from the nature of Marble.  
75. And put the case it were some kind of Marble, or might be so called, yet M. Collins should haue no reason to take it in this place for a tomb made of that one kind of Marble, seeing the word Sarcophagus was( as I haue said) at that time when the story was written generally understood for any tomb made of what matter soever, and that it was also expressed in the Text of the history, that it was splendidissimi marmoris, of most bright and shining Marble, which cannot be applied to this ston, wherein there is no splendour or brightness observed by Authors. And if M. Collins will say, that the etymology of the word( signifying an eating, or devouring of flesh) might well induce him so to expound it, then why is it not also to be taken so in other places, alleged by me before out of Iuuenall, S. Augustine, Gregorius Turonensis,& others, where it is evident that it signifieth a tomb, in general? Or rather why doth he take Pon●ifex, and Episcopus for a Bishop,( which according to the Etymology should signify a Bridg-maker) and a superintendant, or overseer? or why doth he take Latrones for theeues, and not for such as guard Princes going by their sides for their defence, as the word did signify at the first?  
76. Therefore as he should be held for ridiculous, and a very ass, that would now leave the common use of these words to understand, and interpret them according to the etymology or first origen therof, so may good M. Collins be held for no less, if he will leave the common use, and sense of Sarcophagus( which all men take for a tomb in general) to understand it for a tomb made of one certain ston, either because the Etymology thereof agreeth therewith, or because perhaps at the first it might haue some derivation from thence, which nevertheless, is not necessary, seing that any tomb, or grave may be properly called Sarcophagus, or Carniuorus, because it doth indeed devour,& in time consume mens bodies, and turn them to dust.  
77. Thus thou seest, good Reader, how much I haue presumed of thy patience to debate so largely with M. Collins this question partly grammatical, and partly historical, as well to show his ignorance, both in grammar, and history, as also to confute his extravagant conceit, grounded vpon no better foundation then his own fraudulent dissimulation of the authors text and meaning, which being duly wayghed doth rather make notably against him, then any way for him, as I doubt not, but thou hast seen, and noted sufficiently. And this shall suffice for one of the two exampls, which he allegeth out of Victor.  
78. The other is of a Bishop of Carthage called Deogratias, whose worthy members, saith M. Collins, the people out of their zeal might haue violently snatched away, or pulled asunder, Nisi consilio Prudentum nesciente multitudine sepeliretur, 1. unless he had been buried, whiles the people did not know of it, at the direction, and suggestion of wisemen; so as to resist your reliquations( the true bankruptures of religion) is wisdom to Victor,& to the ancient Christians that lived before him. Thus saith M. Collins, alleging this example much more truly, then he hath done the former.  
79. But albeit there is no fraud in the example, yet there is notable folly in his inference thereon; for how doth it follow of this act of those wisemen, either that it is wisdom to resist our reliquations( to use his absurd phrase) or that the preservation, and veneration of relics are, the bankruptures of Religion? Whereof rather the contrary may be gathered by this example, seeing it appeareth evidently thereby, how much the relics of holy men were esteemed, and desired at that time, although wise men thought it necessary( as it was indeed) not to suffer the ignorant multitude to prevent the iudgment of the Church by their indiscreet zeal, and to reverence the relics( though of never so holy men) before the Church had approved them.  
80. And therefore as those wise men( of whom Victor speaketh) buried the body to save it from the violence of the indiscreet multitude, so the like hath been full often and is in like occasion practised by catholics, whereof we had an evident example a few yeares ago in the funerals of a worthy man, of whom I am sure, it will do M. Collins good at the very hart to hear, for the love he bareth to our Society, I mean our last Father general Claudius Aquauiua of happy memory, who being throughout al his Generalate, no less renowned, and famous for his religious, and holy life, then for the Nobility, and worthiness of his lineage( being son to the Duke of Atri) was held in such veneration of the people, that when his body was brought forth to be buried, they pressed with great violence to approach the hearse, and to get some relics of him, by tearing the clothes wherewith his body was vested( as the manner is here) which they attempted,& violently got his Cap from his head; whereupon the Fathers of the Society were fain to use extraordinary endeavour, and diligence to repel them, and to carry away his body from them by force into the Sacristy, and afterwards to bury it secretly in the night.  
81. Now then albeit this was done no doubt, consilio prudenti, by wise council or aduise( as Victor saith of the other) yet I hope M. Collins will not infer hereupon, that our Fathers did think that the relics of Saints are not to be kept,& worshipped, or yet that they would not highly esteem, and reverence the relics of their general, if the Church had canonised, and declared him for a saint, and the same is to be said of those wisemen of whom Victor speaketh.  
82. And whereas M. Collins saith, that our reliquations are the bankruptures of religion; truly he is so fine, and spruse in his language, that I know not well whether I understand him or no( for I cannot tell well what he meaneth by reliquations, or by bankeruptures otherways then by guess) but if I guess aright,& that he mean that by the veneration of relics, we become bankrupts in religion, what will he say of all those Fathers before mentioned, who cannot be denied to haue honoured holy relics, to wit, S. jerome, S. Ambrose, S. chrysostom. S. Gregory Nissen, S. Augustine, S. Gregory the Great, and S. Gregory Bishop of Towers, and others; will he say that by their reliquations they were also bankrupts in religion? and if not they, then why we? who do no more then they did, as it is evident by the testimonies, and examples alleged by me before.  
83. And now to come to his conclusion, he saith, that S. jerome shall end the matter, who in the lives of S. Hilarion, and S. Antony testified that they gave special order before their deaths; the one( to wit S. Hilarion) to be buried in his Clothes, and not to be kept above ground one minute of an hour ( because saith M. Collins, he would not be pickled up in relics;) and the other to be buried privately, least one Pergamius a rich man might perhaps steal away his body, and put it in a shrine; and then he addeth, The like was done, saith he, to Moyses body for the same cause, God every where forbidding to seek the living amongst the dead, as you do plainly in your relics, worshipping not thē but Christ in them, as you stick not to triumph num 25. of this Chapter. Thus endeth M. Collins his grave discourse, as wisely, as he began it,& with the like sincerity that you haue seen him proceed hitherto.  
84. Fo● you see he allegeth heer S. jerome against relics, as if S. jerome did also impugn them no less then he, whereas that holy Father most earnestly defended the keeping, translation, and veneration of them against Vigilantius, in a particular treatise written expressly for that purpose, as you haue seen amply in the last Chapter, nu. 22. 23. &c. which being objected by me in my adjoinder, M. Collins passed over with silence, to the end, perhaps, that he might the better afterwards make use of his authority some way or other against relics, as here you see he hath done, though most idly; seeing all that which he produceth out of the lives of those two fathers written by S. jerome, proveth no more then that which you heard objected by him before nu. 67. out of Victor uticensis concerning Armogastes, to wit, that those two holy monks were so lowly and humble in hart, that they thought themselves al together unworthy of that honour, which they knew had been done to many holy men after their death, and feared might also be done to them, if they did not prevent it; in which respect( as I said before of Armogastes) they were much more honourable in the sight both of God, and man, and therefore were by gods special ordinance,( for his own greater glory and theirs) highly honoured afterward, not only by the celebration of their festival dayes in the Church, but also by the veneration, and translation of their holy relics, which they( out of their humility) sought so much to avoid.  
85. And this is most evident in Hilarion, even in that place of S. jerome which M. Collins allegeth& objecteth to us, which I beseech thee good Reader, to note, that thou mayst withall consider the honesty of the man. For whereas he allegeth out of S. jerome that S. Hilarion gave precise order at his death to be buried in his Coat of hair Cloth, his homely cloak, and his hood, and not ●o be kept above ground one minute of an hour, S jerome having said so( and presently after declared in a few lines his death,& speedy burial) addeth that a dear disciple of his called Hesychius being then absent from him in Palestina, and hearing of his death, went to Cyprus, where Hilarion dyed,& obtained to dwell in the garden where he was buried, and after ten months found means to steal away his body,& transported it to Mayona in Palestina, being accompanied with multitudes of monks, and people of the towns adjoining, and there buried it in an ancient monastery, his coat, Hood, and cloak, being still whole, & toto corpore, quasi adhuc viueret integro, tantisque fragrante odoribus, vt delibutum vnguentis putaretur, and all his body being uncorrupt, and entire, as if he were yet alive; and so fragrant with sweet odours, that it might be thought to haue been annoynted with sweet ointments. Thus saith S. jerome, who also relateth immediately after, the devotion Constantiae, saith he, illius sanctissima mulieris, of the most holy woman Constantia, who was wont peruigiles in sepulchro eius noctes ducere, to pass whole nights watching at his tomb, & quasi cum present ad adiuuandas orationes suas, sermocinari, and to confer with him, as if he had been present to help& further her prayers. Finally S. jerome concludeth, that there was a wonderful contention, even until that very day betwixt the people of Cyprus& Palestin● affirming that they had the one his body, and the other his spirit, by reason of the great miracles, which were daily done in both places, albeit they were more frequent in the garden of Cyprus: Forsitan( faith S. Hierom) quia plus illum locum dilexerit, perhaps because he loved that place better. Thus saith this ancient Father.  
86. Now then out of al this, four things may be gathered. The first, that Almighty God rewarded his seruants even in this world, with the honour which he out of his profound humility fled, and thought himself unworthy of. The second that his divine majesty did manifestly confirm, the use, veneration, and translation of holy relics, aswell by the miraculous preservation of his seruants body incorrupt, as also by the fragrant odour that issued out of it; for thereby it evidently appeared that God of his divine providence ordained that the body should be taken up,& translated in such sort as it was; for if it should haue still remained buried, unseen, and hidden( as Hylarion out of his humility desired it should) these miracles had been in vain, and to no purpose; which were absurd and impious, to say of any work of God, and especially of any of his extraordinary and miraculous works, which ever tend to his greater glory, and either to the edification, instruction, and benefit of his seruants, or else to the confusion, and punishment of his enemies.  
87. The third thing which may be gathered of this history, is not only that it was the custom of holy& devout people at that time to watch whole nights in continual prayer at the tombs& monuments of holy men deceased, but also that Almighty God did satisfy their devotion, yea,& stir them thereto by frequent miracles, approving thereby the honour that was done to his seruants, according to our saviours promise in the holy Scripture: Si quis mihi ministrauerit, honorificabit eum pater meus, if any man do serve me, my Father will honour him. joan. 12.  
88. Lastly, by all this it appeareth evidently, that M. Collins hath a deplorable conscience, that makes no scruple to dissemble such important proofs of the use and veneration of holy relics, as these are& to object such a trifle as here he doth, out of the same place, which also rather fortifieth our cause, then any way impugneth it, seing that it appeareth thereby, that the relics of holy men, were at that time had in great veneration; for otherways, what should move this holy man S. Hylari●n, to fear, that he should be pickled up in relics( as M. Collins prophanly speaketh) but that he knew it to be usual in the Church to reserve the relics of such as had the reputation of extraordinary sanctity, especially of those by whom Almighty God had done so many miracles, as he had done by him, albeit he for his part esteemed himself altogether unworthy, as well of the favours, which he had received of Almighty God, as of the opinion which the world had conceived of him. Thus much concerning S. Hylarion.  
89. The like may be said of S. Antony, whose holy life was no less glorious in miracles then the former, in so much that he was held in his time for a miracle, and wonder of the world, as appeareth by the history of his life written by S. Athanasius;& albeit he also ordained to be buried secretly,& charged his disciples that they should not let any man know the place of his burial( in which respect it is doubtful, as S. jerome witnesseth, whether Hilarion obtained of them to see it) yet it pleased God to reveal it about a hundred years after, in the time of justinian the Emperour, whereby his relics were found, digged up,& translated to Alexandria, as testify Ado, Vsuardus, Sigebertus, Marianus Scotus, Crispinian, and S. Bede our countryman, who in his Martyrloge 16. Calend. Febr. saith, that S. Antonyes body being found by divine revelation was brought to Alexandria, and buried there in the Church of S. John Baptist. So he. lo then how Almighty God honoured the memory, and relics of him, who whilst he lived desired they should not be honoured; God so disposing( as I haue signified before) for his own greater glory,& the reward of his seruants humility, whereby it appeareth what a silly objection M. Collins hath made against the veneration of holy relics seeing it ser●eth for no other purpose, but to testify,& prove the humility of those holy Monks, and withall to show his weakne●,& want of better arguments to impugn this most ancient custom of Gods Church, acknowledged, and practised by so many ancient, and hol Fathers, as you haue heard already, and confirmed by infinite miracles, yea and sufficiently witnessed, even by those examples,& in those places of the Fathers, which he hath here produced: what conscience then hath he, or what honesty, who seeketh to deceive, and delude his Readers with a bare show of the Authority of Fathers, when he himself seeth that they are flatly against him, even in those places, which he allegeth.  
90. And hereof I may add yet this further proof that even in this conclusion of his discourse wherein he promiseth, to end with S. jerome, he abuseth him notably, not only in dissembling all that which witnesseth the honour done to the relics of S. Hylarion, and the continual miracles which Almighty God wrought thereby, but also in carping at him, and reproving him sharply, though he doth not name him, but me, and other Catholiks; as he dealt before in the like manner, with S. Augustine, as I observed cap. 8. num. 37. & sequent.  
91. For he chargeth us here with seeking the living amongst the dead, contrary, saith he, to the commandment of God, because we profess to worship Christ in relics; and for the proof therof he allegeth my adjoinder, saying: as you stick not to triumph num. 25. In which number nevertheless, I do but only relate S. Hieromes discourse against Vigilantius, whom he confuteth notably by the practise, and custom of the whole Church, alleging to that end two examples of the solemn translation of holy relics: the first of the relics of S. Andrew, S. Luke, and S. Tymothy in time of Constantine the Great, and the other of the relics of Samuel the Prophet translated from judaea to Chalcedon in Thracia, carried by Bishops most sumptuously and triumphantly in a golden vessel, and met, received, and accompanied by the people of all the churches by the way, sounding forth( saith S. Hierom) the praise of Christ with one voice all along as they went: whereupon S. jerome asketh Vigilantius, whether he took Arcadius the Emperour( who caused this to be done) and al the Bishops which carried those relics, and all the people that accompanied them, for fools, and sacrilegious persons; and finally he concludeth, deriding the folly of Vigilantius, saying viz. Adorabant Samuelem non Christum, cuius Samuel& Leuita& Propheta fuit, belike they adored Samuel and not Christ, whose levite,& Prophet Samuel was.  
92. Thus far I cited S. jerome, and then I concluded, that he shewed therein the absurdity of Vigilantius, who did think that Christ was not adored in all this, but Samuel only; whereas all the reverence and honor done by those Bishops to Samuel was indeed( according to S. Hieromes discourse) done to Christ, whose levite and Prophet Samuel was; because( as S. jerome also said before) the honor of the seruants redoundeth to their Lord; and this is all which I said num. 25. Whereupon M. Collins chargeth me, and other catholics to seek the living amongst the dead, contrary to the commandment of God; whereas you see evidently, that I do but relate S. Hieromes discourse, who therefore is the man that sought the living amongst the dead, and not only he, but also those Bishops, who accompanied the relics of Samuel, sounding forth( as S. jerome saith) the praise of Christ all the way as they went,& consequently honouring Christ in the relics of Samuel, which with M. Collins is to seek the living amongst the dead, contrary to the commandement of God; whereby it appeareth what respect he beareth to S. jerome, and to the ancient Fathers, when he can vpon any occasion tax, or contradict them under hand, albeit he would haue his Readers believe, that he honoureth them much, and teacheth no other doctrine, but that which is theirs, or most consonant thereunto.  
93. Well then you haue now seen M. Collins his deep discourse against holy relics, being the very quintessence of his skill, drawn out of the limbecke of an heretical brain, and therefore sophisticated with so much fraud, as no man, that should not evidently see it( as you haue done) would believe it of any man that hath the face, and reputation of an honest man, and much less of a man of his profession and quality.   

My Lord of Winchester being charged in the adjoinder with inexcusable falsity in the manifest abuse of S. Augustine, is abandoned by his champion M. Collins: in whom also three notable frauds are discovered ●ouching one sentence of the same holy Father; and that he hath shamefully belied cardinal Bellarmine Lastly the veneration, and translation of holy relics, and the custom to carry them in procession, is clearly proved out of S. Augustine. CHAP. XII.  
FOR as much as M. Collins hath alleged S. Augustine to patronise his impugnation of holy relics, I will conclude this my reply with the relation of what I debated in my adjoinder with my Lord of Winchester, concerning certain clear testimonies of S. Augustines belief& doctrine, touching holy relics;& this I will do the rather, because by occasion therof I charged my Lord with a notable abuse of S. Augustin,& an inexcusable fraud which M. Collins was in reason, and honesty bound to defend, and therefore we will now see how well he hath performed it.  
1. Thus then I said in my Adyoinder Chap. 9. num. 64. whereas the cardinal produceth the evident& clear testimony of S. Augustine, to prove that many Miracles were done by the relics of S. Stephen in Affrick, M. Andrews wisheth the cardinal to consider how be can well and handsomely reconcile Augustine with Augustine concerning those Miracles, and his reason is, because Augustine saith in an Epistle to his clergy, and all the people of Hyppo, Nusquam hic in Africa, talia fieri se scire: he knew that such things were not don any where in afric, which I beseech thee good Reader to note, and thou shalt evidently see the good Conscience of M. Andrews, who abuseth S. Augustine notably two ways; the one in making him seem to contradict himself most manifestly, yea and to give himself, as it were, the lie, witnessing in one place matters of fact vpon his own knowledge,( for so he testifieth those Miracles done by S. Stephens relics,) and in another place affirming that he knew the same to be false, for so must it needs be, if he knew that such things were not done any where in afric. The other abuse is, in that he perverteth the sense of S. Augustines Epistle, as it will easily appear, if we consider the occasion why S. Augustine wrote the same; which therefore I think good here to relate.  
2. A scandalous quarrel being fallen out betwixt a chaplain of S. Augustine, and a young man concerning an infamous calumnation raised by the young man against the priest( whereof the truth could not be tried or known, because the matter depended wholly vpon their own oaths, and testimonies) S. Augustin advised them to go to Nola in Italy to the body of S. Faelix, where it pleased God ordinarily in like cases to discover perjuries, by the miraculous punishment of the perjured person;& of this he thought good afterwards to give account unto his clergy and People for their satisfaction, which he did by the Epistle that M. Andrews citeth, wherein discoursing, by the occasion of this matter, why Almighty God doth such Miracles in some place, and not in others, he saith, Multis notissima est sanctitas loci &c. Many do very well know the holynes of the place, where lieth the body of Blessed Faelix of Nolae, whither I ordained them to go, because from thence I might more easily& truly understand by letters whatsoever it should please God to manifest in either of them. So he; and then having added, that also in Millan a perjured thief was discovered miraculously at the Monuments of certain Saints, and forced to restore that which he had stolen, he saith further thus, Numquid non Africa &c. Is not Aff●ick full of the bodies of holy Martyrs?& tamen nusquam hic scimus talia fieri &c. And nevertheless we know that such things( that is to say Miracls in this kind) are not don anywhere here in afric. For even as the Apostle saith, that al holy men haue not the gifts of healing, so also he who divideth things proper, or peculiar to every one as it pleaseth him, would not haue these things to be done at all the memories or monuments of saints. Thus saith S. Augustine.  
3. Whereby I doubt not, but thou seest, good Reader, in what sense he denieth Miracles to haue been done in Affrick, that is to say, such Miracles as were done at the body of S. Faelix, for the discovery and punishment of perjury,& not such as he testifieth else where, to haue been ordinarily done at the relics of S. Stephen, whereof he recounteth such a multitude, with such asseveration of his own knowledge therof, and public testimony of an infinite number of witnesses, and such particular relation of circumstances, times, and places, that a man must hold him for the most impudent liar, that ever wrote, if they were not most true. Besides, that writing the same, as he did for the proof of Christian Religion against Pagans, and infidels, it cannot without extreme folly be imagined that such a learned, wise, and holy man, as he, would be so prodigal not only of his own credit, and reputation, but also of the honour of Christian Religion, as to expose the same to the derision of the Paynims, by seeking to confirm it by fables and lies, which every man in those parts( as well the Paynims themselves as others) might haue controlled,& would haue derided, if they had been feigned.  
4. Finally, these miracles of S. Stephen which M. Andrewes calleth here in question, are testified by S. Augustine in that work which M. Andrews himself so much esteemeth else where, that alleging out of it a sentence which he thought might make for him, he calleth it Opus palmare de civitate Dei, the principal or most excellent work of Augustine of the city of God. And yet now he would fain disgrace it, or rather S. Augustin himself by the imputation of a contradiction, which he would the Reader should suppose to be betwixt it, and the foresaid Epistle of S. Augustine; whereas you see( and M. Andrews knoweth it in his own conscience) that there is no contradiction in the world betwixt them, but that both of them do notably and clearly testify the ancient and venerable use of holy relics, and the miraculous assistance, and help that God giveth to his faithful people thereby, and by the prayers and relics of his holy Martyrs& Saints. So that truly a man may wonder at the impudence, and seared Conscience of M. Andrews, who seeketh to delude his Reader with such a fraudulent and inexcusable abuse of this holy Father.  
5. Thus said I in my adjoinder, wherein I doubt not, but thou seest, good Reader, matter right worthy to be answered by M. Collins for the defence of my Lord of Winchester, whom I charged deeply with egregious fraud, and abuse of S. Augustine. nevertheless I may well say, that M. Collins obmutuit, is as dumb as a dog, for he saith not one word to it, but abandoneth his Lordship quiter, leaving him to answer for himself, as he hath done before diuers times. And whereas my discourse in my adjoinder, contained also important matter for the proof of the use, and veneration of holy relics( by reason of S. Augustines undoubted testimony of notable miracles done as well at the body of S. Faelix in Nola, and the monuments of certain Saints in Millan as also at the relics of S. Stephen in Afrike) M. Collins is no less silent thereto, then to what I objected to my Lord, omitting all mention of either of both in this place, I mean, in his ninth Chapter. But afterwards in his answer to my tenth Chapter( where I had occasion to allege again the same testimony of Saint Augustine) he thought good to say somewhat thereto, though he doth it with so gross, and palpable fraud, that I cannot omit to discou●r it, and as I hope shall leave him speachles. Thus then he faith pag. 447. lin. 29.  
6. S. Augustine, in his whole Chapter de civitate Dei l. 22. cap. 8. never stands for miracles, to prove new doctrines b●, but only the old( as was declared before) ●nd therefore you shall gain nothing from thence, who allege new miracles to authorize new articles, as praying to Saints, and worshipping of relics, and such like conceits, though we should subscribe to all which S. Augustine reports, with no less promptness then yourselves, that is more then he may be well thought to do. For one time he confesseth of the aforesaid wonders, that, Non sunt tanta autoritate commendata &c. They are not of such authority, as strait ways to be believed, though between one faithful man, and another. Another time he says: That as soon as they are  told they are clean forgotten,& no body relates them to them that did not hear them, as they were rehearsed de libello, nor no body remembers them any long time himself. His words are: Nec( admodum) innotescunt, neque vt non excidant animo, quasi glarea memoriae crebra lectione tunduntur: whereas if they were divine miracles, why should they not be divulged throughout the whole world, even wheresoever the gospel is preached, as our saviour said of the Charity of that good woman that annoynted his feet? again: Semel hoc audiunt qui adsunt, pluresque non adsunt, vt nec illi qui affuerunt post aliquot dies mente retineant,& vix quisquam reperiatur illorum, qui ei quem non affuisse cognouerit, judicet quod audivit.  
7. Thus far doth M. Collins allege S. Augustine his text, hoping to persuade his Reader thereby, that S. Augustine did not hold those miracles which he related, to be divine miracles, not to be of such authority as to deserve to be divulged throughout the world, as divine miracles ought to be. But to the end that thou mayst see good Reader, how shamefully he seeketh to abuse thee, perverting S. Augustine his sense clean contrary to his meaning, thou shalt understand, that S. Augustine throughout all that worthy work of his de civitate Dei, writeth purposely against the Paymins, and having urged in the 22. book, the conversion of the world to the faith of Christ by miracles, he objecteth against himself in behalf of the Paynins thus: Cur inquiunt, nunc illa miracula quae praedicatis facta esse, non fiunt? why are not those miracles done now which you say were then done? Wher●o he answereth, that he might say that those miracles were then necessary before the world did believe, to the end that it might believe, and that whosoever would seek for new miracles to believe in Christ, now when the whole world believeth, he is to be held for a prodigious wonder.  
8. But, saith he, The Paynims do say this, for no other cause, but because they do not believe that those miracles were then done; thus faith S. Augustine, and thereupon he urgeth the cred it, and authority of the holy Scriptures, received and believed throughout the Christian world, whereby those miracles, testifying the divinity of Christ, are not only published, but also believed,& authorised every where: and then coming to that which M. Collins objecteth, he saith first thus: Nam etiam nunc fiunt miracula in eius nomine &c. For miracles are also done now in his name, either by his Sacraments, or by the prayers or memories of his Saints, but they are not so clear and famous, as to be published with as great glory as the other; for the Canon of the holy Scripture, which was to be every where divulged, doth make them to be red everywhere, and to be fixed in the memory of all people, but these miracles which are now done are scant known by all the city or place where they were done. For it so falleth out very often, that they are known but to a few, the rest being ignorant of them, especially if the city be great, and when they are told elsewhere to others, the authority which recommendeth them is not so great, that they are fully believed without doubt, or difficulty, albeit they be related by faithful Christians one to another. Thus saith S. Augustine.  
9. Now then this being the first part of that which M. Collins allegeth( but lamely as you haue seen) I remit it to any mans iudgment, whether S. Augustine do hereby deny, either that the miracls whereof he spake, were divine miracles, or that they ought to be published every where; seeing all that he saith is in substance this; that the miracles since Christs time,& the Apostles( not testified in the holy Scripture) neither are, nor can be so generally known, and believed as those which are mentioned in the Scriptures, because these later miracles, are not known, and believed, but in particular places, neither yet so fully believed of all the Christians that are in those places, or hear of them, as those other which the Scripture relateth, because the Scripture being generally received,& believed every where as infallibly true, giveth also undoubted credit, and authority every where to the miracles which are witnessed, and related therein.  
10. How then doth it follow heerō that these later miracles are not divine miracles? For he that should say so, must also say that Almighty God never did miracle since the Apostles time, because later miracles are not related in Scripture. But S. Augustine contradicteth this expressly, for having recounted a great number of miracles done at the relics of S. Stephen he concludeth thus: Fiunt ergo etiam nunc multa miracula, eodem Deo faciente, per quos vult,& quemadmodum vult, qui& illa, quae legimus fecit: Therefore there are now also miracles done, the same God doing them, by whom he will, and as he will, who also did those which we red( in the Scripture.) Thus saith S. Augustine, whereby it is evident that he acknowledgeth those miracles which he had related to be divine miracles, no less then those which are mentioned in the Scripture, seeing that they were wrought, as he saith, by the same God who wrought the other.  
11. What extreme impudence then is this in M. Collins to infer vpon S. Augustines words that the miracles recounted by him were not divine miracles, when S. Augustine flatly affirmeth that they were? Wherein it is also to be noted that those words of S. Augustine, wherein he affirmed it, went immediately before those, whereupon M. Collins infereth the contrary. For S. Augustine having said, that many miracles are don also now by Almighty God, addeth: said nec ista similiter innotescunt &c. which later words, M. Collins layeth down, omitting the former,& then glosseth the later thus: chambermaids( saith he) if these were divine miracles, why should they not be divulged throughout the world &c. signifying that the later miracles( whereof S. Augustine speaketh) were not divulged over all the world, because they were not divine miracles; whereas nevertheless S. Augustine said immediately before, that they were done by Almighty God, who did those other also which were red in holy Scripture, so as he only maketh this difference betwixt the one, and the other, that those in the Scripture, are published, divulged,& believed, every where by all Christian people,& the other are not so divulged, and believed; but only known and believed in certain places, and by particular persons, though they be divine miracles no less then the former.  
12. Furthermore, it is to be observed for the further discovery of his fraud herein, that he not only dissembleth the beginning of the sentence( which maketh flatly against him) but also changeth in the later part( which he allegeth) an important,& significant word which sheweth the dependence of that which he citeth vpon the former part, which he concealeth. For whereas S. Augustine speaking of the later miracles, saith: Nec ista similiter innotescunt, M. Collins allegeth it, Nec ista admodum innotescunt, wherein this difference is to be noted, that the word simliter doth import a comparison of the later miracles, with other which he hath mentioned before, that is to say, with miracles testified by holy Scripture; and therfore having said that God doth miracles now, Qui& illa quae legiimus fecit; who did all those which we red in Scripture, he addeth presently, said nec ista similiter innotescunt &c. But these( later miracles) are not divulged( or generally known) in like manner as the other &c.  
13. This then being the true sense,& meaning of S. Augustine, it is evident that in this one sentence of his, there may be noted three notable fraudes of M. Collins. The first, his lame citation of it, omitting the first part of the sentence, whereupon the later dependeth. The second, the change of similiter into admodum in the later part, because similiter might discover the dependence of the later part vpon the former. The third( which is one of the notablest falsities that ever I saw) his false inference vpon the second part, flat contrary to the express words of the former, which therefore he witting, and purposely concealed: so as it is hard to say, whether my Lord of Winchester, or M. Collins, haue more abused S. Augustine about the relics of S. Stephen. My Lord vpon pretence of an Epistle of S. Augustines, which he most wilfully perverteth, calleth in question, whether there were ever any such miracles done or no, notwithstanding S. Augustine his evident testimony therof vpon his own knowledge; M. Collins though he will not deny that such miracles were done, yet he laboureth to persuade his Reader, that S. Augustine did not make any great account of them, especially as of divine miracles:& to this purpose he hath egregiously perverted as you see, both S. Augustines text, and meaning, contrary to his express words, in so much that both my Lord and his Champion do make S. Augustine contradict himself expressly, and deny that which he constantly affirmeth.  
14. nevertheless M. Collins not content with this, addeth another fraud touching the same point, no less remarkable then the former: for whereas I urged in my adjoinder that these miracles recounted by S. Augustine, were a manifest confirmation of the use and veneration of holy relics, he answereth pag. 441. lin. 21. that, Non sequitur consequentia à miraculis ad cultum, towns, saith he, Bellarmine himself, lib. 4. cap. 14. de notis Ecclesiae. And this M. Collins affirmeth afterwards again pag. 449. lin. 7. saying thus: This is stark false that Miracls done at Saints bodies infer the honour which you challenge to them, by any probable consequence, as Bellarmine denies about Hieremyes body, and was quoted to you a little before out of his book de notis Ecclesiae. Thus saith M. Collins.  
15. But Bellarmine in that Chapter which he quoteth hath no such thing, but rather the contrary; for he teacheth and proveth there, that miracles are not only necessary, but also sufficient to prove a new faith; and amongst the objections of our adversaries, he hath this( out of Caluins preface to his Institutions, and the Magdeburgenses) that true miracles do confirm the gospel ( Marci ultimo) and that these miracles of ours do overthrow it, and confirm Idolatry, that is( say they) the worship of relics,& Images, the invocation of Saints, mass &c. So as according to Bellarmine, our Aduersayes themselves do grant that the consequence is good, à miraculis ad cultum.  
16. For if true miracles confirm the gospel, then consequently they do confirm the true worship of God, which is taught, and delivered by the gospel; and conform to this, our adversaries do also affirm that our miracles( which they will needs haue to be false miracles) do confirm Idolatry, that is( say they) the worship of Saints, and relics &c. and therefore according to their opinion we may well say, that as false miracles do confirm false worship, so true miracles do confirm true worship; whereupon it also followeth, that if the miracles which are done by relics, can be proved to be true miracles, the worship of relics is a true,& lawful worship, and not Idolatry. So as it appeareth even in that Chapter of cardinal Bellarmine, cited by M. Collins, that our adversaries themselves do grant in their objection, that the consequence is good, à miraculis ad cultum; and the cardinal doth not deny it in the solution, but only saith in answer of the objection thus: said, inquiunt, ista miracula euertunt evangelium. Respondeo, verum est, said calvini, non Christi: vel probent isti quod tam audacter affirmant. But they say that those miracles( of ours) do overthrow the gospel. I answer, it is true, but the gospel of Caluin, and not of Christ, or else let them prove that which they so boldly affirm.  
17. Thus saith the cardinal, and then proceedeth to the confutation of four arguments of theirs, whereby they endeavour to prove that miracles do not facere certam fidem, amongst the which their third argument is, that miracles were done in times past at the Prophet Hieremyes tomb, by the illusion of the divell, which they say, was manifest, because those miracles were don to the benefit of those, who did worship Hieremy with sacrifices and divine honour, as a God; whereto the cardinal answereth thus: Ad tertium, saith he, dico, mendacium esse calvini &c. To the third, I say, that it is a lie of Caluin, that the people did worship Hieremy, with sacrifices, and divine honours, for he bringeth no witness of it, but only hath in his margin Hieronymus praefatione in Hieremiam. But neither in the presace of jerome to the Prophet Hieremy whom he translated, neither in his preface to the commentaries of Hieremy, there is any mention at all of this history: moreover there is another little Preface prefixed before the Prophet Hieremy, in the Bibles set forth by Benedictus, whereat Caluin aimed, as it seemeth, but that preface is not Hieromes, neither is there any mention therein of sacrifices, or divine honour, but only that miracles were done at his sepulchre. Finally Epiphanius and Isidore, in the life of Hieremy, do say indeed that miracles were done, but of sacrifices, or divine honour done unto him, they say nothing. Thus saith the cardinal, and this is all he saith to that objection, or concerning miracles done at Hieremyes body.  
18. Now then; how doth the cardinal deny here, the consequence à miraculis ad cultum? Is there any one word therein, which may be wrested to any such sense? wherein al we see is, that Caluin is taken tardy, and charged with a manifest lie; but of the cardinals denial of that consequence, not so much as one syllable, either there, or in all that Chapter, wherein his special drift is, to prove that new miracles are sufficient to confirm, and prove any point of faith not believed, or taught before, which the cardinal layeth for a foundation and ground in the very beginning of the Chapter: and vpon this ground,& the reason which he giveth to prove the same, it followeth directly that the consequence is good, à miraculis ad cultum: for thus argueth the cardinal: Vera miracula( saith he) non possunt fieri, nisi Dei virtute &c. True miracles cannot be done, but by the power of God, and therefore they are called in Scripture the testimonies of God, so as that which is confirmed by miracle, is confirmed by Gods testimony: but God cannot be witness of a lie; therefore that which is confirmed by a miracle, must needs be true.  
19. Thus saith the cardinal, whereupon it must needs follow also, that if the worship of Saints relics, or Images be confirmed by a true miracle, it must needs be a true, and lawful worship; seeing then this directly followeth vpon the Cardinals grounds, discourse, and doctrine in that Chapter, M. Collins hath extremely abused, and belied him, in making him a witness of the contrary, viz. that, Non sequitur consequentia à miraculis ad cultum.  
20. moreover the cardinal is so far from denying that consequence, that in his second book De beatitudine Sanctorum c. 3§. Quartò probatur, he proveth directly the veneration,& worship of holy relics, by the miracles done at them: Quae miracula( saith he) certè non fierent, si Deo cultus reliquiarum non placeret, which miracles would not be don, if the worship of relics did not please God, whereof he allegeth many examples out of S. Epiphanius in vita Isaiae, Ezechielis, Hieremiae. S. Basil. orat. in Mamantem. S. Gregory Nazianzen orat. in Cyprianum. S. Chrysostome in lib. contra Gent. Palladius in historia lauriaca c. 26. S. Ambrose serm. de SS. Geruasio& Protasio. S. jerome contra Vigilantium. S. Augustine lib. 22. de civitate Dei. cap. 8.  
21. And hereto the cardinal addeth also a further proof thereof(§. Quintò probatur) by miracles which haue often been seen even in the dead bodies of Saints, Per quae, saith he, Deus apertissimè nos ad eorum venerationem inuitare videtur, by the which God doth manifestly seem to invite us to the worship or veneration of them; and hereof he also allegeth diuers notable examples, as out of S. Chrysostome in his sermon of the SS. Iuuentius& Maximus, whose faces he saith, appeared resplendent after their death. Also S. jerome affirmeth of S. Hilarion, that his body was found entire after ten moneths, and so fragrant that it might seem to be anoynnted with sweet ointments. S. Augustine witnesseth lib. 9. Confess. cap. 7. that the bodies of SS. gervase and Protase, were found whole and uncorrupt. Sulpitius in his Epistle to Bassula testified that the body of S. Martyn was after his death more like a glorified body, then the body of a dead man. S. bonaventure affirmeth the like of the body of Saint Francis. Lastly the cardinal concludeth with the evident and daily experience of the oil which doth miraculously distil from the body of S. Andrew the Apostle; all which the cardinal allegeth to prove that holy relics are to be worshipped. This then being so, how shameless is Collins, who calleth the cardinal to witness that there is no consequence à miraculis ad cultum?  
22. But to return to S. Augustines testimony concerning the miracles done at S. Stephen relics, you haue seen it proved evidently, how notoriously false it is which M. Collins hath gathered out of him, to wit, that he did not esteem the said miracles to be divine miracles; when nevertheless he saith, that they were don by the same God who did the miracles which are testified in holy scripture; whereupon it followeth that the honour done to those relics in the solemn translation, and circumgestation of them( to use stil M. Collins his phrase) was grateful to Almighty God, who did miraculously comfort, and relieve those who with devotion, did concur, and cooperate thereto, or had recourse to them; whereby the sick recovered their health, the blind their sight, and the dead their life; in so much that S. Augustine giveth testimony of five or six several dead persons revived, partly by the application of somewhat that had but only touched the holy relics, and partly by the oil of the lamp that burned before them, which therfore S. Augustine calleth oleum Martyris, the oil of the Martyr.  
23. And this I mention the rather, because M. Collins doth formalyze himself very seriously against the custom that thē was to apply to diseased persons the flowers that had touched the relics of Saints; and this he doth by the occasion of a miracle related by me in my adjoinder out of S. Augustine de civitate Dei, ubi supra, where he testifieth that a blind woman was restored to her sight, by applying to her eyes certain flowers that had touched the holy relics of S. Stephen; which M. Collins laboureth to prove to haue been no good custom, even by the authority of S. Augustine himself, which I beseech thee, good Reader, well to note, and the notable foolery and fraud withal of this idle fellow. Thus then he saith pag. 448. lin. 15. In the 8. book, saith he, of the aforesaid work cap. 27. he ( S. Augustine) allows not of meats to be set vpon Martyrs tombs, for obtaining of blessing; a Christianis melioribus, saith he, hoc non fit, he denies not but it is done, but he says the better sort of Christians do it not, much less flowers to be laid vpon their bodies, and taken of again, with hope of virtue to proceed from them in application to sick folkes; for of sanctifying meats to necessary use, wee red in the Apostle( and the martyrs might concur to it if they were Conscious) but of the flowers no where, nor to such purpose, especially from the dead. The Christians then might do this in S. Augustines time, but not the better sort of Christians as he most advisedly speaks, not meliores Christiani, whom you list not to imitate, but choose the worse part, and clout a religion out of fond customs, which the judicious of those times neither allowed then,& much less would now.  
24. Thus iangleth this cozening Companion, who can say nothing without some fraud, as heer you see. He telleth you of flowers laid vpon the dead bodies of Saints, and applied to sick folkes in S. Augustines time, but what effects followed it, or with what circumstances, or to what purpose S. Augustine speaks of it, he saith not one word, and therefore he more boldly argueth against it, out of another place of S. Augustine, as against a custom not used by the better sort of Christians, nor approved by S. Augustine himself, or by the judicious of those times. Whereas S. Augustine speaketh not of flowers otherways, but only in relating a notable miracle done by Almighty God vpon a blind woman, who was restored to her sight, by applying to her eyes the flowers that had touched the holy relics of S. Stephen; whereupon it should follow( according to M. Collins his assertion) that if it were a bad custom to use flowers to that purpose, God did by a miracle approve a bad custom, and do a singular benefit to one of the worse sort of Christians, that used the same; yea and it would follow also that S. Augustin; writing against the Paynims( as he did in that book and Chapter) fortyfied and confirmed our Christian religion by bad customs not used amongst the better sort of Christians, and disallowed also by himself; for so will M. Collins haue you to suppose.  
25, But who would not detest the fraud, and laugh at the folly of this absurd fellow? who maketh S. Augustine, to contradict himself, vpon no better a ground, then S. Augustins dislike of an other custom, not used by the better sort of Christians; which yet proveth no more against this custom impugned by M. Collins, thē against any other thing, that he, or any body else shall list to reject for a bad custom. For what good argument can M. Collins make out of that place of S. Augustine, against the foresaid application of flowers? Will he argue thus? S. Augustine disallowed the custom of setting meat vpon Martyrs Tombs to be blessed, Ergo, he disallowed the custom of applying to the sick the flowers that had touched the relics of Saints? Auditum admissi risum teneatis amici! Besides that, the difference of these two customs was such in S. Augustines opinion, that he rejecteth the one in express words, and approveth the other clearly enough, in that he allegeth it against the Paynims, to prove the continuance of divine miracles, relating that miracle done vpon the blind woman, by the means of those flowers.  
26. And to the same purpose he also recounteth afterwards another notable miracle done in like manner by flowers, vpon a sick Paynim, who being in great danger of death, and earnestly solicited by his son in law, and daughter( who were Christians) to embrace the Christian faith, most obstinately resisted, until his sonne-in law( after most fervent prayer made at the relics of S. Stephen) took some of the flowers which were vpon the Altar, and at night conveyed them under the sick mans head; who sleeping after a while, was so moved in his sleep to be a Christian, that he cried out before morning to be baptized, and after his baptism repeated continually the last words of S. Stephen, Act. 7. viz. christ accipe spiritum meum( albeit he had never heard them related) in so much that they were also his last words; for he dyed shortly after of the same sickness.  
27. Thus doth S. Augustine recount this miracle done also by flowers, taken only from the altar where S. Stephens relics were kept; and now were it not absurd& ridiculous to imagine that he disliked this use of those flowers, whereby God wrought so great a miracle? Or that he esteemed the pious& godly sonne-in-law of that Paynime, for a Christian of the worse sort, because he used those flowers to that purpose? What then shal we say of other things which S. Augustine reporteth to haue been in like sort ap●l●ed to sick, yea& to dead persons with like miraculous effects, as clo●●●●, and garments which had touched the said relics, and were applied to dead ●●dyes, ●hereby three were revived, and 〈◇〉 ●●●●er also revived by the oil of the Mar●●●( as I haue signified before) shall we say that they were also Christians of the worse sort that applied the same? Or that S. Augustine did also dislike those actions, because he disliked the setting of meats vpon Martyrs tombs? And if those things might be so used, why not flowers? For clothes, and garments haue no more warrant, privilege, or virtue for that purpose, then flowers haue; so as by M. Collins his grave censure, the greatest miracles, that S. Augustine relateth( as the reuyuing of the dead, which surpassed the divels power,& therfore must needs be divine miracles) were done by bad customs, that is to say, by unlawful means, and those which used thē were Christians of the worse sort, even in S. Augustines opinion, though he recount the same for the confusion of the Paynims, and for the honour and proof of the Christian religion.  
28. lo then what an absurd fellow I haue to deal withall, and also how false& fraudulent he is, who not only dissembleth my whole text, but also shamefully perverteth S. Augustines meaning, the better to cover his own imposture. But to draw to an end, and to conclude with somewhat more concerning the translation, and circumgestation of holy relics( which M. Collins so much disliketh) the use and practise of both is evident enough, even in those examples alleged by me in my adjoinder out of that book, and chapter of S. Augustine, which M. Collins hath so censured, mangled, and martyred, as you haue seen.  
29. And first, for the circumgestation of relics, the practise of it is manifest in two examples related by S. Augustine in the place aforesaid: the one of Lucillus a Bishop who was cured of a Fistula, carrying a certain relic of S. Stephen in procession: populo, saith S. Augustine, praecedente,& subsequente, the people going some before, and some after; and the other example is of another Bishop called Proiectus, who carried sacra pignora( so S. Augustine calleth the holy relics of S. Stephen) at what time the blind woman( of whom I haue spoken amply before) was restored to her sight by the flowers which had touched those holy relics, so as it cannot be denied, but that the reliks of S. Stephen, were circumgested or( by M. Collins his leave) carried in procession, even by the Bishops themselves, accompanied with the people for the greater honour of them, which also Almighty God approved by manifest miracles.  
30. And as for the translation of relics, it is as clear as the sun, that those relics, whereby all those miracles were done in Africke, were translated thither; for S. Stephen was not martyred in Africke, but at jerusalem; besides that, there is sufficient testimony in approved authors of the time and occasion of their translation, as that Orosius being sent by S. Augustine to S. jerome, who then resided at jerusalem to confer with him concerning the origen or beginning of the soul of man, was the first that brought into the West parts, Reliquias B. Stephani Protomartyris tunc nuper inuentas, the relics of B. Stephen the first Martyr, which had been then lately found. So saith Gennadius in his book de viris illustribus c. 39. who lived at the same time, which was in the reign of the Emperours Honorius and Theodosius; for then were the holy bodies of S. Stephen, S. Nicodemus, and S. Gamaliel found by a Priest called Lucianus, to whom it pleased God to reveal the same by an apparition of S. Gamaliel, as may be seen in the history thereof written at large by Baronius Anno Domini 415. where also it is related what notable miracles were done, not only in the finding of them,& in translating them to a Church in jerusalem vpon the mount Sion, but also in the translation of those which Orosius carried to Afri●ke, who passing by the island called Minorica, was forced to stay there some dayes, in which time so many miracls were wrought there by them, that 540. Iewes were converted to the Christian faith; and afterwards when those relics were brought into Africke, and distributed there amongst the Bishops( of whom S. Augustine was one) the miracles were so many, and so continual, that S. Augustine having recounted a great number of them in the aforesaid Chapter of his 22. book de civitate Dei, lamenteth that he hath not time to writ all that he knew, and therefore craveth pardon of his Reader, yielding this reason.  
31. Si enim, saith he, miracula sanitatum, vt alia taceam &c. For if I would now writ the miracles of cures, and healing of diseases( to omit others) which haue been done by this Martyr( that is to say, most glorious Stephen) in the Colony of Calama, and in ours; very many books were to be written, and yet all could not be gathered, but those only, which haue been set down in little books, or registers, to be red to the people: for when we saw the signs of divin virtues( that is to say the miracles) like unto the old, to be so frequently done in our time, we thought good to ordain, that they should be registered, and red, to the end that they might be remembered, and come to the knowledge of many. It is not yet two yeares, since this memory began to be celebrated here at Hyppo, and albeit the registers, which haue been made of many of the miracles that haue been wrought, haue not been given up( whereof I am most assured) yet those miracles which haue been written, and given up, do arrive almost to the number of 70. now when I writ this; and at Calama, where the memory began before we had it here, the number is incomparably greater; also at Vzalis( which is a Colony near to utica) I know many notable things haue been done by the same Martyr, but the custom of registering them, is not, or rather hath not been used there; but now perhaps it is begun there.  
32. Thus saith S. Augustine, and then recounteth a notable miracle done lately before( when he himself was there) vpon a noble woman called Petronia, which he saith he caused her to register: and when he hath related the said miracle, he concludeth after a few lines, with that which M. Collins had no li●t to see, and I haue therfore laid down before,& now will repeat it again for his greater confusion: Fiunt ergo, saith S. Augustine, etiam nunc multa miracula eodem Deo faciente &c. Therefore now also many miracles are done, the same God doing them, who did those which we red( in the Scripture:) but these neither are divulged, and made known alike( as the others are) neither are they with often reading so beaten into the memory of men, that they be not forgotten &c.  
33. Thus far I haue thought good to lay down S. Augustine his words, wherein I wish these things to be noted; first, that S. Augustine acknowledgeth innumerable miracles to haue been done by the relics of S. Stephen; the second, that they were divine miracles, and esteemed, and declared for such by S. Augustine: and that therefore M. Collins hath abused, and belied him notably in denying the same, and citing him lamely and corruptly, to make good his own fiction, as you haue seen before. Thirdly that the custom of translating, and carrying relics with solemnity was not only usual in the Church in S. Augustines time, but also grateful to Almighty God, who confirmed the same with infinite miracles; so as this testimony of S. August. touching holy relics, given by him most seriously, and sincerely vpon his own knowledge, for the proof of Christian religion, might suffice alone, though we had no other, to prove the use, veneration, translation, and circumgestation of relics to be not only lawful, but also most acceptable to almighty God, and therefore, both my Lord of Winchester, and M. Collins had as much reason, as men could haue for so bad a matter, to seek to diminish the credit, and authority of it, as you see they haue laboured to do; though with so manifest, and inexcusable fraudes, that they haue thereby notably discovered, as well their own bad consciences, as the weakness of their cause.  
34. But he that list to see more ample proofs for the use and veneration of holy relics, let him take pains to red cardinal Bellarmines 2. book de Beatitudine Sanctorum, wherein he treateth expressly of the relics of Saints, and I doubt not but he will rest satisfied for that matter. For my intention was not to treat this controversy, further then the discovery of M. Collins his fraudulent dealing therein, should give me just occasion; albeit I doubt not, but that which I haue had occasion to treat, and debate with him concerning the same, may suffice to satisfy any reasonable man. And therefore having now sufficiently performed, what at first I intended( which was to discover some part of M. Collins his egregious fraudes, in defence of my Lord of Winchester, to show thereby that he deserveth neither thankes of my Lord, nor answer from me) I will now make an end, albeit there remain yet behind, so many more of like quality, that truly I am amazed to see the multitude, and enormity of them, as I will make it most clear, and evident hereafter, if this do not put him to silence, as I hope it will; for such is the force of the truth, which I defend, and so evident are his frauds,& falsities which I haue discovered, that I doubt not, but as he hath had the power to open my mouth, with his EPPHATA, so I shal haue much more power to stop his, with OBMVTESCE.   

THE conclusion TO THE university OF CAMBRIDGE.  
NOw that I haue discovered unto you some part of M. Collins his fraudes( I say some part, for so it is in dead, and but a small part in respect of the rest, which remain yet untouched,) I leave to you to consider the enormity thereof, and what might move him to such a desperat resolution to venture the loss of his reputation for ever, for a little flash of vain glory which he might hope to gain with the common sort, for a short time, until his cozenage should be detected; or whether he was so greedy of the temporal reward, which he expected of his majesty, and my Lord of Winchester, as to purchase it with eternal damnation due to his fraudulent impiety, or impious fraud, such as the like( or at least greater) hath not been seen in any writer, that hath made profession of the christian faith: nevertheless if the infamy or hurt that may ensue thereof, did only touch, or concern himself, it less imported, and might be the better digested, and dissembled by you; but seeing that he is a public member of your university,& that there is such a sympathy, and communion betwixt every member,& the whole body, that si quid patitur vnum membrum( as the Apostle saith) compatiuntur omnia membra, 1. cor. 12. I make no doubt but that you of your wisdoms will consider that the blame and guilt of his offence, may redound to you all, except you seek to free yourselves from the participation thereof; and that therefore you will think it convenient to execute my sentence of Obmutesce vpon him, by putting him to perpetual silence both of tongue& pen, whereby it may appear to the world, that his infamous book printed by the public printer of your university, was not published with your warrant, or approbation, but by surreption, and his own private authority; for so shall you deliver yourselves from all participation, not only of his disgrace, but also of the punishment due to him, by Gods iustice, which otherways may some way extend itself also to you for your connivency with him.  
For I am sure you cannot be ignorant how necessary is the prayer of the royal Prophet, Psal. 5. Ab occultis meis munda me,& ab alienis parce servo tuo, seeing that Almighty God doth many times severely punish whole communityes for private mens faults, when they are permitted and dissembled in the delinquents. When Achan( Iosue 7.) concealed, and hide part of the spoil of jericho, contrary to the commandment of Almighty God, his fault was imputed to the whole army of Iosue, and punished in them until the offeder was found out,& stone● to death: peccavit Israel, saith Almighty God, & praeuaricatus est pactum &c. when nevertheless one man( to wit Achan) had committed the offence; and therfore Almighty God said further unto them: Non ero vltra vobiscum donec conteratis eum qui huius sceleris reus est. And when iustice was executed vpon him, aversus est( saith the Scripture) furor Domini abeis: now then if this secret offence of a private person was by Gods iustice imputed to al the children of Israel, and punished in them all, because the delinquent was not chastised; what shall we think of the offence of a public person? Yea of an offence far more heinous then that of Achan was, which being considered in itself(& not as it was then extraordinarily forbidbidden by Almighty God) was an indifferent,& a lawful action; whereas all falsehood& fraud is always of itself so detestable,& abominable to God& man, that the Psalmist worthily coopleth the deceitful man, with the blood-sucker, saving Psal. 5. Virum sanguinum& dolosum abominabitur Dominus. And what fraud or deceit can be comparable to that which is practised in matter of religion, whereby not only God is dishonoured, but also mens souls are endangered, or drawn to eternalll perdition? And put the case, that M. Collins had used this fraud only to teach a true doctrine( as his friends may say perhaps to excuse him) yet it were nevertheless inexcusable; seeing it is evident that all falsity, is of itself so contrary to almighty God( who is ipsa veritas) that it can never be lawfully practised, in so much that an officious lie is not to be made to save the world, or with never so great pretence of Gods honour, or service, as job signified, when he said, cap. 13. Nunquid Deus indiget mendacio vestro, vt pro illo loquamini dolos? but now the case is far otherways with M. Collins, who hath witting and wilfully, falsified, corrupted,& wrested the fathers against the light of his own conscience, to establish an erroneous, and false doctrine, wholly opposite, and contrary to theirs,( as you haue evidently seen) and all this to the extreme danger of innumerable souls. whereupon I conclude, that it behoveth you to consider of the weight of this crime, and to seek to expiate the same by some means, least Almighty God may say to you, with far greater reason, then he said to the children of Israel for Achans offence, Non ero vobiscum donec conteratis eum qui huius sceleris reus est; which nevertheless, I say not, I assure you, with desire that he should be otherwise chastised, then to be humbled, and made to know himself, and his errors for the salvation of his soul, that is to say, vt conuertatur& vivat, that being truly penitent, and repentant, he may live not only here in the service of God many yeares, but also hereafter with Almighty God eternally. And this, in good truth, 〈◇〉 all the hurt I wish him, notwithstanding the hot bickering and conflict that hath passed betwixt vs.   

AN APPENDIX touching a place of S. Ephraem, alleged by my Lo. of Winchester, against Prayer to Saints, debated with M. Collins before in the 7. Chap. num. 50.& sequent.  
chambermaids M. Collins hath affirmed that my Lord alleged it out of a Manuscript which his Lordship hath to show, and that the said Manuscript was printed at Rome by Dominicus Basa, in the year of our Lord 1584.& is entitled the diurnal of the Maronits, I haue thought good for the better satisfaction of the learned, to cause the arabical text of S. Ephraem, as it is in the said diurnal, to be printed there, togeathe● with the explication thereof in Latin letters, and tho Latin translation thereof word for word, wherein I wish these things to be observed.  
1. First, that is printed after the manner of the Hebrew, syriac,& Calday, and so to be red, to wi●, from the right hand to the left, and that therefore the Latin beginneth with the arabic in the very last page., at Sus●i●e deprecationem meam &c.& so goeth backward, every latin word answering the arabic which it explicateth.  
2. Secondly, that for as much as there is great difficulty to express the true sound of the arabic in Latin letters, by reason of the different dialects betwixt the arabic, and other languages( whereby I haue seen the arabic set down in Latin letters diversly, by men of diuers Nations) I haue therefore used the aduise of a very learned Maronite, who naturally speaketh the arabic tongue, and is very expert in the Latin and Italian, by forty years study and practise of both, whom I haue procured to give me the translation of the arabic, and the true sound and pronunciation therof, expressed by Latin letters as near as may be, according to the learned and grammatical arabic, which sometimes differeth some what from the vulgar in pronunciation& found; as for example, the word sauaca which signifieth aequalis tibi, is vulgarly pronounced suaca( as i● is set down by me in the seventh chap. num. 54. 55.& 56.) whereas in the explication of the arabic in this Appendix it is sauaca, according to the grammatical pronuntiation thereof, which difference may also be noted in diuers other words.  
3. Thirdly I desire thee, good Reader, to note the difference betwixt the Arabical words given us by master Collins, and those which thou s●est heer set down out of the diurnal of the Maronits alleged by him. The words he giveth us for S. Ephraems are, [ Illaica we shaveca lam atlabu] whereas the other in the said diurnal are [ Flam atlob sauaca] of the difference whereof, as also of the corrupt translation of them, and the omission of an important sentence following immediately in the text of S. Ephraem, I haue treated amply in the seventh Chapter: whereto I add here concerning [ atlabu] that although it be an Arabical word,& may be used in some sort, yet not in that manner that M. Collins hath it, to wit, when ( lam) a negative particle, signifying ( non) doth go immediately before it; for then it cannot be [ atlabu] as the Maronits do assure me, but [ atlob] as we red it in S. Ephraem. So a● it appeareth that of five Arabical words which M. Collins hath pretended to give us out of S. Ephraems text, at least 4. are not to be found there; besides the corrupt& false sense, which he giveth us thereof, as I haue shewed evidently in the 7. Chapter.  
4. Fourthly whereas I haue also in the 7. Chap. num. 50.& 60. set down the English translation of certain salutations of S. Ephraem to the B. Virgin Mary, and to S. Michael the Archangel( containing also his express invocation of them) together with part of another prayer of his to Almighty God; and finally, the end, and conclusion of the very prayer itself, out of which M. Collins hath taken his counterfeit text, I haue thought good for the further satisfaction of those that haue skill in the arabic to cause the same to be printed heer, to the end that they may the more clearly discover the egregious fraud of my Lord,& his Champion in the abuse and corruption of S. Ephraem. wherein nevertheless it is to be noted, that of the salutations to the B. V. and S. Michael,( which in S. Ephraem are very many) I haue taken out but some few to show the custom and manner of speech of that ancient Father( conform to the custom of Catholiks at this day) and that it may serve for a preamble to his invocation of them, wherewith he concludeth his said salutations. All which I beseech thee good Reader well to consider together with that which I haue represented unto thee, in the 7. Chap. and then I doubt not, but thou wilt evidently see,& detest the impudence of M. Collins, and say to him with me, Obmutesce sir Samuel, for shane, Obmutesce.  
{αβγδ} Ex oratione ad Deum. pag. 206. {αβγδ} Finis orationis à Collinio citatae. pag. 226. {αβγδ} Ex oratione ad Beatam Virg. pag. 172.& 173. {αβγδ} Ex oratione ad S. Michaelem pag. 204. {αβγδ}  
〈◇〉 〈◇〉 〈◇〉, 〈◇〉 vuineribus  
〈◇〉 meas 〈◇〉 〈◇〉 non& 〈◇〉, tibi aequalem  
〈◇〉 〈◇〉 said& 〈◇〉; te 〈◇〉 〈◇〉 ad  
〈◇〉 tuam bonitatem& 〈◇〉, tuam misericordiam  
〈◇〉 es 〈◇〉 〈◇〉: confug●  
〈◇〉 tua potestas& ahdon 〈◇〉, vniuscuiusq. 〈◇〉 〈◇〉 Dominus  
〈◇〉 〈◇〉 〈◇〉 supper  
〈◇〉 nonia 〈◇〉, domine 〈◇〉 meā 〈◇〉 Suscipe  
〈◇〉 said& 〈◇〉, meam 〈◇〉 〈◇〉  
〈◇〉 in& 〈◇〉, tuam 〈◇〉 〈◇〉  
〈◇〉 tuae protectionis& ta 〈◇〉, tuae 〈◇〉 mult●tudine  
〈◇〉 aalhazinata, 〈◇〉 〈◇〉 m●am 〈◇〉 salua  
〈◇〉 si& ia 〈◇〉, dominead 〈◇〉 m●● 〈◇〉: morte  
〈◇〉 sim vulneratus& 〈◇〉, 〈◇〉 〈◇〉   

faults escaped in the print.  
page. Line Fault Correction. 5. 17. or government of government 10. 12. but it was but when it was 14. 13. Lord of Ely Lo of Winchester and so likewise pag. 15. l. 4.& in other places. 16. 19. pags pages 17. 11. Thus far Collins Thus far &c. 23. 9. domination dominion 33. 3. more, then more then, Ib. ult falsey falsely 38. 1. ad ipso ab ipso 39. ult tend the end 42. 13. consequent consequents 62. 17. more those more then those 77. 2. infere infer 82. 13. Monarchy Monarch 89. 1. Augustine S Augustine ●9. 4. reaso reason 10. 2. care care 109. 1. eligit elegit 118. 1●. alleged my Lord alleged by my L. 131. 19. deal so 146. 7. long tongue Ibid 12. example examples 178. ●3. an do and do 18●. 10. Non hoc quaeritur Nunc hoc quaeritur Ibid 12. nor the question now the question 184. 5. but in all but also in all 18●. 14. habet Sanctos habet in Sanctos Ibid 16. of or Ibid 27. went were 220. 21. bebate debate 214. 8. flam etlob suaca flam atlob sauaca, or suaca( as it is vulgarly pronounced. 225. 18. suaca sauaca, or suaca Ibi. 19. sua signifieth sua or saua signifieth 226. 4. col. 182. col. 1820. Ibi. 7. sheua shauo Ibi 8. arabic saui arabic saua Ibid 9. Syriacque sheui Syriacque shue Ibid 10. sua saua Ibid 15. of sua of saua, or sua 227. 3. if suaca if sauaca, or suac● Ibid 13. lam et job suaca flam at job sauaca 229. 4. so all so say all 276. 15. odoration adoration 290. 16. gratia gratiae 303. 10. blood brood 308. 20. instead of &c. add this greek verse {αβγδ} 336. 27. manificent magnificent 342. 19. God Gods 344. 16. found fond 348. 27. not aclowledge not onely not aclowledge 349. 6. or know to know 353. 13. God to a just God too, a just &c 360. 7. those, quod those, quos per &c Ibid 23. saying that seeing that 361. 8. that apparition that the apparition 369. 10. 11. in Moyses to Moyses 371. 4. letter later 381. 20. religious sake religions sake Ibid 27. religious religions ●86. 18. religious religions 431. 9. ever carp ever did carp 456. 27. vnapproued approved 466. 2. 3. to a man of to be a man of 470. 21. the winding sheet the linen cloath Ibid. 24. the said sheet the said cloath 478. 5. voloces veloces 480. 27. Almighty of his Almighty God of his &c. 496. 12. his seruants his seruant.  
FINIS.