THE FALL OF BABEL. By the confusion of tongues, directly proving against the Papists of this, and former ages; that a view of their writings, and books being taken, it cannot be discerned by any man living, what they would say, or how be understood, in the question of the sacrifice of the Mass, the Real presence or transubstantiation; but in explaining their minds, they fall upon such terms, as the Protestants use and allow. FURTHER In the question of the Pope's supremacy is showed, how they abuse an authority of the ancient father St. Cyprian, A Canon of the 1. Niceene counsel, And the Ecclesiastical history of Socrates, and Sozomen. And lastly is set down a brief of the succession of Popes in the sea of Rome for these 1600. years together; what diversity there is in their account, what heresies, schisms, and intrusions there hath been in that sea, delivered in opposition against their tables, wherewith now adays they are very busy; and other things discovered against them.  
By JOHN PANKE.  2. Sam. 3.1. 
There was long war between the house of Saul, and the house of David, but David waxed stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker.  
Printed at Oxford by joseph Barnes. 1608.   

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL and Reverend in Christ, M. D. A. the heads of Colleges, and companies of students in the University of Oxford; And their Colleagues, and associates, against the common adversary, in the University of Cambridge; and all other public defenders of the true christian religion, within this his majesties Realm of great Britain: john Pancke wisheth grace and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord jesus Christ.  
I Have read it reported (Reverend Fathers and Brethren) 
Reyn: in the beeginning of his 6. conclusions. And also in his apology of them. Quid opus est ut properes periculum suscipere condemnationis loquendo, cum tacendo possis esse tutior. Ambro. office l. 1. c. 2.  that it was the fortune of Aulus Albinus, to be reprehended by Cato the censor, because being a Roman, and writing his history in Greek, he did seem to ask pardon, if he did therein amiss, when with less adventure he might have kept himself from all fault in not meddling with such a business at all. My case at this time is even as his in this matter taken in hand; I would both adventure it, & will also pray your pardons, if I have either done amiss, in meddling with a business, that belongeth to right approved scholars, or have not proceeded so sound against the adversaries, as the weight of these questions doth require. My defence in both cases is by way of excuse; for seeing I have for some few years past, been conversant in all your writings that I could hearken out to be printed against the adversaries, to whom rather should I give an account, then unto you, either of the profit I have made by them to overthrow the contrary part or incite you to continue yet your further labours to the building up of the spiritual house of the Lord, and better accomplish, all could do, & that by this kind of dedication? 
Illustres & praestantes viri discipulorumcer taminibus, nomminus quam suis vincunt. Amb. office l. 1. c 41. Si pro otioso verbo reddemus rationem videamus ne reddamus pro otioso si enti● Amb. office l. 1. c. 3.  The truth hath spoken it, we shall render an account for every idle word, and so shall we for our idle silence. I freely confess unto you all, that next the book of God, your volumes and treatises have especially tied me at home, when some other my companions have been walking abroad. The holy truth, which in your consciences you know you do uphold, is the weightiest assurance of well doing that may be; The consent of nations & Churches abroad is a great motive to prick you forward; but when by the particular travel of any on man, it may also appear, that having had your writings tried by the Canon of holy scripture and some antiquity else, & having it found that there is a true Diapason, & concord in all your voices, in arguing the truth of the Lords cause, this to be testified by others that are of the laity, as children joining with you Fathers, will I suppose be no small joy and gladness unto you. Macte virtute. Go forward I beseech you with good courage, the adversary is insolent but very weak, 
Lactant, instit. lib. 5. c. 20. fol. 465.  iam profecto ab amculis quas contemnunt, & à pueris nostratibus error illocum ac stultitiae irridetur. even of old wives and young children which they most contemn, is their very religion derided. 
Illa enim religio muta est, non tantum quia muto●um est sed quia titus eius in manu & digitis estnon in cord aut lingua sicut nostra ibid. l 4. c. 3. fol. 303.  They can tell now as well as their teachers▪ that their religion is dumb, as done unto stocks and blocks, and also is idle as being placed in the hand and fingers, scarcely coming into the tongue, but never into the heart, as the ancient father Lactantius saith by the Gentiles, which aptly showeth the vanity of theirs also, for by evens & odds, they make their prayers long or short. 
Their Beads. jewel. Nolo nunc aut Oxonienses Cantabrigiensibus, aut Cantabrigienses Oxoniensibus anteponere: utrosque constat & ingenio & erudition va●uisse. Sic. Melc. Canus de Graecis & Latinis, l. 7. fo. 231 a. not the one before the other, but either of them before the best in the world. Lilly. Fulke. Whita. L. B. Winchest Reynoldes. Besides, lib. de Rom. Ecclesiae idol. & Apolog. Thesium. Humphrey. Erat enim ingenio facili. co pioso, suavi, & (quae sermonis maxima virtus) aperto, ut discernere nequeas, utrum ne ornatior in eloquendo, an faciliot in explicando, an potentior in persuadendo fuerit Lac. de Cyp. lib. de justitia. c. 1.  To incite you to this holy conflict I will call to your remembrances, the pains of very worthy men both alive and dead. Let it be the honour of Bishop jewel once bishop of Sarum, that his reply, & Apology stand safe without just reprehension, when his direct adversary D. Harding, rejoined but to one of 27. articles. Stapleton returned but to 4. & those so meanly clothed, that himself might have been ashamed, not answering the 10. part of the bishop's text leaving out whole sheets, to which he hath not said a word; Dorman dealt also against the Bishop, in 4. articles too, but too too poorly. Propose to your sights the industrious toils of D. Fulke, and whitaker's; the one for his answer to the Rhemish testament, as also his defence of our translations against Gregory Martin, his answer to Bristol, Allen, and others. The other for his pains against Champion, Stapleton, Dureus & Bellarmine. But in this, are the living to be preferred before the dead, in that it hath pleased God, to reserve two of the strongest, in out living their first labours more than 20. years, the most learned and judicious Bishop of Winton, & D. Reynolds, the one for his dialogues against the jesuits the other for his conference with Hart, wherein they see their desire on their enemies, no adversary daring to propound against either of them. Who doth not think the memory of D. Humphrey is yet fresh, and laudable in the highest degree, for his answer to Campians challenge; for elegancy of stile, exactness of method, and substance of matter, without all cast of the dice, as Lactantius said by St. Cyprian? D. Willet hath been very painful as his Synopsis and Tetrastilon do plainly show. The venerable Dean of Exeter D. Sutclive, may not in this page of praise be omitted, for answering aswell the most learned among the adversaries, as those that have the most dissolute tongues, Bellarmine and Gifford: It would be too long to reakon all, therefore I content myself, with picking out the choice. It shall always be my prayers unto Almighty God, that whensoever it shall please him to call these, or any of these to himself out of this wearisome life, there may others arise in your places, to go on with the cause, as the Poet speaketh of the Golden bough, primo avulso non deficit alter, 
Aeneid lib 6.  one being taken away there wanteth not an other, and so give the adversary not so much as a breathing time. And when you of the Clergy, and Scholars have thus discharged their duties to God & the Prince; what rests for the Laity to do, but to take up and read, and having read as the men of Baerea in the Acts, to compare both sides with the scripture, & then resolve to justify the truth in all sincerity? 
Act. 17.  And to you I say this again; the clearness and perspicuity of your writings hath added such a plainness to my understanding, to the finding out of the truth, that if I should not absolutely aver that the doctrine this day taught and professed in this Realm were the true and sincere doctrine of Christ and of his Church, I should surely sin against mine own conscience: the contrary, of the Church of Rome being only built on the rubbish of contradictions, impieties, gloss, slights, falsifications, and forgeries, as by the sampler which I have drawn out of their books, for that purpose, will manifestly appear, I say not to you, who are mighty in knowledge that way already, but to every mean reader, for whose sakes only, I undertook this labour. 
Ignoscant scientes ne offendantur nescientes, satius est offerre habenti quàm differre non habentem. Aug. de bapt. contra Donat. lib. 2. cap. 1.  The Lord jehovah continue the King's Majesty in his holy intention of furthering and favouring the doctrine established, and bless & prosper the Reverend Bishops and Clergy, to be watchful against the common adversary the Papist; And to give the rest of the Kingdom sound resolution to join strongly together to the discountenauncing of Antichrist and all his designs.  
From Tydworth the 1. of November. 1607. Yours in all duty and reverence, John Panke.   

TO ALL OBSTINATE AND STIFF Recusants held in wilful blindness, and to all lukewarm indifferent Papists, not yet fully settled in their Recusancy; health of body and soundness of judgement.  
I That hitherto been your courses (poor seduced brethren) by the charge that your Masters have laid on you, to refuse all manner of conference with us, or to read any of our treatises or books, that do any way tend to the crossing of your opinions; which purpose as it taketh away all sound judgement which may any way come unto you; so it hath given me for my part a full & a resolute determination never to believe, but that by that policy they only would uphold the drift of their religion, & that they fear it would fall, if it should come to trial. To meet with this mischief on your part, I have taken a labour not usual, to win you if it be possible to reading; I have laid almost forty of your own writers together, some our own countrymen here at home, others the best of your side that ever wrote: The Catalogue of their names and editions of their books (that so you be not deceived) I have noted unto you in the next pages following; I have compared them in three of the principal questions between you and us. The sacrifice of your Mass; Real presence, or transubstantiation, and Pope's supremacy, and do protest I never did, nor yet do think any man living is able to take those authors, and prove any of those points by them, or can draw out a plain and simple form of speech how they would be understood in any of those questions. I am not ignorant, neither do I make your teachers so simple, but you and they can say, 
This they believe in gross  
1  you offer up the son of God to his father, and that is your Mass; 
2  you have him really present, and so you eat him, and that is your sacrament. And 
3  that the Pope is Christ's Vicar, and that is your belief; All this I believe you can say, but this is not that which you ought to seek at your teacher's hands; For come to explain, what agreement your Mass hath with that which Christ did at his last supper, the night before he suffered: And what that was, which he did at his last supper, and what the morrow on the cross; And what your Mass is to either, or both. When we ask discourse upon this, here they stagger and turn like mad men, as though it did belong to them only to affirm what they lusted, and yield no account of what they say; or indeed as though they knew not what to say: 
Harding. What words are there, and what terms, are not there? Stapleton. Not as upon the Cross, explain and prove. How is it unbloody? The Rhemists say, that the same blood that Christ shed on the Cross, is in the chalice, at Mass. Dureus saith, the sacrifice of the Mass, is not without blood in it; but is offered with out shedding of blood. Cont. Whit. rat. 4. fol 183. what should the blood do there if it be not shed? How the Pope claimeth his supremacy, is doubted of amongst them.  Being demanded where be the words of scripture by which the Priest hath power to offer up Christ to God his father, they answer there be words that set forth an obligation in act and deed, but no terms expressed, a solution to a question, much like the direction given by a Miller to a passenger; who bid him leave the bottom, and ride the lower way between the two hills. What difference is there between word and terms? Can any man distinguish? The Church offereth a daily sacrifice, not as upon the cross, but the self-same thing that was offered on the cross. The thing offered is one self same sacrifice; but in the manner of doing, because it is unbloody, it is in the remembrance of it. A real presence, they and you are sure of; but what Christ did at his last supper to force that real presence, none of you know. What he took, what he blessed, what he broke, what he gave, whereof he spoke, when he said, Take eat, this is my body, that you know not, nor are ever able with all the wits you have to explain. In the Pope's supremacy, you do the like; no man amongst you whatsoever, is able to determine, whether he claim his superiority and rule iure divino by God's Law, yea or no; because some of you say yea, and some no; or whether he may called universal bishop. Stapleton denieth it, Bellarmine alloweth it, which shall we believe? So that refusing our books, if you will but read your own, you shall content me. Read them, fift them, compare them, if not with ours, yet one with an other, try whither I be an Impostor or; if you find them constant, plain and sincere, follow them on God's name, I will never persuade you otherwise; but if you perceive them inconstant, intricate and dark, so that you understand not their meaning, think they may deceive you, think that their words in conference are more cunningly placed, than their arguments are in disputation, when they are driven to prove; in the one they say to you, what they please; and in the other they must prove what they can. I do freely protest unto you, I impute not this to the disability of the men; if they had a right cause in hand, they could easily make it good, but as Lactantius said of Tully, 
Lact. li. 2. c. 10  Haec non est Ciceronis culpa, sed secta, This is not Cicero's fault, but the sects whereof he was; so, that your Masters can bring their matters to no better pass in discourse, is not their fault, but the fault of the cause they have in hand; if it could be done they could do it: And the same Lactantius noteth of the Heathen, 
Lib. 2. c. 1.  although in the course of their lives they would never acknowledge the only God, or the God of the Christians; But saith he if any necessity urged them, if any pestilence annoyed them, tunc deum recordantur, than they remember God ad Deum confugiunt, they fly to God, à Deo petitur auxilium, they pray help at God's hand, Deus ut subve●iat oratur, thee desire that God would secure them; so is it with our adversaries towards us, they believe us not in the matter of the sacrament, they detest our supper, & the presence we make Christ to have. 
Equidem statuere non possum dolendum ne potius an ridendum putem cum vide●… & graves & doctos, & ut sibi videntur, sapientes viros, in tam miserandis errorum fluctibus volutari. Lact. lib. 1 c 18.  But come to discourse, press them hard with argument, hold them to it, they fly their own very words, & use ours; ours I say wherewith we express our minds, and cannot say any thing for themselves, if they borrow not our language, as by the discourse following shall be seen. Pause upon this and demand what they mean. I cannot determine, whether I should more pity them, or laugh at them, when I see such zealous men in their cause as they seem to be, so deeply plunged in such miserable quavemires; For never yet did I read any of your books, but in on point or other, there was disagreement from others of the same side, or the author contrary to himself, or adding or subtracting from the text, which he meddled with; or in some answer or defence so gross and childish, that a weak man might have overthrown him; Or absolutely when the matter came to the upshot, said no other than that which we have said. I will not be found in this impudently to bely any of your writers, with more than is to be found in the very pages of their books, (as your men deal by us) but what I lay upon them, be ye sure there to find it. And although the whole course of this book do go against you and your teachers in this kind, yet will I give here a taste of their dealing before hand, which I purposely kept for this place, because I would not heap up all I could say at once, but sparse and let them fall here some & there some, the better to profit. 
B. juells challenge art. 2. Hard. against the Bishop art. 2. fol. 55. 56.  One of the Articles whereof Bishop Juell contended with D Harding was, that the Holy Communion for the space of 600. years after Christ was never ministered openly in the Church unto the people under one kind (which is bread, the cup being taken from them) In discussing of which point D Harding granteth, that it was ministered in both kinds at Corinth as appeareth by S Paul, and in sundry other places (saith he) as we find most evidently in the writings of divers ancient fathers, Stapleton confesseth as much, 
Return of untruths art. 2. fol. 44. b.  that S Paul and the primitive Church used so to do, long and many years. What is this but to grant the whole question, & so grow from that which they took upon them to justify? For if S. Paul & the primitive Church used to minister it in both kinds long and many years together; what is this but to say as B. jewel said; 
The communion better than the private Mass. Hard. art. 1. fol. 39 b  the communion was never ministered openly to the people in one kind, for the space of 600. years after Christ? The like doth D. Harding confess for the private Mass, for which he disputeth to justify the priests sole receiving, Marry I deny not (saith he) but that it were more commendable and more godly on the Church's part, if many well disposed & examined would be partakers of the blessed sacrament with the priest: but though the clergy be worthily blamed for negligence herein, through which the people may be thought to have grown to this slackness and indevotion, yet notwithstanding this part of the Catholic religion remaineth sound and faultless. Again, whether I can show, that a mass was said without company present to receive with the Priest that said it or no; what skilleth it? such particularities and specialties of a matter of fact, were very seldom recorded by writers of the first 600. years. 
The private mass is now become a matter of small weight, & yet you say the people receive spiritually when they look on & receive nothing Rejoinder fol 210. This is more than a matter of small weight as you said even now, by this the priests private mass makes the people have a true communion. Hard. art 1 fol. 28. Dor. art. 4. fol. 97. Hard. count jewel art. 1. fol. 34 b. for a private mass. art. 2. foe 64. for an ha● communion. Saund. de visib monar l. 7. fol. 669. for the private mass & fol. 675. for an half communion. Dureus' resp. Whitak., rat. 6. fol. 301. Ex Euseb. eccles. hist. lib. 6. c. 44; in Greek 36. in Latin and 43. in English Eckius, enchir. loc. comm. c. 15 fol. 156.  If the Communion, that is a company receiving together, be in that respect, better than the private mass, (as M, Harding himself saith) where the Priest receiveth all, the people gazing on, and receiving nothing, which is the point which M jewel blamed; and the private mass be but a matter of small weight, and a fact, the Priest's negligence causing the people's slackness; For shame leave of to write in defence of it, as also to make that a true Communion & spiritual receiving, when the People stand by & receive nothing, as both D. Harding & M. Dorman do. Corporally the Priest, spiritually the people, saith he; Then say I the people that receive spiritually receive the better; for to receive the flesh and blood of Christ corporally they assign to the wicked and reprobate, such as judas, & spiritually they assign only to the elect and godly. But how are both these articles of private mass, and half communion, proved against B. jewel and us, by one example; of what a silly boy did give to a sick man at his house in a case of necessity; The boy, because the Priest was sick, brought from him a little of the sacrament and gave it the old man? Do not these men lack the practice of the Church for their warrant, that will obtrude such examples? The story is to be read in Eusebius in Greek, Latin, and English, and therefore there can be no mystery in it, except men desire to be abused. What saith Eckius touching prayer unto Saints departed, which doctrine is of great moment in the church of Rome, Explicitè non est praecepta sanctorum invocatio in sacris literis? The invocation of Saints departed is not expressed in the holy scriptures; 
This invocation of Saints cannot be proved net her by the old Testament, nor by the new.  Not in the old Testament (saith he) for the jews were prone to Idololatry; and under the Gospel, it was not commanded, lest the Gentiles that were converted and believed, should think, they should be brought again to the worship of Earthly Gods. Further, (saith he) if the Apostles & Evangelists had taught the Saints had been to have been worshipped, it would have argued great arrogancy in them, as if they had sought renown after death; therefore the Apostles would not by the express scripture teach the calling upon Saints. Thus far Eckius. 
Sessio. 25. de invocat  The counsel of Trent doth not found it in the scriptures, but bringeth it in (by the window an other way) by custom & consent of Fathers; which they do but pretend neither, because they would not let go all their hold at once. Saunders reakoneth this amongst other things to be the words of God, 
De visib. monarc. l. 1. fol 12 Hoker Ecclespoll 1. par. 13. The benefit of having divines laws written  not his word written, but his word unwritten. If we in this age of the world be to trust to an unwritten word, I demand to whom that was delivered to be kept and preserved? In the first age of the world, as God gave Laws to our Fathers without writing, so he gave them memories which served in steed of books; the defects of that kind of teaching, being known unto him he relieved it by often iterating of one thing, & by putting them in mind of onething often. After this grew the use of writing as means more durable to preserve the laws of God from oblivion and corruption, as the lives of men grew the more to be shortened: therefore is Moses said to write all the words of God, and unto the Evangelist S. john express Charge is given Scribe, 
Exod. 24 4. Apoc. 1.11. & 14.13. joh. 20.30.31.  writ these things. Again, Many other signs also did jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book; but these things are written that ye might believe that jesus is that Christ that Son of God. So that if now after so much writing, & the ceasing of God to speak to the world but by writing, we shall divert from his written word, to his unwritten, it willbe to turn the truth of God into a lie, and to follow fables in steed of truth. If this part of the doctrine of the Church of Rome in praying to Saints be without all warrant of holy scripture as Eckius and Saunders do allow; how much to blame are they, 
Dureus Conf. Whimbly rat. 1. f. 44 Cope dial. 3. fol. 332. to the same purpose.  who would draw a prescript & rule from Christ's own words on the cross, when he cried Eli, Eli, My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me; saying that it was familiar to the faithful jews to pray unto Saints: because they thought that Christ had called on Elias? Is it not a miserable gloss, that eateth out the bowels of the text? If it were an usual thing with the jews to pray unto Saints: how said Eckius that the jews had it not in use, because they were prone to idololatry, and to whom should they pray? The fathers of the old testament, (saith he also) were in Limbo, in hell; The jews that said Christ called on Elias, did deride & mock him: & so do the Papists abuse us, 
Matth. 27.47.  that allege the holy scriptures to such purposes; But into how many shapes, will they turn this one parcel of scripture and make it serve more ways than one? Saunders allegeth it for the service in an unknown tongue, because the jews seemed to mistake Christ. 
De visib. mon. l. 7. fo. 679. for the service in an unknown tongue  How near that speech of Christ on the cross cometh either in favour of praying to Saints: or to the service in an unknown tongue, I will not stick even now to make themselves judges. The Doctrine of pardons hath brought no small treasure to the church of Rome, & yet Alphonsus, 
Alphons. a Castro. l. 8. verb. indulg. Pardons have no ground either in antiquity or in the scriptures. Polid. Virg. de invent. rerum li. 8. c. 1. f. 614.  reverenceth it but for new; Against the error of denying pardons saith he, I will contend in few words, because amongst all the things whereof we dispute in this work, there is none that the holy scriptures have less mentioned than pardons, and whereof the ancient writers have less spoken. This report of Alphonsus doth Polidore Virgil confirm out of Fisher, who was bishop of Rochester, in these words: No Divine doth at all doubt (saith he) whether there be purgatory, but yet among the ancient fathers, there is no mention at all of it, or very seldom, yea even the Greeks to this day believe it not, for so long as there was no care for purgatory nemo quaesivit indulgentias, no man sought after pardons, for upon that dependeth all the credit of Pardons. 
No purgatory no pardons.  So may they both be left, as having no ground in the word of God. Here you have an open and known confession of themselves, that for these main points of their religion, Private mass; half communion, prayers to Saints, Purgatory, and pardons, that the holy scripture doth not speak in favour of them, 
Princip. doctr. 6. c. 7. &. 17. No succession in the Apostle ship.  no nor antiquity neither. Touching the Pope's office, they are not yet resolved what to think of it; First Stapleton telleth us That the Pope succeed not S Peter in the Apostleship, of the Apostleship there is no succession: by an absolute denial. Bellarmine saith succedit aliquo modo in Apostolatu, 
De Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 31. foe 324 After a sort. Rhem. Annot. Ephes. 4. v. 11. ●s a very continual apostle ship.  the Pope succeed after a sort in the Apostleship, that is, in the care of the whole world. After a sort saith he. The Rhemistes conclude the affirmative, without any qualification, That the Room and dignity of the Pope is a very continual Apostleship, by an absolute concession. So what they cannot perfect at once they will by degrees. It is not saith Stapleton, it is after a sort saith Bellarmine, 
Alphons● à castro. l. 1. fol. 17.6 The sea apostolic cometh after general counsels.  nay it is indeed say the Rhemists. They stagger in more than this about his holiness, even of what force & strength his determination is. Sedes Apostolica, The apostolic sea, because it representeth the whole Church as the head, holdeth the first place after general counsels, in defining matters of faith, saith Alphonsus; And I take not (saith he) the apostolic sea for the Pope alone, seeing he may err in the faith, as did Liberius & Anastasius, but by the sea apostolic I understand the whole College of Cardinals and other learned and approved men, 
De Rom. pont l. 4 c. 1. fol. 470  if they may be had to aid and assist the sentence which is to be given. Bellarmine shutteth out counsel, 
De council. author. l. 2. c. 19 fol. 183.  and Cardinals, and all, & maketh the sentence of general counsels of no force, except there be added to it, the allowance of the Pope as the last upshot; Nay he will not only make him above all counsels, and the whole Church, but he will make him the whole Church too; for where we object by a clear evidence drawn from a text of holy scripture, that the Church is the last tribunal, whereat all men must stand on earth, 
Mat. 18.15. 1. reprove him 2. take 1. or 2. 3. tell the Church  because Christ said to Peter Tell the Church, the occasion may alight on the Pope aswell as on any other, to refer sinners to the Church, and therefore the Pope ought to acknowledge the Church to be greater than himself, he answereth that the Pope may in some sort perform that order of reproof; First, saith he the Pope ought to admonish him that offendeth privately; next if that serve not, to call witnesses, lastly, to tell it to the church that is, to tell it to himself, 
Tell it to the Church that is, to himself The Pope is ●he Church. De visib. mon. l. 7. fol 394.  as to the precedent and Church over whom he is, that is to say, to excommunicate him public. Did ever any man hear such base shifts? Bellarmine flieth the Church and retireth to the Pope, Saunders on the other side being hard driven for Honorius the Pope, who being condemned for an heretic, was so taken and reputed, refuseth him & flieth to the Church, for although (saith he) Honorius had fallen into heresy, 
Though Honorius fell into heresy yet the Church of Rome did not Saunders ibid. fol. 362. 364.  yet can it not be said the Church of Rome did err in the faith, who did not only not decree any such thing, but also did always detest that heresy, whereof Honorius was condemned; The like and more he saith in defence of Anastasius the 2 whom Gratian in the decrees doth note for an heretic; For having said that although Anastasius had consorted & communicated with heretics, tamen ab omni haeresis crimine libera mansisset Romana Ecclesia, yet had the Roman church remained safe without all fault of heresy, addeth, 
The Church of Rome may for some small time fale into heresy  That although the Church of Rome did, or should have for some small time-fallen into heresy, yet had God (and so he did) show his wonderful providence towards that sea, in respect that the Pope, who caused the error, was therefore stricken from above, least by the sea of Peter the Catholic church should be drawn into error, no man following the Pope therein, because he was smitten of God; nor must we, saith he, respect what Bishops do, but what they lawfully do, seeing Christ commanded his people to follow and obey those things which they who sit in the Chair of Moses should command: 
By this reason it will follow that the Pope sitteth not in the Chair of Moses The Church of Rome can now save the Pope's credit.  And that is understood to be lawfully done which is done (after the ancient custom) according to the mind of a counsel. Seeing therefore the Church of Rome decreed no such thing under Anastasius, verily it is free every way from heresy. If the Church of Rome, can now save the Pope's credit, that free and he faulty; how is his determination, the upshot of all, and above all? How is he the church itself? And how is nothing firm, without his ratification, as Bellarmine striveth to prove? And which is most material, how doth he strengthen his brethren, if he may be an heretic & they free? So that in these conclusions, Bellarmine neither standeth with Alphonsus, 
Bellar. nether standeth with Alph●nsus nor Saunders, nor with himself. The sea of Rome subject to a general counsel. Bell. de Rom. pontiff. l. 4. c. 4 fol. 486  nor with Saunders, as hath been showed, no nor with himself; For Alphonsus subjecteth the sea of Rome, the church of Rome, consisting of the Pope, Clergy, and other godly men there, unto a general counsel; Bellarmine preferreth the Pope's voice or decree above all, yea maketh him the church; yet other where, he setteth for the Church, not the Pope alone, but the Pope and the people; and that when the ancient fathers and the Popes do say the Church of Rome cannot err, that then they are to be understood that in the Church of Rome, there shall always be a Catholic bishop teaching, & Catholic people hearing or judging, in concluding both under the name of the Church of Rome; and so hath he slain himself with his own sword.  

Bellarmine's good will to the Pope.  Furthermore Bellarmine is so careful for the Pope, that though he hold opinion touching a matter of faith; as other men do; if in examination, it happen to be an error, yet shall it be none in the Pope, but must be one in all men else: For trial of this let any man read the 1. & 2. chapped. de sanct. beat. where he proveth it an error upon whom soever shall think that the souls of the blessed do not see God until the last day. 
Bellar. de Sanctor. beatit. l. 1 c. 1. & 2  This error is put upon john 22. Bellarmine confesseth as much, joannem hunc reverâ sensisse animas non visuras Deum, nisi post resurrectionem. That john 22. did verily believe, 
Bell. de Rom. pont. l. 4. c. 14. fol, 549. etc. 12. fol. 531. he saveth Pope Nicholas by the like.  that the souls see not God until the last day; But this he thought (saith he) when he might so think without danger of heresy, nulla enim adhuc praecesserat Ecclesiae definitio, for there had no determination of the church gone before. Why? The determination of himself, is the determination of the church, aswell as you said before, his telling of a thing to himself, was the telling of it to the church. And why excuseth he the Pope, by the not determination of the Church? When he telleth us himself, 
De conc. auth l. 2. c. 2: & 5.  That neither general counsels nor particular, (which otherwise are subject to err) can err, if the Pope confirm them. And yet see the man, be telleth us, 
De Rom. pont l. 4. c. 14, f. 551  that john need not to revoke the error cum in errorem nullum incidisset, for he fell into no error. If he fell into no error neither did they fall into any error, on whom Bellarmine layeth the same error, nor must he call it an error to say, The souls of the righteous see not God until the last day, seeing he himself saith that john so held and yet held no error. From absurd and gross conclusions, they fall to flat blasphemies. 
Rom. 6.23. Rhem annot. on that Text. Blasphemies & Contradictions  The reward of sin is death, but everlasting life is the gift of God, saith S. Paul; the Rhemists say, in their annotations, that The sequel of the speech required, that as he said deathor damnation is the stipend of sin; so life everlasting is the stipend of justice, & so it is. What indignity is this to the holy Ghost to cross him so manifestly? S. Paul maketh opposition between eternal life & eternal death, touching the cause of either. The proper working cause of death is sin, so saith the Apostie, The reward, wages, or stipend of sin is death, but everlasting life is (what? the stipend of good works as the Rhemists say? no: but) the free gift of God. 
The Apostle might as easily have said so, as they if it had been so. Annot, 2. Cor. 5. vers. 10. Will Reinolds count Whi●…k. fol. 105●  Why did S. Paul invert and turn the sentence, if, as the one had deserved hell, so the other had deserved heaven, but only to exclude what the Rhemists bring in? They iterate this in an other place, where they say Heaven is as well the reward of good works, as hell is the stipend of ill works. This is also seconded by one from Rheims, who saith that the Apostle Saint Paul layeth in indifferent balance good works and evil, & maketh the one the cause of heaven, as the other is the cause of hell. But if it be so, that good works be the cause, purchase & merit of eternal life, (as these men tell us) as truly as evil works are the purchase and merit of hell, what say they to their own note, 
Rhem. Annot. Rom c 9 v. 11. & 16.  upon another text, where they tell us, that by the example of the two two twins jacoh & Esaw, it is evident that nether nations nor particular persons be elected eternally or called temporally, or preferred to God's favour before other, by their own merits, but of them two, where justly he might have reprobated both, he saved of mercy one? What is this? as S Paul said before eternal life is the gift of God, excluding merits. Yet they stand not alway to this last; For they say again. Man hath free will to make himself a vessel of salvation or damnation, 
Rhem. Annot 2. Tim. 2. v. 21.  though salvation be attributed to god's mercy principally, the other to his just judgement. H●w hath man free will to make himself a vessel of salvation or damnation, when salvation is principally of God's mercy, and the other of his judgement? Why explain they not that dark speech, that we may understand it? Interpres eget interpret, They need more Interpreters than the text. They told us before, that God's mere mercy is seen in the elect, and justice in the reprobat; And that they that are saved, 
Annot. Rhem. Rom 9 v. 6.11 14. &. 16.  must hold of gods eternal purpose, mercy and election; And this election and mercy dependeth on his own purpose, will, & determination; & that all are worthy of damnation, before they be first called to mercy. Make good this doctrine which they have last set down, and agreed upon, & the former will prove blasphemous, and deregatorie to the majesty of God. That good works are the cause of beaven, as evil are the cause of hell. Or that man hath free will to make himself a vessel of salvation or damnation. I doubt not if the Rhemists be followed, but that a man might take up more contradictions than those before, which they have heaped amongst their notes in that testament. 
2. Tim 2.25. God giveth repentance.  Where S. Paul writing to Tymothy willeth him to instruct with meekness, those that resist or withstand the truth, proving if at any time God will give them repentance, that they may acknowledge the truth; they note; That conversion from sin and heresy, is the gift of god, and of his special grace. 
Annot. upon that place in the margin. pag. 589.  I might ask them first, how this agreeth with their own note one the other side of their own leaf, so oft mentioned before; Man hath free will to make himself a vessel of salvation or damnation.  
But I will leave that now, and demand of them how it agreeth with this; The grace of god worketh not in man against his will, nor forceth any thing without his acceptation and consent, 
Annot. 2. cor. 6. v. 1. Annot. joh. 6. v. 44. Annot Luc. 14. v. 23. Conversion from sin. & heresy is the gift of God For whosoever are lead by the spirit of God Rhem. Rom. 8. v 14. in marg. He meaneth not that the children of god be violently compelled against their wills, but that they be sweetly drawn moved, or induced to do good ex Aug. Ench c. 64. de verbis domin. Serm. 43. c 7 & deverb. Apost ser. 13. c. 11, 1●. Acts ●.  and therefore it lieth in a man's will to frustrate or to follow the motion of god. And this, The father draweth us, and teacheth us to come to his son and believe these high and hard mysteries, not compelling or violently forcing any against their will or without any respect of their consent, but by the sweet internal motions and persuasions of his grace and spirit he wholly maketh us of our own will and liking to consent to the same. And in another place most plainly The vehement persuasion that god useth both externally by force of his word & miracles, and internally by his grace, to bring us unto him is called compelling, not that he forceth any to come to him against their wills, but that he can alter and mollify an hard heart, & make him willing that before would not. How these notes agree, all men may see if conversion from sin & heresy, be the gifts of God, and of his special grace, and that he wholly maketh us of our own will and liking to consent, and that he doth alter and mollify an hard heart and maketh him willing that before would not. I would know what free will man hath to wish his own conversion (which is a supernatural thing) before God's grace and illumination come. Can it concur with a thing which is not? A will to wish our conversion is not there before grace come, nether heath it in man to frustrate the grace of God, when he doth effectually call us, as appeareth by S Paul called in the Acts: Again if it he in man's power to frustrate or follow the motion of God, how is conversion from sin and heresy the gift of God, which they say also? So that as the two first notes, do oppugn each other, so do the two last also, joining fairly with the doctrine of the Church of England in one main point of controversy, which is Free will. To say that God altereth and mollifieth an hard heart & maketh him willing, that before would not, is to say, That God maketh us then willing being otherwise by nature unwilling, 
Perkins Treatise of man's free-will and Gods free grace fol. 102. De gratia & lib. arbit. l. 6. c. 15. fol. 557.  and so he regenerateth us, not against our wills, but with our wills; yet so as the willingness to be regenerate is not of us, but of God. If they will stand to their own notes, they may subscribe to this of ours. Bellar mine will come to us himself, rather than we shall be alone in this question of our conversion and free will: conversio homines addeum, ut etiam quodlibet aliud opus pium, quatenus opus, à libero arbitrio est tantum, non tamen secluso auxilio generali, quatenus pium à SOLA GRATIA est, quatenus opus pium, à libero arbitreo est & gratiam. The conversion of man unto God (saith he) as every other godly work, so far forth as it is a work, is only of free will, not excluding Gods general help; so far forth as it is Godly, it is ONLY of Grace, and so far forth as it is a Godly work, 
The good that is in the work is of grace.  it is of Free will and Grace together. For the efficient cause of every action of man, as it is an action, is from the will of man; as it is free, it is by the freedom of the will, as it is Godly, it is by the good seed and sufficient help for that seed: Further, Grace only doth make that the action or deed of man be godly and supernatural; which nature with all his strength can never reach unto; What is this, but our assertion, and the overthrow of himself and his fellows in this question? We never denied a natural power in man, simply to will this or that, but to will that is good, 
Petrus Baro super jonam. Thes. 1. fo. 326 ex Aug.  we hold it a work of grace only, as Bellarmine here confesseth. Liberè agere est humanae naturae, & it a cum ratione coniunctum ut ab ea non separetur, liberè agendo malum eligere, est corruptae naturae; bonum vero eligere est gratiae, saith a great protestant out of S. Augustine, Freely to do a thing, is of the natural power in man, and so joined to his reason, that it cannot be separated from it, in this free choice to choose a thing that is nought, is the corruptness of nature, but to choose the good is of grace. Bellarmine in one place complaineth that Pighius, 
De great. & lib. arb. l. 1 c. 3. f. 50. See the same in Rey. admonit▪ ad lecto. in li de Rom. Eccle. idol. q. 3 In very many things Bellarmine is a protestant, or at the least not a Papist, Doctor Dove in his book of recusancy. De iustific l. 5. cap. 7 fol 424. It is the safest way to trust to the alone mercy of God  otherwise a great Catholic, went away from that side in some questions, because he addicted himself to read Calvins' works; and I doubt me when Bellarmine shall be called hence, they will say of him, he was too near a protestant. For besides that before; in the great question of Merit, thus he writeth, Propter incertitud●…em propriae justitiae & periculum inavis gloriae, tutissi mumest fiduciam totam in sola ●es miserisordia & benignitate reponere. In respect (saith he) of the incertainty of our own righteousness and for fear of vain glory, It is the safest way, to place all our trust and hope, in the alone goodness and mercy of God. He seethe well the weakness of his cause, for which he striveth; otherwise he would never have come to the truth so freely, howsoever in the expounding of his meaning in those words (which are plain enough and need no exposition) he would feign mar them againel; For he would yet have us believe that our works are vera justitia, very righteousness, and that they can abide the judgement of God; and may be relied upon; which, if it were so, where is the defect, which causeth them to fly to his alone mercy? God is not unjust, if their works will abide his trial, let them claim their due of desert without mercy or favour. For to him that worketh is the reward not reakoned of grace but of duty, saith S. Paul. 
Rom. 4.4. De iustific. l. 5. c. 16. fol. 463. 2. Tim 4.8.  Again, discoursing against his ancient brother Durand touching that text of S. Paul, which the just judge shall give unto me at that day, he saith, that to speak absolutely man cannot exact or require any thing of God, since all that we have is his gift, yet taking in (as it were) the will of God and his promise, in that he will not exact our works of us for nothing, but will render a reward according to the proportion of the works, we may exact a reward of him; and therefore (saith he) the works of the righteous, remoto pacto velpromissione, 
Ibid. fol 465.  setting his covenant and promise aside, are not worthy of eternal life. God's mercy and promise is then his best stake, howsoever sometimes he would pull it up. To make our works truly and properly meritorious, and fully worthy of everlasting life, 
What they say of good works Rhem. 2. Tim. 4, v, 8. jeam c. 2 v. 22. What they say of good works  and more principal causes in the matter of justification than faith, to make them the cause of heaven, as ill deeds, are the cause of hell▪ To say that we may trust unto them, that they are true righteousness, and that they are able to abide the judgement of God: And yet to say, that it is of his free mercy and liberality, that either he promised any such reward to our works, and that the works of themselves are his & none of ours, and that when he crowneth our works, he crowneth his own gifts, & that he rewardeth them above our desert, and all this in respect of his free promise and grant; are the words of men that are disposed to play their parts on a stage, and when they are out of their parts to imagine some God to come down amongst them to keep their credit with the people; for their tenor and brief of all their talk is, we have truly and properly deserved heaven, because of his free bounty & mercy he first promised and then gave it us. Stapleton after much debating of this questiòn, 
De univets▪ justif. lib. 10 c. 7. fol. 361. God is to himself not not to us.  cometh in the end to this. That debtor whensoever we do read in the ancient fathers that god is debtor unto us, in the great gift of eternal life, It must be understood as debtor to himself, and in respect of his own promises, and that he is not debtor unto us; to himself, not to us, for his own promises, not for the worthiness of us or our works: If this suffice them we will stand to it, God is just (sai● we) in that he keepeth promise and doth not deceive his of that reward, 
Whitak. count Gul. Reynold. fol. 58.  which they hope for, but the promise is free, for freely he promised, and freely he giveth, yet in that he bond himself unto us by his free promise, it was just that he should perform the same not that we have justly and worthily deserved any part of that reward, but because it is meet that God be always faithful in his words: And so make him, if debtor to any, them to himself, as Stapleton speaketh: The Crown is the reward which God hath promised to the work, not because the work is worthy of it, but because it pleased him so graciously and liberaly to bestow such excellent rewards upon us, that have deserved so little; and so keep in with the promise and covenant, and exact nothing of him because all are his, as Bellarmine a voucheth. 
Cui redderet coronam justus judex, si non donasset gratiam misericors pater? & quomodo eslet ista corona justitiae, nisi pra cessisset gratia quae justificat impium? Augde gra & lib. arb. c. 6. ●nnot 2. Tim. 4. v. 8.  And when he crowneth us he crowneth his own gifts, not our works, giving before what he repaieth after. For how should he repay as a just judge, unless he had first given as a merciful father? & how should this be a crown of justice, if grace had not gone before, which justifieth the ungodly man as say the Rhemists?  
Of these notes, and the rest in this whole book following I would have you that are seduced to demand of your teachers what they think, praying them to reveiwe & reexamine them: and for your parts to mark how they answer & defend their opinions, but see with your own eyes trust not theirs Think that the very debating of these questions (which they cannot choose but handle) hath drawn such confessions from them; settle yourselves but once to compare their reasons, First with the holy scripture, then with the ancient fathers of the primitive time, and lastly by the protestant writers of this age in the Church of England, and then judge where the truth is, you will then soon perceive (I will speak of one for all) that no man can more fully contradict Bellarmine, than Bellarmine doth himself, 
Nec enim poterit, ab vilo Cicero quam. Cicerohe vehemen ius resutari. l 2. c. 9 fol. 148 Cicer pro domo sua post medium. Staplet in the fortress. f. 5. b  as Lactantius said of Tully. If he or any of them, or all of them be grown in your opinious great, it is but the elements of your sloth that will not give you leave to look on him. Calamitas huius temporiss lan dem viri propagavit. The misery of this time wherein pusillanimity so much reigneth in your minds, hath gotten him the praise he hath, and not the cause he handleth; for look into that, and you will be ashamed both of it and him. We all jump in this. As no building standeth without a sure and substantial foundation; so no life no salvation is to be hoped for without a right and true faith.  
Let us therefore look whom we trust and what we believe Sireligio tollitur, vulla nobis, ratio cum coelo est. 
Lactant l▪ 3▪ 〈◊〉 10. away religion fol. 224.  Take and we have no society with heaven: 
Non hic nobis labor Inutilis ad pernitiem, sed utili ad salutem. Aug ep. 111. The jews could tell that the golden calf which they worshipped was not God, yet were they idolaters and the heathen did not think did not think that those things which they made with their hands to be Gods etc. and yet were they gross Idolaters A quibus si persuasionis eius rationem requiras nuilam possint reddere, sed ad maio rum judicia confugiant, quod alli sapientes fuerint, illi pro baverint, illi scierint quid esset optimum, seque ipsos sensibus spoliant, ratione abdicant, dum alienis erroribus jeredunt. Lactantio▪ 5. c. 20.  the labour thereof is not unprofitable leading us to destruction, but profitable bringing to salvation. Believe not them that would draw you from knowledge. Know that they abuse you, that say the scriptures are not for you to read, and all to keep you in ignorance, because you shall not see what they say or do. Take you heed of them that teach you worshipping of Images; praying to Saints; that plead their pardons & their purgatory, no one syllable in God's book sounding any way to either of them. I know they have excuses, that you do it not to the image, but to the thing represented; which excuse besides that it is the same that the jews, and all Idolaters that were heathen could make for themselves, it is a monstrous untruth in itself. They know there be amongst them who have written in defence of the worshipping of the imag of the Cross and trinity, even with the same worship that the trinity should be worshipped with. The learned amongst them know, that this which I say is true. Leave I beseech you your old and worneout excuses, which hitherto some of you have been accustomed to make in defence of the religion, you are in liking with, which are so did we learn, so did, our ancients teach, they were wise enough, they knew what they did and what was best, and so spoil yourselves of judgement, and banish reason only to rest on other men's errors.  
But if you will needs go to Fathers & ancients, go to them of 1500. 1400. 1300. 1200. 1000 years since, & not to them which lived in the Tyranny of ignorance, for 400. 300. or 200. years ago, when Satan had covered the greatest Monarkies in darkness, and ignorance, some few sparkles here and there arising, being with the fog & mist that then spread itself, soon put out. Policy is the best point that their religion ever thrived by. That this is true, I will lay a brief of the method which your masters use, (and you know is true) in propagating their religion. First they take away all use of reading the holy scriptures from the Laity whom they teach & instruct. Next they bar them from all conference or society with any of whom they might learn to understand what they are taught, whether agreeable to God's word or not. 
2  They take from them all the Protestants books, 
3  and damn them to the pit of hell, not suffering them to read one of them. I demand how far either a Turk or jew, or any other miscreant might prevail against any poor seduced soul that is in their custody, if they take them time enough, with these means. Those they use touching the Ignorant, for their scholars they have other. First they shall have the ancient Fathers & Doctors, as they will please to deliver them, 
4  by written notes of their own gathering; 
5  if they chance to admit them to the prints, they shall then have such prints, as they have newly set for the purpose; the ancient copies being altered. Then they have a devise to show them counterfeit writings of the Fathers and Doctors, such as they never wrote, instead of true; and therefore learned and unlearned, 
6  scholar or not scholar had need take heed to them in that. And when they are hardly pursued, out comes the Index expurgatorius, in manner of a note book, to tell the younger sort, when & wherein they shall refuse any author that maketh against the doctrine of the church of Rome: 
7  And add unto this practice such an opinion as this, 
This is related more at large in the book itself where special mention is made of it.  The Church of Rome cannot err whatsoever it decree: and the Pope of Rome is not to be accused whatsoever be doth. And thus they seduce both one sort and other. If ever there were slavery or tyranny this is it, the captivity of the soul being ten thousand times more great & more grievous than that of the body. God hath called you unto liberty, not to be servants of sin; 
8  but to serve erroneous opinions is worse than to bear tyrannous exactions. 
9  Take from them these weapons, where with they chief fight, 
Gal. 5. 1. Co●inth. 7. judg. 15.  and you shall have them as Samson without his hair, you may take them and chain them where you list. Pardon me I desire you, if I be large, the earnestness of my mind towards you hath caused it, because I see the ways that deceive you; where the apprehension of the mind is great, words to open it will be many; vincil officium linguae sceleris magnitude. Their practices against the truth, pass the quickness of my pen to describe, and therefore every warning should work some wariness.  
Touching my person, it skilleth not in this who I am, I hope you will consider what is spoken, 
Hoker pref. to his 5. book of Eccles polic. Quaeso à vobis ut eadem oratio aequa, aeque vale at. I'anormitanus Laur. Humfr. count Camp. ratio. p. 2. fol. 381 & 456. spiritus sanctus non alligatur ordini vel gradui vel ●athredae etc. Quare nec ex munero homi num, nec ex personarum celsitate, fed ex causae veritate omnia sunt aestimanda. Act. 20 The chief that have written in the controversies, a little before Queen Elis, reign, & ever since.  and not who it is that speaketh, but let the same reason prevail, whether from a young man or an old, whether from a clerk or a lay man. There was a great man of your Church, that once said, There was more heed to be given to a lay man bringing scripture, than to the Pope and general counsel; And as great a man amongst us hath said, The holy Ghost is not tied to any Order, degree or chair, but bloweth where he will, neither as S. Jerome saith, we must not judge as Pithogoras scholars according to what the teacher shall say, but the strength of that which is taught (by whomsoever) must be weighed. If the truth in these cases had been to be sought for at the hands of any sort of men, Popes, or Cardinals, or touching the place, Rome, Paris, or Rheims, or any other seat, I am well assured S. Paul when he took his leave from those of Ephesus, would not have omitted to have named any man or place to have resorted unto, he only said thus. Now brethren I commend you to God, & unto the word of his grace, which is able to build further, and to give you an inheritance amongst all them that are sanctified. To draw to an end. Because you shall as plainly see that I can direct you where you shall find the true religion taught and maintained according to the holy scriptures of God, as well as I have noted unto you the false bolstered out, take into your hands those two treatises of D. Cranmers' of the Sacrament, Bishop Hoopers', and Bishop Ridlies of the same argument. Bishop jewels Reply, & defence of the Apology against Harding. D. Nowell against Dorman. D. Fulkes answer to the Rhemists' testament. D. Humphrey against Campian. D. whitaker's against Campian and Dureus. willet's Synopsis, and Tetrastilon, D. Reinolds confetence with Hart, and against Bellarmine, and defence of his theses. D. Sutcline against Bellarmine often; My Lord of Winchester's Dialogues against the jesuits. D. Abbot against Hil, or any other treatises of these against your side, you shall see the truth of God's holy word in several parts discussed in so wonderful an harmony, that though some of them live now, and some be gone, they speak all one language, they all pronounce Shibboleth plainly, 
jud. 12.6.  it being but one truth which they speak. In their volumes and writings be many and infinite quotations, both of scriptures, fathers, Doctors, Counsels, histories, laws, decrees, both Greek and Latin: peruse them, view them, single them out in the questions they treat of (& they treat of all between the church of Rome, and the church of England) in the Mass, sacrifice, real presence, service in a strange tongue, half communion, Pope's supremacy, worshipping of Images, or in any difference else, and show me any apparent abuse of holy scripture or history, contradiction each from other, shift, colour or devise, to darken the truth in any of those points, let it be in the least nature, as those that I have already, & will further show in the book following, and I protest before God I will fully give over either to write or speak any thing against you, 
Osey. c. 8. 1. Cor. 14.20. Da domine, ut te quem bene credendo con fiteor male vivendo non denegem, & te quem strenuâ fide sequor, ac tu negligentiae operibus non offendam. Aug. Epist. 111.  but will wholly apprehend your religion, as consonant to the truth. They that sow wind shall reap a storm. Brethren be not children in understanding, but as concerning maliciousness be children, but in understanding be men of a ripe age. I beseech almightle God to make us as wise as Serpents in providing the food of everlasting life to nourish our souls, and as innocent as doves in doing ill, that the corruptions of our lives do not taint it.  
From Tidworth. the 1. of November. 1607. john Panke.   

THE NAMES OF THE POPISH Writers, out of which this book hath been gathered.  

1 The third part of Thomas Aquinas sums, with Caietans tracts annexed. printed at Lions. 1588.  
2 The Sentences of Lombard. at Lions. 1593.  
3 The Trent counsel. at Antwerp. 1596,  
4 The Roman Catechism, set out by the decree of the Tridentine counsel. 1596. at Antwerp.  
5 The Index Expurgatorius, by the decree of the Tridentine counsel. at Lion's 1586.  
6 The English Testament, set out by the College at Rheims. anno. 1582.  
7 Copes Dialogues, at Antwerp. 1566.  
8 Gregory Martin, against our authorized translations at Rheims. 1582.  
9 D. Allen of the sacraments. at Antwerp. 1576.  
10 Stapleton of justification against the protestants. at Paris 1582.  
11 Saunders visible monarchy at Wirceburge. 1592.  
12 Albertus Pyghius, of ecclesiastical government for the Pope's Monarchy. at Colen. 1572.  
13 Alphonsus â Castro against heresies. 1534.  
14 Tonstall b. of Durisme, of the truth of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. at Paris. 1554.  
15 Melchior Canus, his divinity places. at Colen. 1585.  
16 Hieronymus Torrensis▪ gathered S. Aug. Confessions. at Paris, 1580.  
17 Andradius defence of the Tridentine counsel. at Colen. 1580.  
18 Another of Andradius in defener of the divines of Colen against Kemnitius. at Colen. 1564.  
19 Lodovicus Granatensis of a public Communion at Colen. 1586.  
20 Eckius Enchiridion of common places at Colen. 1600.  
21 Genebrards' Chronicles. at Colen. 1581.  
22 Fasciculus Temporum.  
23 Polidorus virgilius, of the first finders out of things at Frankford. 1599  
24 Abdtas, Bishop of Babylon writing the lives of the Apostles, at Colen. 1576.  
25 The third tome of the Homeles of the ancient fathers, set out by the decree of the Trent counsel, at Lions 1588.  
26 D. Hardings' answer to B. jewel challenge. at Antverpe▪ 1565.  
27 D. Hardings' Rejoinder to B. jewels Reply.  
28 Dormans' proof of certain articles denied by Mr. jewel, at Antwerp, 1564.  
29 The return of untruths by Stapleton against B. jewels reply. at Antwerp. 1566,  
30 A Catechism by Laurence Vaux Bachelor of divinity. an. 1583.  
31 William Reynolds, against D. Whitaker, called a refutation of sundry reprehensions, written at Rheims, and printed at Paris. 1583.  
32 Stephen Gardiner against B. Cranmer touching the sacrament, called an explication and assertion of the true Catholic faith▪ etc.  
33 Another of his called a detection of the devils sophistry anno. 1546.  
34 The fortress of the faith by Stapleton, annexed to Bedes history in english.  
35 john Dureus, his confutation of D. whitaker's answer in the behalf of Campian. Paris. 1582.  
36 The disputations of Bellarmine against the Protestants in general, in 9 volumes reveiwed and acknowledged by the author. at Ingolst adium by Adame Sartorius. anno 1599  
37 Moditations, on the mysteries of the Rosary, of the most blessed Virgin Marie. translated into english.  
38 A popish supplication to the King's Majesty. 1604.  
39 Guicciardines' history in english by G. Fenton.  
40 A table in writing hand, of a Catalogue of the Popes from Saint Peter hitherto,  
41 The firm foundation of Catholic religion, translated by Pansfoote, & approved by Stapleton. Antwerp 1590.  
42 Platina, with Onuphrius annotations, on the lives of the Popes. at Louvain anno. 1572.  
43 Anastasius, the Pope's library keeper, of the lives of the Popes. at Magunce. anno. 1602.    

The Speakers 

Tuberius the Gent.  
Romannus the Scholar    
YOU know Romannus, if so you remember, that through a mere accident, or rather a determination of God about Easter was 12. months, you and I did meet; when after some words of controversy, we fell into a discourse touching my being abroad at that festival time, which occasioned some further matter touching a scruple in my mind then uttered unto you, my not receiving of the Communion, neither then, nor at any time before.  Rom. 
Indeed Tuberius, I remember it well, as also the sum of our talk at that time delivered; I hope I satisfied you in that point, how necessary to salvation it is for every Christian man to participate of the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the supper, so that for that matter, I hope you need no farther lessons.  Tub. 
For the necessity thereof I am resolved; but yet by the settling thereof, there is an other question annexed to it, which I am afraid willbe noe less a main bar unto my conscience, for not receiving now, as that other was before of doubt, whether I might receive at all or not; the former of the thing, this other of the belief of the thing! For not to hide from you any thing, which may breed my disquiet, but to acquaint you therewith, since my last being with you, I did light into other company, where talking of questions of salvation, I related unto them so much of our conference, as touched the main point of necessity of receiving that sacrament, and was told by them, that I did very well in apprehending so high a point in the worship & service of God; But when Irelated, what manner of man you were, in laying open unto me, what a sacrament was, of the dignity and worth of that sacrament, and less that I had, the while that I abstained, and other instructions thereto belonging, as at the latter end you did, they perceived what you were, and were no less angry with me for attending you therein, then offended with you for instructing me that way. They called themselves Catholics, of others they are usuàlly styled Papists, but whatsoever they be in name, me thinks their care over me is very good, that I should enter the right way touching my Bee, lief in that sacrament.  Rom. 
Why? what perceived they by my words of that sacrament?  Tub. 
They take you to hold not Catholiklie of it, neither as our Lord and saviour jesus Christ did first institute it, nor as the ancient times of 1500: years, by Fathers, counsels, and Doctors did; and therefore they wished me to make a stand, and pause, before I joined with you therein; For you teach, that they who receive it at your hands receive only a piece of bread, 
One of Hardings' slanders  and a draft of wine, not worth any thing and so call it a sacrament of the Lords institution, whereas he gave his body, his real substantial body, & so his disciples did eat him really, and substantially, and drank his very blood, and to believe this is healthful, holy, & religious, and they that receive it so, receive it, as Christ instituted it, and they who do otherwise, 
Rhem. I. Cor. 11. fol. 453. in fine paginae. Magnus nuga tor magno co natu magnas nobis nugas parit.  receive no sacrament, but profane bread, as they called it; This they did say of you then, touching the difference between them and you in that question; and that in all other things, all antiquity & consent of all ages were for them & nothing for you.  Rom: 
I doubt not, but they are very bitterly eloquent against us, when opportunity is offered of a fit audience, their tongues & pens are miserably valiant. But me thinketh Tuberius, you are remember, that both Christ himself, all ages, and all Doctors & counsels do make for them against us; ordinary ability cannot comprehend this in so short time; much like unto a silly gentlewoman with whom of late I talked also, who being not above one quarter of a year from her friends returned home, with arguments as strong as yours in defence of her new obtained religion, she could talk what a good book the Rhemists' bible was, she could say the Scriptures were written in Greek and Latin, 
For the Rhemists' testament For Hebrew & Greek. I say not that they did teach her so simply, but simply she remembered what they said. Laur. Vaux bachelot of divinity, in his catechism. ca 3. taketh away the 2 commandment of graven images, & instead of that teacheth them Greeke Written in latin by Gasper Loarte, doctor of divinity & translate dinto english fol. 76. would have us believe contrary to that which the gospel expresseth.  and therefore people should pray in latin; nay she could distinguish between an Idol and an Image, observing that the second commandment, was only directed against graven Idols, as she termed them and not against graven Images. And yet nether before she went, nor now can she read english; to such a method was she brought to too quickly, to know what she said. I doubt not but she had been so instructed, but not by M. Vaux, for he to make sure work, hath taken that commandment wholly out of his catechism (as removing a block as belike standeth not in their way, which no wise man will ever bestow any labour about) recompensing his brevity in that point, in telling the use of certain Greek words, Latria, Hyperdulia & Dulia: where a learner is taught to worship any creature in heaven or earth, and commit (as he thinketh) no I dolatry but no otherwise then if a grand thief should teach a puny to steal by precept, and when he had committed the fact (that is, had stolen in deed) say it were not the deed, and so leave him to the gallows. Or if it had been her luck to have been schooled by him that composed the instructions and advertisements how to meditate the mysteries of the Rosary, he would have taught her a more compendious way to have defended it by, or any other point, then by a distinction, which is, although the commandment forbidden us the worshipping of any Image, yet well for our parts may believe and do otherwise. For so he saith plainly in an other question, though not of that weight, yet of that clearness, where speaking all in honour of our blessed Virgin Mary, doth not stick to sale, that our Lord & redeemer did presently after he was risen up visit his most holy mother, whom we may well believe to have been the first, albeit in the Gospel, there be no mention made thereof; For, saith he, if (as the Evangelist reporteth) our Lord did, 
Luc. 24.  after he was risen up appear to S. Peter that had erst denied him, why should not we believe that he appeared first to his blessed mother that never denied him? Here is a plain lesson, a grant that the Scripture teacheth so and so, & yet we may believe otherwise. Thus as their affections lead them, either to the things or people whereof they speak, so do they in their conceits bend the course of their arguments; Other amongst them, ad those of the greatest do refer this appearing of our Lord to Saint Peter, 
De rom. pont. lib. 1. c. 20. fine. for S. Peter, above all the disciples.  reckoning it amongst his prerogatives, as Bellarmine, who affirmeth that Christ rising, appeared to S. Peter first of all his disciples, confirming it by S. Luke's Gospel, and the witness of S Ambrose, who saith that of the men Christ appeared to Peter, for before (saith he) Christ had appeared to Mary Magdalene, and that he further confirmeth out of S. Paul, how that Christ rising the third day, was seen of Cephas and then of the Eleven, 
1. Cor. 15. Abdias Apost. hist. l. 6. fol. 188. Hard. count jewel art. 1. foe 25. Ei primum omnium. ut & Mariae Magdalenae & Petro apparere voluit. Reyn. confer. with Hart c. 8. diu. 2. Sutc. count Bel. de rom. pont. l. 2. c. 6. Rhem. Marc. 16. v. 1. Mat. c. 28.1.  afterward of more than 500 brethren, and after to S James. On the other side Abdias (described to be an ancient writer, first Bishop of Babylon, who was the Apostles scholar, and saw our saviour in flesh, and was present at the passion and martyrdom of S. Andrew, and S. Mathewe) speaking in the honour of S. james, doth say that our Lord would appear to him first of all, as he did to Mary Magdalene, and to Peter; which indignity of these men against the Gospel, & graclesse exposing it unto the world as virtue, is not only taxed by our learned writers, as being dealt injuriously withal, but their own Rhemists both confess according to the truth of the text, that Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene & Mary of james & Salome, called by S. Matthew the other Mary, and acknowledge it by their note, That she first before all other & they next, saw him after his resurrection. But the Rhemists seeing the Scripture hath given this prerogative of appearing from Peter to the women, will stretch hard, but even touching that, some what in it, shall be his prerogative; for when the women are bidden to telis to the Disciples & to Peter they say Peter is named in special (as often elsewhere) for prerogative. It is said of Midas, that he wished every thing he did touch, might be gold, I think they are as so many Midass', every thing they deal in maketh for Peter's prerogative; a simple prerogative I think it is for him to be named after all the Disciples.  Tub. 
Here be shrewd accusations indeed, they accuse you, and you accuse them, on whom shall I & such other that stand in doubt between you, rely? They are very famous for their learning and pains taken in defence & justification of their cause, their volumes and books are many, and it may be your replies & answers are as large, but here is the doubt who saith true.  Rom. 

jewel to the reader in the def. of the Apology  Indeed it cannot choose but pity every good man in behalf of his unlearned brother, to see his conscience thus assaulted this day, with so contrary doctrines of religion, especially when there is a zeal to follow, and men know not what, and would feign please God, and cannot tell how, or if they find not themselves armed with God's holy spirit, not are able to discern their meat from poison, nor to wind themselves out of the snares, for Satan transformeth himself into an Angel of light; 
2. Cor. 11.  the wicked are more watchful & vehement than the Godly, and falsehood is oftentimes pointed & beautified, & shineth more glorious than the truth. These be the things which as S. Paul saith worketh the subversion of the hearers, and by mean whereof, 
2. Tim. 2. Mat, 24  as Christ saith if it were possible, the very elect of God should be deceived. Notwithstanding, God in these days hath so amazed the adversaries of his Gospel, and hath caused them so openly and so grossly, to lay abroad their follies to the sight and face of all the world, that no man now be he never so ignorant, can think he may be justly excused; it is but tolle, lego. take up & read, read and understand by God's assistance. But the indiscretion of many in the world that do stand doubtful of the truth between them & us, is equivalent and semblable to that answer which I once hard a Master give to on that had been his Factor, (or rather indeed his fractor) in a case not unlike to this, about some difference between them of accounts, the Factor pleaded his innocency and truth, by the plainness of his proceed, in delivering his bills and reckonings to his Master from time to time to be examined; his M. replied, you have so done indeed, but you know that I neither did nor would look on them, 
It is no baseness for the greatest to descend & look into their own estate. Bacon see. of expense.  nor examine them, I found by that answer, that the reason why the Master would not nor had any liking to view them, was, because he would have liberty at any time as occasion served to say he could not tell whether his man deceived him or not. Whereas if he had but taken the pains to have examined his man's dealings, he might have been assured, to have found how he had behaved himself towards him, whether true or false: so fareth it in these days with us, painful works there are enough, some of great volume, some slighter, all concerning the truth of our cause, which all men may see and read, but that which galeth us, and most toeth our adversaries to themselves and their errors is, that they who condemn us, know us not, whether we be white or black they never observe, 
Albi an atri simus, nesciunt.  who say we are heretics & despisers of the Church, and yet never read what we hold, nor examine us in any thing that we do, as publicly complaineth a great scholar of our side, 
D. Dove of Recusancy. c. 2,  and I myself have oft had experience. And therefore in few words between them and us, I can say as the ancient father Arnobius said against the Gentiles; when they accused the christians of those things, whereof themselves were guilty; even in the very entrance of his conference he testifieth roundly to the world, 
Arnob. contra Gentes lib. 1. in princip.  in these words Efficietur enim profecto rationum consequentium copulatu, ut non impij nos magis, sed illi ipsi reperiantur criminis estius rei, qui renuminum profitentur esse cultores atque inveteratis religionibus deditos. It shallbe proved (saith he) by the joining of our reasons together, that we are not so wicked, as they lay to our charge, but that themselves are found guilty of that whereof they accuse us, who do profess themselves worshippers of the Gods, and only retainers of the ancient religions. But if you or any other willbe amated with any stream of words to believe that part, without looking into the matter, reasons proofs, drifts and arguments of all sides, whereby you may rightly judge indeed, the same Father telleth you again Quid est enim quod humana ingenia tabefactare studio contradictionis non audeant? 
Arnob. Ibid. l. ● fol. 102.  what is it saith he that the wits of some men dare not ruinated with the study of contradiction? yea although that which they study to overthrow, be pure and clear and hedged with truth on every side, and who cannot (saith he) dispute with arguments of great likelihood, yea although he defend a manifest untruth & lie? The root of this error & vain consequence he toucheth in the next words following Cum enim sibipersuaserit quis esse quid aut non esse, amat quod opinatur asserere. When a man hath perswaided himself, that any thing is so, or not so, he than loveth what he apprehendeth, and desireth to excel others in sharpness of wit, especialliy if the matter which is dealt in be remote, hid, or dark. But God be thanked those learned divines & reverend prelates before mentioned, and a number other in this age, with their infinite toil and pain have threshed and winnowed for us the doctrine and differences of the Church of Rome, and this of England, they have performed the first part of the Apostles speech which willeth to try all things, 
1. Thess. 5. ●1.  the latter part resteth upon us to follow, that that which is good be kept; nether can there be a keeping of that which is good, without a trial of all things do go before; so that I dare pronounce there is none who may not if he will, see on which side the truth is, 
Epist. 105. M.  & to this purpose I do remember a sentence of the Godly and learned father S. Augustine, which is Ignorantia in cis qui intelligere noluernut, sine dubitatione peccatum est. Ignorance in them which are notwillng to learn, without doubt it is sin, in them which cannot learn, a punishment of sin; in both there is no just excuse, but just damnation.  Tub. 
It sinketh not into my head, that men otherwise learned and very religious, should so wilfully hood wink themselves against the truth; as in this last declaration it seemeth you mean they do; for besides their own words (and few of their books have I yet seen) in justification of themselves; I see a famous Catholic Church of theirs I mean Rome, who hath been and yet is renowned for succession of Bishops, 
This hath been and yet is, maketh all the error. julius Caesar was once faithful to the Romans: but affecting Sove ranitie he continued not so: so the Church of Rome was a great church amongst the rest: But now it beareth witness of itself, as Simon Magus said That he was some great man Act 8.9. Their usual tables in writing which they give to their friends containing a Catalogue of the Bish. of Rome.  and continuance of apostolic doctrine, whose governor & head is the Pope, who keepeth it in the same integrity, and soundness of doctrine, that S. Peter our Lords chief Apostle whose successor he is, did, when he sat, and ruled there as he doth now. I tell you I have a table of the Bishops of Rome from S. Peter to Climens' the eight, who lately deceased as the speech was. You cannot show me the like of any Church in the world, but of that. All churches save a few of late yeeares, have ever acknowledged that Church for the mother and head of them all, and whatsoever was amiss was thither referred and determined, & therefore if you will oppose yourself against them or their religion, you had need bring sound arguments, or else they willbe quickly confuted.  Rom. 
See now, you require that of me already, which you cannot perform yourself. To enterinto the discussing of the points of doctrine which concern either side, you have nether ability nor judgement, by reason you are but newly begun to be tutored by them; And than if I should of myself discourse of them unto you, you would in the end say of my labour therein, as a merry fellow in Wilteshire said of an hare in a course with his dog: when my dog was let slip at the hare (quoth he) she went forth right, & was before my dog some four acre's breadth; But my dog fetched her and gave her a turn, and away she goes again, & then he gave her another, and did beat her, so that she had many turns & wrenches; but in the end (quoth he) the hare went away, and had nether turn nor wrench: so if I should show unto you the unsoundnes of the doctrine of the church of Rome from scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, & Doctors, yea & of the intrusions of Bishops into that sea, which you (from them) call succession, you would give me the hearing, & how soever I did beat the hare, in giving her many wrentches & turns, yet you would say she went from me in the end, and had nether turn nor wrentch. I am not ignorant in what painted Ciphers, 
In the 1. petition to his Majesty Add fidem dictis. Ovid. Medea. jas  the Catholics did of late a agreeable to your report of them, set forth their religion, calling it venerable for antiquity, majestical for amplitude, constant for continuance, irreprehensible for doctrine; inducing to all kind of virtue and piety, dissuading from all sin & wickedness; A religion beloved by all pri●…tiue Pastors, established by all Ecumenical counsels, upheld by all ancio●… doctors, maintained by the first and most Christian Emperors, recorded almost alone in all Ecclesiastical histories, sealed with the blood of millions of Martyrs, adorned with the virtues of so many confessors, beautified with the parity of thousands of Virgins so conformable to natural sense and reason, and finally so agreeable to be sacred text of God's word and Gospel. Of which speech of theirs I will say no otherwise now, 
Cor. Tac. hist. l. 2. c. 27.  then Tacitus doth of Vitellius the Emperor of Rome in these words. The day following (saith he) as though he had spoken, before the Senate and people of a strange City, he made a glorious speech of himself, extolling his own industriousness and temperancy; when as they which heard him, of their own knowledge, were witnesses of his lewd actions, & all Italy besides, through which he marched for drowsiness and riot notoriously infamous. 
Two pillars whereof the Papists must rest. Whitak. count Dureum l 9 de Sophia.  There are two notable pillars which uphold the Church of Rome in all her buildings, unknown to you yet, (but hereafter better may be) against which if you lean, they will surely deceive you; on is. The Church of Rome cannot err whatsoever it teacheth, the other The Bishop of Rome ought not to be accused what soever he do. Upon such pillars as these they may reate what work they will; and so they do, but it fareth with them as it was wont to the false Prophets, One buildeth up an muddy wall, 
Exech. 13.10.  and others daub it over with a rotten plaster. But because it hath pleased God to bring us again thus luckily together, I will bend our conference for this time to some good purpose, that you go not altogether away without profit. Will you grant me but so much, as common humanity will afford any man, or the meanest courtesy of friends allow?  Tub. 
I will allow you any reasonable grant, whereof if you doubt, you do me wrong; it may be you deem me so affectioned, that I will neither hear nor read any thing against my humour. I would not have you so think of me, that were more beast like to follow the first of the heard, then according to any Christian course; and if any should wish me to it. I should the sooner mistract them, and grow the wearier of them.  Rom. 
You say well, and my request shallbe yet more reasonable than you would deem it to be, you are you say unable to dispute of the points of doctrine between them & us, until you be further instructed in them.  Tub. 
I confess it, I have only hitherto heard their our report, without either their proofs, or your acceptions.  Rom. 
Why then this I say (which you or any man being never so unlearned may understand) if all their points of their religion be good & sound. Catholic & according to Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, Doctors. & histories, viz. their Mass, their sacrifice, their real presence, their meriting of heaven; their free will in good and holy things; their praying to Saints their service in an unknown tongue; 
The points in con roversie between us.  the forbidding of the lave people to read the Scriptures in their vulgar tongue. The Bishop of Rome's authority, worshipping of Images: and a number of questions else; What need then is there, for the Doctors of that side, such as have written in defence & proof of their cause, Harding, Dorman, Saunders, Stapleton, Allen, Cope. Bellarmine, Rhemists, Dureus, and many others, to misaleadg any, Doctor, Counsel, History, or Father either by corrupting of the text, 
The Doctors that defend them The manner of handling them.  or quoting of places not to be found; to use any vain and foolish shifts in answer, such as any may perceive to be feeble & weak to deliver their minds so doubtfully, that an English man in the English tongue shall not understand what they mean; to be so contrary and opposite on to an other; and many times each from himself, to dispute for that which they confess, is not so ancient nor so good, as the contrary. It is an old saying, a rich man need not be a thief, and a good cause at their hands cannot be lost for lack of pleading, only that which wanteth is the truth of the cause, they have been fashioning of it these many years, & ever & anon there come some experter masters than formerly, with some fresher varnish, but no better prose; some taste of this dealing I gave the reader's bebut a more larger evidence and view shall follow after, in divers of the points mentioned, that all the world shall see & confess, that the popish religion, at this day taught and professed, by the very confused handling of it, is nothing less than accient, catholic, and true, which shallbe so faithfully collected, that they shall not be denied, to be their own, and so plain for understanding, 
Peruium cunctis iter Sense in Oct. art. 2.  that although you conclave little or nothing of the questions themselves, yet you shall perceive the weakness of their side, by the manner of laying down their proofs and defences.  Tub. 
When I shall see that performed substantially, which you have here promised confidently, I will surly stay my hand from subscribing, & my heart from consenting to any such doctrine, as shall stand upon such proofs.  Rom. 
By the grace of God I will not fail to show it you you shall not take any thing upon report, you shall see and read their own books and discourses themselves, and since now you are the man unto whose conscience I appeal for your consent to our side; let me show you the duty of a reader in a case of controversy between two, Noah otherwise then D. Harding in his Rejoinder against B. jewel touching them both doth lay it down to you and me, and all men else. 
To the reader  
The duty of a reader.  Consider I require thee (saith he) what is thy duty. Remember thou be not partial towards either of our persons. Let all affection be laid aside. Let your conscience be the rule of both love & hatred. Let neither hope nor fear have place in your heart, to win or lose by either of our fortunes, yea if you can so conceive let our books represent unto thee, not jewel & Harding, but two men john & Thomas departed this world, to no man living known to have lived. And when you have left of all affection touching our persons, then study to discharge thy mind of all blind parciality towards both our doctrines abandoning all human like and carnal fantasies & with a single eye, & simple heart, behold & embrace what is good & true, only for love of God, and for the truths sake. Being thus disposed, commend yourself unto God with prayer, beseeching him to lighten your understanding & by his holy spirit to lead you unto the truth. This done with an humble heart, read both our Treatises and judge: yet this much I say in case of necessity, not to all in general, but to certain, such as by other means will not be induced to consider of the truth; 
The reply, is that which B. jewel wrote against him.  for otherwise I acknowledge, that both the REPLY, and all other heretical books by order of the Church, without special licence, be unlawful to be read, and are utter he forbidden to be read or kept, under pain of excommunication. Remember I say the part of a judge is, to judge (as the Lawyers speak) secundum allegata & probata, that is to say, as things be alleged & proved: Beware every thing is not proved for which authorities be alleged, 
Nota bene.  neither is all made good, which by probable arguments seemeth to be concluded. Allegations must be true, plain & simple, neither weakened by taking away, nor strengthened by putting to of words, nor wrested from the sense they bear in the writer; else they bewray the feebleness of the cause for proof whereof they be alleged, & also the great untruth of them that for furtherance of their purpose abuseth them: if they have corrupted their witnesses, or brought in false witnesses, if they have untruly reported their Doctors, & shamefully falsified their sayings, them ought you to give sentence against them, than is their honesty stained, then is their credit defaced, and then is their challenge quiet dashed. Thus far D. Harding. 
Mat. 27.24.  And Pilate took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just man: even so clear is M. harding and his fellows from misreporting the Doctors, or falsifying their sayings, or in not committing any thing whereof they would seem to be most free, as anon shall appear.  Tub. 
Me thinketh, by these words of D. Harding & by your request made before unto me, that both parties on both sides, require nothing more than that all their readers should ponder & weigh the allegations, & proofs both of the one side, & other, and then judge of the truth accordingly, but I fear he meaneth nothing less, because he saith that both the REPLY, & all other heretical books, by order of the church without special licence, be unlawful to be read or kept, 
By heretical books he meaneth the protestants writings.  which inference abridgeth the liberty of reading, & consequently of judging by any indifferent way or mean, to come to the knowledge of the truth: For the heathen Poet could deliver a good speech to that purpose, by the very light of natural discourse 
Qui statuit aliquid part inauditâ alterâ  
Aequum licet statuerit, haud aquus fuit. 
Senec in Med Act. 2.   He that not hearing either part, ponounceth his decree, Unrighteous man accounted is, though right his sentence be.  Rom. 
I did includ so much in mine own speech unto you before, but that perhaps you will sooner approve of your own observation, than my collection. And to tell you truly which you shall certainty find by conversing more with than, they do not suffer the common laity amongst them to see or read or hear any thing without special licence, & so much and such parcels, as it shall please them▪ But those that they know are so stiff and obstinate that nothing will a waken their understanding, perhaps they will give some small liberty of reading, the better to colour their denial to others: And this do they not only touching the use or reading either of the holy scriptures, or of the protestants books, 
Hard cont. jewel art. 2. fol. 56. In the counsel of Basil the use of the cup was granted to the Bohemians: because that custom was then amongst them Geneb Chronic. l. 4. f. 1067 Hard. art 15 read the whole but especially fol. 195. Ibid. fol. 198. b Freder. Staph. In Apol Mat. 7.6. Swine & Dogs. Hard. Rejoind fol. 63. Divis 7. fol. 14.  but they forbidden the use of part of the sacraments without their leave; For the same Doctor in other places of his works avoucheth the Church, hath liberty to take away the use of wine in the administration of the Lords supper from you of the laity, and to restore it again, upon their liking & considerations. And in an other Article, he limitteth you so that you shall not read the holy bible, without licence and leave obtained; because as he saith God by special providence kept the vulgar people of the jews from reading the old testament That precious stones should not be cast before swire, that is to say, such as be not called thereto, as being for their unreverent curiosity & impure life, unworthy.  
Staphilus an other of that side commended by D, Harding for a man of execllent learning, & on of the emperors counsel that then was, did not stick likewise to abuse a place of scripture to that purpose Give not that which is holy unto dogs. so by D. Harding the laity are accounted Swine, and by Staphilus Dogs. In which respect D. harding needed not in his Rejoinder, to have charged the reverend Bishop his adversary for reporting his words falsely & dishonestly, as he saith he doth, when in the first article of the reply, the Bishop having said that by some of them (that is of that side) the common people are said to be Dogs, & Swine (quoting the 15. article. fol. 155. of. D. Hardings' book, meaneth not that M. Harding did use both those terms of Dogs & Swine, but that he used one of them; & some others of his fellows the other; M. harding not content so to understand him, maketh an undiscreet noise, and biddeth read the place who will, & he shall find M: jewel an utrue reporter, & himself clear of that odious saying: (as if it were so capital a crime; to put both them words on him that shall use but one of them) For in that place (saith he) is not so much as the name of Dogs. but there is of Swine say I: & so you have from M. Harding the same answer in effect, that a simple fellow gave to those that asked him, how he had sped against those that would have begged him, because of his unsufficiency to govern himself & his affairs: I have done well enough with them (quoth he) for where they thought to have proved me a fool, the best was, they could find me but an Idiot.  
Neither are Staphilus & Harding the first who have made such account of the people of God as to account them Dogs & Swine; their masters before them Peter Lombard & Thomas of Aquine, hath referred that text of job Bones arabant, 
Lumb. sent. l. 3 dist 25 b. Tho. Aq. 2. 2. quaefl 2. art. 6. sed. contra. job. 1.14. Minores signi ficabantur per asinos, debent in credendiscoherere mai●…l bus qui per boves significabantur ut Gregor exponit. 2. moralium  & asinae pascebantur juxta eos, The Oxen were ploughing, & the Asses were feeding in their places, to the Priests & people; taking the Oxen ploughing to signify the Priests reading of the scripture, & the Asses feeding, to be the people not trobling their heads with such matters, Credunt enim quae ignorant, habentes fidem velatam in mysterio, For they believe they know not what (saith Lombard) haviug their faith folded up in generalities. Thus do some of them call the Laity Dogs, some others Swine, & others compare them to Asses. O that they would wipe their faces from these spots, before they call us black or ill favoured!  Tub. 
If we that be of the laity, be no more accounted of by them, than you have laid down out of their own books, our knowledge & judgement shallbe less than they are, if they can tell how to keep us under: And I perceive they can tell well enough if they may deter us from reading the word of God by such collections, as those which you have recited.  Rom. 
Hic fige pedem. Do but here stay your footing, & I will show you far more abominations than these. 
Ez●c. 8.6.15.  The wresting & rocking of such places of scriptures as these, some to one purpose, & some to an other, 
Polid. Virgil. deinvent. rerum l 4 c. 9 f. 337. 338:  did make Polydorus Virgilius a very great papist who lived here in England in the reign of Henry 7. to give but an homely censure of them. For entreating of the antiquity of Cardinals at Rome (he saith) there be some who have deduced the original of them from the Hebrews more corum qui cum obscuri sint inani nobilitatis nomine sibi blandientes, 
The original of Cardinals.  alius ad Achillem, alius ad Aeneam, alius ad Namam Pompilium suum genus referunt; as those are wont who being base of themselves derive their pedigree some from Achilles, some from Aenas, & others from Numa Pompilius. And so did one Siculus Andreas Barbatius, who to get in favour with Bessarius the Cardinal, put forth a Commentary to that purpose, But saith Polidore because I will not weary myself any further with quoting of the man, you shall hear how he beginneth himself, 
Ipse iam incipi at suum narrare commentum. According to our english translations. 1. Sam. c. 2. v. 8 Hostiensis a most famous popish doctor.  writing of that matter. Occurrit inquit illud quod 1 Regum cap. 2. pulcherrimè scriptum est. Domini enim sunt cardines terrae & posuit eos super orbem. That saith Siculus is further to be remembered which is excellently written, in the 1 book of the Kings, & 2 chap, The pillars of the earth are the Lords, & he hath set the world upon them: which text of scripture Hostiensis the great Doctor doth refer to be meant of Cardinals. For as the door is turned upon the heng, so is the Church of Rome governed by the College of Cardinals. Thus far Barbatius. Now followeth the mislike of Polidore, 
Polydore misliketh the papists for racking the scriptures in that manner.  for their handling of holy scriptures so profanely vide non secus isti jurisconsulti aliquoties detorquent sacras literas quò volunt, acsutor●t sordidas solent dentibus extendere pelles. See (saith he) these same Canonists or Lawyers do divers times wrist the holy scriptures whether they list, as shoemakers do wrest & retch their leather with their teeth.  Tub. 
Surely the comparison of Polidore is more cleanly, than their dealing with the scriptures is tolerable; Be these they that pretend such holiness & zeal to the holy scriptures? It appeareth not by their dealing they do so; Lay men would carry a more religious and more reverend regard of those sacred Oracles than such church men do for aught that I see. But I perceive they keep the laity from reading, because they should not understand, their interpretations if such wrest may be termed interpretations.  Rom 
Now judge you, how can their questions be testified and proved out of the holy scripture, when the sentences of holy scripture are so far of from them, 
Qui pote est habere idoncā id, quod sequitur causam, cum ipsum illud primum à quo defluit sencundum inanissimum esse repe riatur & vacuum, & nulla so liditate firmatum? Arnob. count Gent. l. 7 fol. 268 Arn. ib. fol. 278 Sed quid face. repossumus considerare nolentibus penitus res ipsas secunque ipsos loqui?  from which they would draw the truth of their assertions? If the foundation be not settled, the building will ever totter. I doubt not but many amongst them, see the confusion of their cause even at hand nay I dare apply that speech of Arnobius against them which he did against the Gentiles, Non nobis est sermo cum hominibus rationis expertibus, neque quibus non sit communis intelligentiae veritas. We spend not our talk with men who are void of reason, nor with those who have not a common simplicity of under standing; you have wisdom, you have sense verumque nos dicere apud vos ipsi inter iore judicio scitis & you know in your most innermost thoughts thet we say true. But what can we do to those, that will not sift the truth themselves to the quick, & dispute even with themselves; you do that which you see done, not that which you judge aught to be done, verily because Custom having no reason with it, doth more sway with you quam rerum inspecta natura veritatis examinatione ponderata, then substance of matter examined according to the weight of truth. Now to go a little further, touching that sentence of Polidor's mislike of their racking of the scripture to show that they would make sure work, if they could tell how; & since I cannot lay too much to their charge that they deal against us, as against their own consciences; I will tell you how they will deal with their own Polidore: They reading that sentence in his book, to make against them, 
Corrigenda: sunt atque delenda.  do command that it be corrected & put out, as by their Index expurgatorius appeareth.  Tub. 
To be corrected and put out, as by their Index expurgatorius appeareth, what mean you by that? I understand you not, is it a book, or what is it?  Rom 
It is a little book gathered together in manner of a table or index, with warrant enough by the decree of the Tridentine counsel, by the authority and commandment of the Catholic King Philip the second; and by the advise and furtherance of the Duke of Alba. The drift of it is this, 
juxta sacri concilij Tridentini decretum; Philippi 2. regis catholici jussu & authoritate, atque Albani ducis consilio a ministerio in Belgia concinnatus. anno. 1571.  Where there are divers volumes & books (for the use of scholars both Protestants & Papists) as Fathers & doctors divine and human, because they will have nothing come to their scholars sight, that shall make against the Church of Rome's doctrine, by the pains of divers men, they have run over a number of writers Divines, Lawyers, Physicians, Philosophers, Mathematicians, & humanists, & have quoted the places that offended them in this Index, & told their scholars that they must either correct them in the books, or wipe them out, if they do chance to study any of those books there named, dash them out with a pen; do any thing with them, so they rise not up in judgement against them. Amongst all which authors, Polidore Virgil is one, in whose poor book they have willed to be mangled & blotted out above an hundred several places, of all which it seemeth they are foully ashamed. Instances I could produce many, but that it is not material in a case so clear, one or two may suffice. In an other place, speaking of the chief heads of the Commandments he reckoneth this for the second, Nullius animalis effigiem colito. Thou shalt not worship the likeness of any living creature. 
Po●. Vir. de inurer l 5. c 9 fol. 435.  The collectors of the Index, do command that sentence to be wiped out: and not to be read at any hand. If they be not afraid that the second commandment against graven Images is directly against them, why do they takeit out of their Catechisms as Vaux, and wipe it out as they do here? Their index doth yet more miserably bewray them, 
 Liber Bertrami Pre. bit. de corp & sang domini tolera riemendatus queat fol. 11. 12. in Indice.  for in showing how the ancient Treatises of on Bertrame a priest which teacheth as we do, of the sacrament of the altar, may be suffered to pass for good, if it be amended, do testify to the world. That they can by some desised shift, deny whatsoever errors they find in the ancient fathers, & extenuate them, and devise an apt sense to any of their testimonies, when they shall be urged by the adversaries in disputations and conferences; 
Non videmus cur non eanden aequitatem & diligentem recognitionem mereatur Bertramus Ind. ib. Senec. in Hercules Oeti. Act, 3. Geneb. Chron l. 4. fol. 790. Nonnulla tacitè corrigens quae de ea quaestione Bertramus Presb. paulo ante minus scitè & commode ad Carolum Calvum rescripserat.  & they see no reason, why they should not use that equity & diligence towards Bertrame, as towards the rest of the Fathers, Scelera quae quisque ausus est, hoc vicit malum. This dealing passeth all that can be imagined. They that gather the Index confess that this Bertrame was very famous and beloved of two Emperors; Charles the great & Charles the Bald, And Genebrard incerteth, that about the year of our Lord 877. a question being made in the sacrament whether the eating be corporallor spiritu all, Paschasius the Abbot wrote thereof learnedly; And covertly corrected many things, which Bertrame the priest had written thereof a little before unto Charles the Bald, not so fitly and so skilfully as he should: so we may perceive by Gevebrard aswell as by the gatherers of the Index, that bertram's book is a great block in their way,  Tub. 
If this book do so manifestly discover their treachery, as by your report it appeareth it doth; would they suffer it, to come in sight to be known of you, who they knew would accept against it, and also make a great history of it?  Rom. 
No I warrant you, they never meant it should be seen of any Protestant, they were sending it to their own Universities & schools of learning beyond the seas, 
Ex officina Christophori Plant. an 1571 jun. in epist ad illustrissimum principem joannem Casimi rum. Hunc foetum genuerunt illi sed nascentem inter genua sua presserunt  & as it was a going was intercepted; The very Authentical book of their own impression singulari numinis providentiâ by god's providence was brought to a great Protestant, who took the pains for them to send it by copies, unto all Protestant Churches in Christendom, so that that birth of theirs, which like another monster they were divers days and nights in bringing forth, & thought when they had brought it forth, to have stifled it between their knees, doth now live in good liking, through good cherishing, but to the perpetual in famie of the parents. another help like unto that before in effect, they do also use to make their scholars to think that the ancient Doctors of the Church do all make for them. The elder scholars and those that read unto the rest, take pains most in the controversies, & having found what liketh them to confirm their doctrine do write it in brief & deliver it in notes to their scholars, out of their written sheets, never suffering them to look into the doctor's originals themselves; so that whensoever it please the Masters to coggorly either by adding or abating the text which they find, the scholars are deceived & abused, thinking such & such authorities do make for them, when if the grounds be looked into, they show nothing less, than they quote them for: which dealing of the Masters with their own scholars, caused a faithful teacher of this land, 
Reinolds conference with Hart. c. 1. diuis. 1. fol. 4.  to wish his Concumbatant for his own good, to look into the original books themselves for proof of that which he was to dispute of, because he knew he would otherwise be deceived, if he trusted those on whom he meant to rely, which was the greatest & freest liberty, that could be granted to any man.  
Thus much have I been willing to show by the way at first, 
Sic. habent principia seize Ter. in. Phor. Act. 3. scen. 1.  touching their politic (but not religious) courses, in astonishing the world, with that religion, which only is bolstered out, by many indirect courses, perceived every day more & more. I will now according to my first intent go forward to set before your eyes, the many differences and implications, which they use in expressing their minds in that question of the sacrament, between them & us, remembering here no other thing then that which themselves do ever give in charge, 
In the explication of the true catholic faith in the sacrament. f 4. b Then is the doctrine of the Church of Rome not the truth, as shall manifestly appear hereafter.  to be regarded & advised upon, & to be joined with that good counsel of D. harding set down before. Amongst many other proofs (saith Gardiner) whereby truth after much travail in contention at the last prevaileth & hath victory, there is none more notable than when the very adversaries of truth, (who pretend never the less to be truths friends) do by some evident untruth bewray themselves. For on that part ever is the truth where all sayings & doings appear uniformly, consonant to the truth pretended; And on what side a notable lie appeareth, the rest may be judged after the same sort, for truth needeth no aid of lies, craft or slight, 
NOTE WELL  wherewith to be supported & maintained. So that in the entreating of the truth of this high & ineffable mystery of the sacrament, on what part thou seest craft, shift, slight, or obliquity, or in any one point an open manifest lie, there thou mayest consider whatsoever pretence be made of truth, yet the victory of truth not to be there intended, which loveth simplicity, plainness, direct speech, without admixture of shift or colour. Thus far Gardener.  
To this purpose also speaketh D. Saunders, Protestantium inter se dissensiones certissimam fidem facivat doctrinae veritatem non penes illos, verum penes ecclesiam Romanamesse. 
Devisibili monar. l. 7. f. 627.  The dissensions amongst the Protestants (saith he) do make evident proof, that the truth is not on their sides, but altogether on the Church of Rome's, wherein amongst the beleivers, there is one heart, one soul, & on tongue, under one Pastor the Pope Now, if (notwithstanding their brags of truth, & evidence of truth, & nothing but truth on their side) there do fall out in searching of their books that they do nothing less than further that, which they most extol, I hope you will not lay the fault & blame on me, that do but show that so they do but rather on them, who deliver such matter. Si illum obiurges vitae qui auxilium tulit, 
Terenc in. Andr. act. 1. scen. 1  quid facias illi qui dederit damnum aut malum? saith the Poet, If you blame him that shall further your health by his best endeavour, what will you do to an other, that shall seek to bring you into danger? But indeed all their clamours against us or petite glozes in defence of themselves, or fair admonitions to their readers, 
Actor. P Clodius aedilis Reus, sui que patronus Cice ro acta in sen. anno. Ciceronis 51. urbis. 697. de haruspicum responsis.  to beware of us, are but as that accusation of Publius Clodius against Tully, who having himself sacrilegiously abused certain holy things appertaining to the Temple; and fearing least Tuily would accuse him in the senate, first complained of him that all religion, was profaned in his house.  Tub. 
I both perceive what you would say, as also what you are willing I should conceive touching their dealing in these matters: Go to the question of the sacrament I pray you, because in that they pretend most perspicuity & clearness.  Rom. 
I know they do, In confidence whereof, on that was great amongst them once said, 
Camp. rat 2.  Adhuc durissimae partes calvini sunt, nostrae faciles & explicatae. Moreover the protestāns are very harsh in this question, but our arguments are clear & expedite, which whether it be so or no judge you. The counsel of Trent (which they all follow; 
Conc: Trid. less. 13. can. 1.  & on whom they all depend in this and all other points) hath thus defined thereof Si quis negaverit etc. If any man shall deny that in the sacrament of the holy Eucharist, there is not contained vere, realiter & substantialiter, truly, really, & substantially, the body & blood together with the soul, & divinity of our Lord & saviour jesus Christ, & in that respect whole Christ, let him be accursed negaveritque mirabilem illam, & singularem conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus or shall deny that marvelous & only conversion of the whole substance of the bread, 
Can. 2.  into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood, the shows of bread & wine only remaining, which conversion the catholic Church doth aptly call Transubstantiation; let him be accursed▪ 
Can. 8.  gain, if any man say, That Christ is exhibited or set forth in the Eucharist, to the intent to be eaten spiritually, & not also sacramentally, & really, let him be accursed. Not to speak hear, how blasphemous & contrary this their doctrine is to the holy institution of Christ at his last supper, the very manner of their handling, & setting down their opinions is by their leaves erroneous, & yet not under stood by their own Doctors.  
For first, it must follow of their words, if the whole substance of the bread be turned into Christ's body, then is the body of Christ made of bread; as is verified in the decrees, which saith The body of Christ & his blood by the power of the holy ghost is made of the substance, 
De Cons. dist. 2. can. utrum sub figura.  of bread and wine. Then will it follow, that it is not that body which was made of the flesh & blood of the virgin Mary. 
Hard. count Iu. art. 12. fol. 168  D. Harding seeing this impiety of making our saviour Christ have two contrary bodies, both avoideth his own authorities, & overthroweth his Transubstantiation: for thus he saith, Where the body & blood of Christ is said to be made of bread & wine, beware thou unlearned man, thou think not them thereof to be made, as though they were newly created of the matter of bread and wine, nether that they be made of bread & wine as of a matter: but that where bread & wine were before, 
This is no transubstantiation  after consecration there is the very body & blood of Christ borne of the very substance of the Virgin Mary: To say where bread was before, there is the body of Christ, as M. Harding saith: is a departing, or annibilation of the bread, a coming of it as it were to nothing, & not a transubstantiation, a turning of the substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ, as the Trent fathers define. Again, if bread be made the body of Christ, or is the body of Christ, as they are willing to grant; why should it not be said, to be made of bread as of a matter? If it be made of the substance of bread, why not made of bread, as of a matter? Again, They themselves teach us, 
Lumb. l. 4. dis. 1. b. Alan. de sac. in gener. l. 1. c. 2. Dureus' cont Whit. rat. 2 fol 103. Hard. count jewel art. 8. f. 144. b. Tonstal. l. 1. fol 33. Allen de Euch sacra l. 1. c. 3. fol 217 Bellar. de euch sac. l. 2. c. 9 fol. 151. ex Iren l. 4 cont. haer c. 34  that a sacrament is a sign of an holy thing, or a visible sign of an invisible grace; so that on two things doth a sacrament consist by both our consents: Now lest there should be any, strife what those two things are, they teach moreover, that the on is earthly, & the other heavenly, so they all teach our of Ireneus that ancient father; who saith this being not common bread, but the Eucharist after consecration, consisting of two things, earthly, & heavenly, what that earthly thing is, all men may understand that well, to be very bread, the substance of bread, except he be driven to say as all they do in those places quoted, that by the earthly thing named by Ireneus is meant not the substance of bread but the accidents, that is, the taste, colour, weight, show, savour, & fashion, of bread. What earthly thing the taste. colour, show, weight, and savour of bread can be, I appeal to any indifferent judge. So that to say as the Trent fathers say, that no substance remaineth after consecration, 
Transubstantiation overthroweth the nature of a sacrament. They keep it in the one and destroy it in the other. Tons l. 1. f. 30. & 48. b. ex. can conc. Nicen. considera divinan vim quae in aquis latet. Step. Gardin. fol. 8 b.  but the real and substantial body of Christ is to overthrow the nature of a sacrament; and to take away the earthly part of it, & instead of exhibiting the Grace of Christ; putteth the Person of Christ God & man in the roomth.  
But see how they retain the true nature & definition of a sacrament in the one, & destroy it in the other. They say there remaineth the nature and substance of water, & the invisible grace of the spirit; the holy Ghost cometh down & halloweth the water; there we consider the divine spirit which lieth hid in the water, there we consider our baptism, not with the eyes of our flesh, but with the eyes of our souls. And as in the sacrament of Christ's most precious body and blood we receive Christ's very flesh & drink his very blood to continued & augment the life received; so in baptism we receive the spirit of Christ for the renewing of our life's And therefore in the same form of words Christ spoke to Nichodemus of baptism, 
In both sacraments Christ is exhibiteth himself unto us. Andra. Ortho. expl. l. 3. f. 239.  that he spoke of the eating of his body & drinking of his blood, & in both sacraments giveth, dispenseth, & exhibiteth indeed those celestial gifts in sensible elements. In both sacraments the blood of Christ is included; the sprinkling of our bodies with the water of Baptism, is nothing but that the soul be washed & rinced with the blood of Christ. If all this be verified of the sacrament of Baptism, if Christ can give & exhibit himself (as he doth indeed) unto us, without any transubstantiation retaining the substance of the element of water, we cannot but say so of the sacrament of the supper, 
Lumb. l. 4. dist. 9 a Torren. l. 3. c. 6. parag. 3. fine vide tale a liquid apud Aug. tom 7. de peccat. merit. & remiss. l. 3. c. 4  that there we may feed on Christ's flesh, & drink his blood, without any transubstantiation of the bread, & wine; Nay in more plainer manner they tell us that, Saint Augustine doubteth not to say of infants, & other faithful people Nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum, No man may in any wise doubt but that every faithful man is then made partaker of the body & blood of Christ, when in baptism he is made a member of Christ, & that he is not without the fellowship of that bread & the cup, although before he eat of that bread and drink of that cup, he depart this world being in the unity of Christ's body, for he is not made frustrate of the communion and benefit of that sacrament, whiles he findeth that thing which is signified by the sacrament. If infants and other faithful people may be made partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of Baptism: I demand of our Trent fathers why we may not be made partakers of his flesh and blood of the sacrament of the altar, without any transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ? 
 ante can. 8. sacramentally & really; are a terms contrary & yet confounded.  More over they hold that Christ is eaten there sacramentally & really; which two terms (as they utter them) are very opposite; for if there be nothing to be eaten but the real & substantial body of Christ, what is eaten sacramentally? We affirm that Christ is there sacramentally, & is eaten sacramentally, by his spirit present, & by his grace, as he is in the sacrament of baptism, & that is properly sacramental.  
Again speaking of the use and profit of that sacrament, 
Cap. 8. de usu admirabilis hu ius sacramenti 1. Sacramentally.  they say there be three sorts of Receivers: some that receive it only sacramentally as sinners; others spiritually in desire by a lively faith, thirdly those that receive it sacramentally & spiritually both together. Which three ways may be taken for sound & Orthodoxal, 
2. Spiritually. who cannot for the time communicate.  if we could cause them to tell us what they mean by sacramentally. If by sacramentally they mean really, fleshly, and substantially, as at the first they treated of his presence there, 
3. Sacramentally & spiritually who do communicate as they ought. joh. 6.54.56. Sacramentally & Spiritually so say the Protestants  how do they make good that sinners and wicked persons, do eat his very flesh, and drink his very blood, as they say they do; since the word of life itself, that mouth which never spoke guile hath said, He that eateth my flesh, & drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, & I will raise him up at the last day: And he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me & I in him? And by the third way described, that those eat him sacramentally, & spiritually, who do duly prepare themselves, & putting on the wedding garment, do come unto that holy table, doth breed an other scruple how sacramentally can stand with spiritually, understanding by sacramentally, 
Really & substantially may stand together but spiritually cannot  as they did before really, fleshly & substantially, those two terms being also used of the Protestants, who say the wicked do eat sacramentally only, that is the sacrament of his body and blood, & the godly sacramentally & spiritually, that is bread and wine with the hand & mouth & the body & blood by faith, and no otherwise, which are the right use of the words sacramentally & spiritually; Again, I may demand of them, why they do not describe the presence of Christ to be spiritual & sacramental, aswell as describe him so to be eaten? they say he is eaten by on of those three ways of all men in general good & bad: and to all men good & bad they describe him present really, truly & substantially body & soul divinity and all, & yet eaten only sacrementally & spiritually: now it is not possible to be thought, but that the spiritual eating of Christ in the sacrament▪ excludeth the corporal; as his spiritual presence will his corporal or substantial; nether can no one meat be fit both for the body and soul, as all men know; And therefore if they will dissent from us & not from themselves also, they must dispute either of a corporal eating of the flesh of Christ, 
De manducati one corporis domini, sit ne illa vera, antropica, sensibilis an insensibilis, modo corporeo an spirituali. l. 4. chron. fol. 790 Fallacia alia aliam trudit. Ter. in And. act. 4. scen. 4. De sac. euc. l. 1 c. 11. fol. 92. c. 14. fol. 117. & l. 2. c. 8. fol. 163  or of a spiritual only (as Genebrard confesseth was brought in about bertram's time almost 800. years since) & not to a corporal to add a spiritual, of one & the same thing; nor confound the terms of sacramental, spiritual, & real. Again (it is always seen, one absurdity draweth on an other) I demand how their term of receiving spiritually doth agree with Bellarmine who saith that the body of Christ is verily & properly eaten in the Eucharist by our body, & sent from the mouth into the stomach; that the body of Christ entereth in at the mouth of the communicants, and is verily received by the mouth of the body; small spiritual receiving is there by the instruments of the mouth & belly; Faith must have other food; if it were so, it should not be said Crede & manducasti, believe & thou hast eaten: but lay hold with thy hand, & thou art safe.  
The next in authority to the Trent Fathers is the Romish catechism, gathered by their decree, 
Catec. Rom. p. 1. art. 6. c. 7. fol 57 The right sense of the article, overthroweth Transubstantiation.  & published by Pius quintus the Pope. The catechism entreating of that article of our belief He ascended into heaven, and suiteth one the right hand of god the father almighty, do say the right sense of that article is, that the faithful without all doubt ought to be leive, that Christ, the mystery of our redemption being perfected and finished, ut homo est, in coelum corpore & animâ ascendisse, as he is man; is ascended in body and soul into heaven. For as he is God he was never from thence, 
 qui divinitate, sua loca ominia complete The causes why he ascended. ib. fol. 59 The benefits of his ascension. ibid. fol. 61  filling all places with his divinity. And speaking of the causes why Christ our saviour would ascend up into heaven, one is because by ascending (say they) he would bring to pass that we should mount up thither in mind and affection: and amongst many benefits which come unto men by his ascension into heaven, they reckon this a great one quod amorem nostrum ad coelum rapuit ac divino spiritu inflammavit. that it draweth our minds and love to heaven, & inflameth them with a divine spirit, for it is truly said, There our heart is, 
Marc. 6.  where our treasure is, & surly if Christ our Lord were conversant in earth omnis nostra cogitation in ipso hominis aspectu & consuetudine defixa esset all our cogitations, would be placed in the looking & manner of him, & we should behold him only as man, because he had done so great things for us; But ascending into heaven, it maketh our love heavenly, and causeth that whom we think of being absent, him we worship and love as God; which doctrine of theirs being very sound and Catholic cannot choose but overthrow their own opinion of Transubstantiation, 
Catec. p. 2. c. 4. fol. 181.  which bringeth the same body of Christ; that same that was borne of the Virgin & which is ascended, and sitetth now (& ever shall) at the right hand of his father in heaven, to be transubstantiated into bread, & to be contained in the sacrament, 
Ibid. fol. 187.  & this to be done without mutation or change of place, or any strange creation, which they do so much abjure. If since the mystery of our redemption wrought and finished, Christ as man be ascended into heaven, and thither in soul and mind we ought to mount and go after, and that it be good for us that he ascended, and be there; as agreeing to the scripture which saith seek those things which are abous, where Christ sitteth one the right hand of his father they do teach; Is it not earthly and gross to seek him in the earth, and substantially and fleshly to have him? And is it not a great hindrance to the spirits of our minds, and bringeth it us not into earthly cogitations which are ever to be shunned? If they say true in the one assertion, 
Omnis contradictio est ad idem.  they err in the other, for both cannot be true. At one & the same time, they make the same Christ sitting in heaven at the right hand of his father according to the dimensions, parts, and proportions of a true body, & the same Christ at the same time in the sacrament without dimensions, parts, or proportions of a true body, which is wholly to overthrow the truth of his body, and utterly to disannul our belief thereof, a part whereof is, that he is in heaven with those dimensions, and distinction of parts wherewith he lived on earth, and wherewith he was crucified, and so died, was buried and ascended.  
The Rhemists in their testament follow the same steps. They say it is plain by the scripture, 
Rhem. Heb. 9 v. 20. & 10. v. 11  that the blessed chalice of the altar (at their Mass) hath the very sacrificial blood in it that was shed upon the Cross: the like they affirm in other places of the body. Now as the Trent father's Catechism, & Rhemists, are found to speak impieties and contradictions in this first question of the presence of Christ in the Eucharists using some terms, 
As. 1. Really 2. Substantially. 3. Sacramentally. 4. Spiritually. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  as may be easily yielded unto, as before is showed; And some others which repunge their own grounds, and be altogether different from them; so before I go to others of them, I will show how these go about (& indeed it is about) to make their Mass a sacrifice, that is to say to offer the real, fleshly, & substantial body of Christ to god his father; the same which he offered on the Cross for the sins of the world. They cannot tell in this what terms to use but veil their meanings with such words that furthereth neither their cause, nor hindereth ours. 
Conc. Trid. sess. 22. in pref. de sac. missae. On the Cross on sacrifice that was bloody. Cap. 1.  The counsel pretendeth to entreat of the sacrifice of the Mass quatenus verum & singular sacrificium est: so far forth as it is a true and sovereign sacrifice; Christ therefore our Lord although he was to offer himself once on the altar of the Cross, & that with death to work there our eternal redemption, yet because the pre●sthood by his death was not to be extinguished, he did leave to the Church his most beloved spouse, at his last supper the very night he was betrayed a visible sacrifice, where in that bloody sacrifice, which was to be done but once on the Cross, might be represented, and that the memory of him should be continued to the world's end: and therefore he being a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, offered his body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine, to God his Father. And further they say, because in this holy sacrifice which is performed in the Mass idem ille Christus continetur & incruente immolatur, the same Christ is contained, 
Cap. 2. The sane Christ offered unbloodily. Apropitiatory sacrifice. Can. 1.  & offered unbloodily, who did offer himself once one the altar of the Cross bloodily, the holy synod teacheth that this sacrifice is truly propitious, & that whosoever shall say that in the Mass is not offered to God verum & proprium sacrificium a true and proper sacrifice, let him be accursed.  
So by the Trent Fathers we must believe the Mass to be a true sovereign & propitiatory sacrifice, & the same which Christ offered on the Cross. But mark their terms; In the sacrifice of their Mass is represented the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross & there is he offered unbloodily; these terms they shall have of us; we say the Lords supper is a sacrifice, as it is the passion of Christ, that is, a thankful remembrance of Christ's passion, and that Christ's blood is shed in a mystery. But with them, how is Christ's sacrifice represented, if the same Christ be really offered, who offered himself on the Cross? What need the same thing to be a remembrance of itself, and in the one to offer himself painfully & bloodily, and in the other-same-sacrifice, to be offered nether painfully nor bloodily If he be offered but unbloodily in the Mass, 
Nec cruentè nec paenali more do Allen de euc. sac. l. 2. c 10. fol. 541 Rhem. annot. heb. 9 v, 20. The very blood in the Chalice Allen de sac. euch. l. 2 c. 11. realis imm ola tio. Rhem. annot. heb. 9.1. v. 25: Christ offered unboodily. Rhe. Mat. 26. v, 28.2. mystically. ●. In a sacrament annot. Luc. 22.19. fol 205. Camp. 2. rat. Sacramentalis mactatio c. 14. fine how agreeth it with a real offering and real presence.  how say the Rhemists that the very blood which Christ shed on the altar of the cross is in the Chalice, at the time of the Mass? Or D. Allen that there i● a real offering of the body of Christ, as there is a real presence; so that I see not, if they mean as they speak, why they mince the word unbloodily as they do. Would they say that blood is shed? let it be shed; let not blood be shed unbloodily, they know not how.  
If the Trent Fathers & Rhemists, by their term unbloodily do mean mystically, as they say in an other place, we agree with them they shall have us reasonable. It is shed in a mystery, not executed indeed, and that is rightly termed a mystery; & not as they say in a mystery, that is really: Or he is now immolated or offered (as they are driven to say) in a sacrament, which we say also; but not in a sacrament, that is really and substantially; Omne aenigmaticum, omne offusum caligine loquendi. All this is dark & covered with mists. D. Allen still overthroweth himself and them too; for he saith again, that in their Mass there is only a sacramental kill or shedding of blood; which we also will never deny; for in the Lord's supper we have the death of Christ in a mystery, in a figure, or sacrament. Christ is there killed sacramentally, for there we see the death of the son of God, there we see that he took our heaviness, and bore our sorrows, was wounded for our offence, and was rend and tormented for our wickedness, and in this respect the ministration of the holy communion is of the learned fathers called a sacrifice, because therein we offer up unto God the father thanks & praise, for that great sacrifice once made upon the Cross. But for the same sacrifice that Christ offered with blood, that same to be offered daily in the mass without blood, or how blood should be shed there unbloodily as they infer, no age of the Church never yet knew, since Christ's time, but the petite devisers of late:  
Saint Augustine that ancient learned Father could in few and plain words describe unto us the perfect signification of the sacrifices of the old law, 
Tom. 6. cont●… Faustum Mani. l. 20. c. 21. fine. Camp. rat 9 de Sophis. eccum quos gyros, quasrota● fabricat Rhem. Annot. heb 9 v. 25. Mark S. Aug. words before he useth none of these opposite ill favoured terms to express the sacrifice of the Church after his ascension his sacrifice on the Cross is frequented by a sacrament of remembranc saith he. Praeter hoc igitur & ante hoc sacrificium mortis, aliud pridie instituit & fecit ipse idque nec cruentè, nec paenali modo, Allen l. 2. c. 10. fol. 541 Rhem. annot. heb. 9 v. 12.  & of our sacrament now, and what relation they both have to the sacrifice of Christ, without any such obscure or obtuse terms as these men use. Huius sacrificij caro & sangnis ante adventum Christs per victimas similitudinum promittebatur. The flesh & blood of this sacrifice before the coming of Christ was promised by sacrifices of Resemblance, the same was performed indeed in the time of Christ's passion, post ascensionem Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur, but after Christ's ascension, it is frequented by a sacrament of remembrance. And to this of Augustine they shall have the whole Church of England subscribe, & therefore let them take home the slander they lay upon us, in that we use circular turnings or windings, in our disputs and answers with them. That the Rhemists are as dark and obscureas any other of them in this question, it will appear to any that will read their notes, which more at large I will now show. As Christ never died but once, nor never shall die again, so in that violent, painful, and bloody sort, he cannot be offered again, nether needeth he so to be offered any more, having by that one action of sacrifice upon the Cross made the full ransom, redemption, & remedy for the sins of the whole world, Nevertheless as Christ died and was offered after a sort in all the sacrifices of the law & nature, since the beginning of the world, all which were figures of this one oblation upon the Cross; so he is much rather offered in the sacrifice of the altar of the new Testament incomparably more near, divinly & truly expressing his death, his body broken, his blood shed, than any figure of the old law, or other sacrifice that ever was, as being indeed (though in hidden sacramental and mystical and unbloody manner) the very self same blessed body & blood, the self same host, oblation & sacrifice that was done upon the cross. Again they say, no one of the sacrifices; nor all the sacrifices of the old law, could make that one general price, ransom & redemption of all mankind and of all sins, saving this one highest Priest Christ, and the one sacrifice of his blood once offered upon the Cross, which sacrifice of redemption cannot be often done, 
One only sacrifice on the cross the redemption of the world, and on only priest Christ the redeemer thereof The Mass a commemotation of Christ's sacrifice. This sort.  because Christ could not die but once, though the figures also thereof in the law of nature & of Moses were truly called sacrifices, as especially this high and marvelous commemoration of the same in the holy sacrament of the altar, according to the rite of the new Testament is most truly and singularly (as S. Augustine saith) a sacrifice; But neither this sort. nor the other of the old law, being often repeated and done by many Priests could be the general redeeming & consummating sacrifice etc.  
You would think that in these two verses of their annotations, they had handled that text as though they had meant, that Christ dying but once, had need never to have died again. No more shall he say they; for in that violent, painful and bloody sort (as he died on the cross) he can never be offered again; here they exclude his dying again, or often; but not his offering again, or often: It is marvel they did not devise how he might die again, so it were not in that violent, painful, & bloody sort as his death was on the cross; as well as devise such an offering, as shallbe neither violent, painful, nor bloody: so where they should lay their reasons, to prove either a real offering or not; a real dying or not, they leave it in the half & come in with manners & respects, altering clean the nature of the thing; For nether could Christ himself (much less any mortal man) offer himself often without dying often, as is most plain by the Apostle in the 4 last verses of that 9 chapter, so their fumbling here, is with as ill success as D. Allens before cited, who maketh a real offering (which they stick at, unless they will have it neither violent, painful, nor bloody, and then wherein is it real) & a sacramental shedding of blood. Again they say that that one action on the Cross made the full ransom for the sins of the world; what need any more sacrifice for sins then, as their is? But being the same that his was, why doth it not redeem as his did, even as a general price & ransom, or let them show wherein the defect is, that being the same Christ, 
Heb. 10.12.  it should not have the same effect? Christ saith S. Paul after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, sitteth for ever at the right hand of God.  
Furthermore, that real immolation which D. Allen speaketh of, foundeth more than this hidden, sacramental, & mystical offering or immolation, which they speak of here, otherwise they may speak of a real betraying, a real crucifying, a real shedding of his blood, & pouring out of it on the ground now, & then qualify them with a hidden, sacramental, and mystical manner. But what caused them in this 12. verse as before set down, to call their Mass a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice, & when they have spoken of the jews sacrifices, & of Christ's, 
But neither this sort nor the other of the law. etc.  to call their mass by an other name This sort? Do they take their mass to be a different sacrifice from that of the cross? a commemoration of it, as they call it, & not the same, but of an other sort? D. Allen hath manifest words to that purpose, making that which Christ did at his last supper, and that of the mass now, to be of an other sort, & of a different kind from that of the Cross; 
Cap. 8. 9 &. 10. Allen de euch. sacrif. l. 2. c. 22. fol. 594. 596. Illa ●sse diversi generis. The oblation of him in the supper, & ours in the Mass 〈◊〉 but one oblation, the same sacrifice Hard art. 17. f. 206. ● the fountain referred to the fountain: or the same to the same.  For answering to our objections, that the same exceptions which serve S. Paul to the Hebrews, against the jewish sacrifices, will also serve against their sacrifice of the mass, saith, It is to be noted, that it cannot be denied, that the same opposition may be almost set between the oblation of the supper, & the oblation of the Cross, since it is certain they are of a divers sore, the one being an absolute, & independent sacrifice, the other commemorative, & significatine, as were the jewish sacrifices; So again faith he, if any christian should be in such an error, as to think that the sacrifice of the Mass were an absolute & independent sacrifice, & that it need not to be referred to the fountain of all sacrifices the death of Christ, he might be almost confuted by the same arguments of S. Paul, how soever ours do far exceed theirs. This is plain both against that of the supper, and theirs in the Mass; nether must the Rhemists any more in culcate that they offer the very self same body in number, 
Annot. Heb. 10. v. 11.  even Christ's own body that was crucified, except they will make Christ inferior to himself.  
The Next unto these before which I mean to bring in, 
Locor theol. l. 11. fol. 427. a.  is Melchior Canus, a great scholar, and an acute disputant; He reproveth us mightily, because we gather si cucharistia exemplar & image est, non esse illam ver● & propriè sacrificium, That if the Eucharist be a samplat, and image, it cannot properly & truly be a sacrifice; the collection, saith he, is very ridiculous, for what can be more foolish then to say that the hosts of the old law were no sacrifices, because they were samplers of the true? 
Cap. cum Mar de celeb. miss.  And thereupon he telleth us, that Inuocentius the 3. Pope of that name doth laughed at us for such inferences. First touching Innocentius, his authority cannot be much in this case, because we know not that his definitive sentence passed out of his chair against us in this point; but only that he so wrote as a private man: 
L. 6. c. 8. f. 205.  because Canus himself telleth us that Innocentius the 4. did make commentaries upon the books called decretals, & if in them he wrote an error, it is to be imputed unto him that he erred as a man, & not as a Pope. And D. Harding by name refuseth this same Innocentius 3, 
Rejoinder. fo ●0.  in the matter of all weighty matters the weightiest, even in the question of Consecration, when it should be done, saying, what if Scotus & Innocentius tertius do think consecration to be done, by other than our Lords words, is not the catholic church agreed herein? Thus we see a good matter if we will; 
The Catholic Church may be resolved, with the Pope a good hearing.  in any point I hope aswell as in Consecration: and therefore I hope they will not press the Pope's authority, though he be against us in this, to have the Eucharist the image & the thing, & so make one thing, both an image and the truth. Indeed we say with S, Angustine, 
Epist. 23. ad. Bonif. Epise.  If sacraments had not a likeness and similitude of the things whereof they are sacraments, properly and rightly, they should not be called sacraments; But if any thing become the same, it hath not any likeness to it any more, but passeth wholly into that whereof it should be a likeness: 
Alioquin si eadem essent om nia, iam non exemplaria di cerentur, sed ipsae potius res de quib us agitur viderentur Cyp. in. Symb.  as saith S. Cyprian.  
To come to the argument which he saith is foolishly gathered, will it please their wisdoms aswell to hear what fools can say further in defence of their folly, as to control without cause what they have well said; we tell him that his example from the jewish sacrifice cometh not near, where he would have it reach: For will he compare his sacrifice in this point, with those of the law? Theirs of the law did prefigure Christ's sacrifice, & were true sacrifices in that kind, because they were truly and really done upon slain beasts, whose blood was shed. But were they so far forth true sacrifices, that they were the same too, unto which they had relation? Did the Priests in the law, offer the same body, that Christ offered, as they say they do in their Mass? If they did not, then for those to be granted to be very true sacrifices will profit him nothing at all for his. The jewish sacrifices were also samplers for the perfect & absolute sacrifice, was not then come; but whereof should their Mass be a sampler or remembrance, since they sacrifice Christ present; for that which is sacrificed must be present, that which is represented and remembered is absent: Christ's body being therefore represented in the Eucharist, cannot be then and there really offered. And by this answer also the Rhemists are discharged who borrow Canus his argument, who say that this. 
Luc. for a commemoration. cap. 22. v. 19  Mass of theirs is no less a true sacrifice, because it is commemorative of Christ's passion then those of the old testament were the less true, because they were prefigurative of the same. For those sacrifices were not the same sacrifice, or thing whereof they were prefigurative, no more can their Mass being commemorative (and though it were a sacrifice as they would have it) it could not be the same thing, whereof it is commemorative.  
But come to Canus, as to the rest for the manner of offering, he goeth back to a mystery and to a figure. In the Cross (saith he) it is plain the host was bloody, and done without mystery; but in the altar it is hid darkly & mystically, yet the same host is on the Cross & on the A●…. On the Cross suffering, 
In altari occultè & mysticè obscondita. Ibid fol. 436. b  on the altar hid in a mystery ●…ce concludeth in the sacrifice of the Eucharist Christ is offered mystically, & unbloodily, & therefore there is an host, where in other sacraments there is none. I speak properly, saith he, for by a kind of speech Baptism also is sometime called an host. 
Ibid. fol. 438. b  And who ever called the Eucharist a sacrifice properly, as the nature of the word soundeth? or said it was the thing itself, & not a figure sampler & similitude, since Gregory Nazianzene, as D. Tonstall quoteth him unto us, 
In sanctum pace l. 2. fol 66. Figura figurae.  speaking of things done in the old law The ark, or the Paschal Lamb, saith Pascha legal, audenter dic●, figurae figura erat obscurior, the Easter Lamb in the law I speak boldly was an obscure figure of a figure, that is a figure of the Eucharist. So that touching any substance of matter, the Eucharist is no more the body, than the sacrifices & sacraments in the law; all, both theirs & ours being referred to Christ on the Cross. To proceed to the objection made our of Saint Paul Heb. 9.16.25. That the host which is sacrificed by offering must of necessity be real offered and slain, 
Canus ibid. ob. fol. 404. ex Cal ui: Instit. l. 4. c. 18. par. 5. f. 475  if then in every of their Masses Christ be offered in sacrifice, in every of, their Masses he is also slain; therefore either S. Paul's argument is frustrate where he saith Otherwise he ought to suffer often from the beginning of the world; or if Christ be offered in sacrifice he dieth verily and indeed: but they all confess they offer Christ's living body & impassable; 
Can us ibid. foe 421. he doth. well to set the objection and answer so far a sunder. At corpus viwm & spirans non offerimus idem enim in Eucharistia est at que in coelo.  so at the most they find an oblation, they cannot find a sacrifice. To this objection he seoffingly saith, that we have found out wherewith to maintain our counterfeit opinion; but he cannot find how to overthrow so weak an argumer. We will grant (saith he) to those that argue against us, that to the perfect offering of the eye ature, there must be the death and end of it, if it be truly sacrificed. But we offer not a lively and breathing body; such a body is in the Eucharist & in heaven; yet although the body of Christ in the Eucharist be a living body, & the blood be in the body, yet we do vether offer the body, because it is alive, or the blood because it is in the body; but the body in regard it is slain, the blood because it was shed on the Cross.  
Thus by this answer of his, where before the distinction stood with them of offering the same body which was offered on the cross, (and that that body was in the Eucharist) but after an other manner, then on the Cross, unbloodily, or in a mystery now he confesseth they offer not a living body but because it is slain; then there must needs follow death▪ nor the blood as it is in the body, but because it was shed on the cross, why then are they afraid to call their sacrifice bloody, but unbloody, if the host be slain? and this argument of Canus have the Rhemists borrowed as they did the former, for in their first conflict about this sacrament they profess That they consecrate the several elements, 
Rhem. 26. mat. v. 26. show the sense or meaning of this note in any writer ancient & take the whole. Dicth in a sacrament, & i● present indeed.  not into Christ's whole person as it was borne of the Virgin or is now in heaven, but the br●ad into his body a part, as betrayed, broken and given for us, the wine into his blood apart, as shed out of his body for remission of sins, in which mystical and unspeakable manner he would have the Church to offer and sacrifice him daily, & he in mystery & sacrament dieth, though now not only in heaven, but also in the sacrament he be indeed (by sequel of all his parts to each other) whole, alive, & immortal:  
Thus monstrously do they teach, now they think, they have gotten a sacrifice into their hands, But how they offer, without blood or with blood, whether alive or dead; whether there same that Christ did, either at his supper, or on the Cross, that they cannot tell, nor with any words explain? Their descriptions in these, are like that of Syrus in the Poet, when he sent one brother to find an other, 
Teren in Adel. act. 4. Scen. 2. Perplexa descriptio  but by the derection taken, he never knew where to find him. Pr●terito hanc rectâ plateâ sursum, ubs eo veneris, cliws de●rsum, vorsum est. Pass right through this street to the over part, when you come there, there is a steep place towards the lower end thereof, run down this way; after that there i● on this hand a Chapel, and there fast by in a narrow corner. A speech full of perplexity. That they should violate or alter the holy ordinance of God touching Christ's sacrifice which was as they say themselves violent, 
The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The sacrifice of their Mass.  painful, & bloody; into a sacrifice real, true, yea and propitiatory, which shall be neither violent, painful, nor bloody, and yet sacrifice his body, as betrayed, broken & given for us; & the blood as shed out of his body; & that very blood which was in the veins of his body, and yet for him to die in a mystery, & in a sacrament. & all to be done unbloodily, & so change the nature & substance of that sacrifice which was the purchase & redemption of the whole world, as it is blasphemous for them to teach; so have they brought such phrases and words as none can understand, upheld by none but themselves. God never intended that his son should offer himself any more but once, and that was with shedding of blood & death, & so must he be offered, or not at all offered. 
Re●d 7. 8. 9 10 cap. to the Hebrews.  if we will speak of a real offering and areal sacrifice; a real presence, and a real offering, & a real death cannot be severed.  
If the ancient Church of God had delivered their doctrine & opinions, 
Aug. Epist. 23. fere finè. Christ is now offered not in substance, but in asacrament or representation of his death D. Allen is out with his own Catholics, be cause they cannot bring this place of Aug: handsomely to jerue their turn. de sac. Euch. l. 2. ca 11  in such confused terms as these men do, we had been as much to seek what had been their minds in this case, as we are of these men now; But they were expedite & clear, as by their discourses appeareth. Nun semelimmolatus est Christus in scipso? Was not Christ (saith S. Augustine) once offered in himself? And yet in a sacrament he is offered for the benefit of the people, not every Easter only, but every day; Nether doth he lie when the question is asked, answereth Christ is offered daily unto the people. For if sacraments had not a certain similitude of the things whereof they be sacraments, they should be no sacraments at all, ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. And by reason of this similitude, they usually take the names of the things themselves. This is without gloze or ambiguity Christ (saith S. Augustine) was once offered in himself. And is offered daily in a sacrament: & for that the speech should be understood, how once & how daily, it is added in a sacrament, and in himself. And why, when it is done now but in a sacrament, may it yet be truly said Christ is offered? because sacraments have the names of the things themselves, for a certain resemblance that is between them. This doth the words immediately following show. Sieut ergo secundum quendam medum, Therefore after a certain manner of speech the sacrament of Christ's body, is Christ's body, & the sacrament of Christ's blood, is Christ's blood, & the sacrament of faith is faith. & this he illustrateth afteriby the sacrament of Baptism out of S. Paul, 
Rom. 6.  who saith by Baptism we be buried with Christ into death, he saith not we signify burial, but he saith plainly we be buried: so that the sacrament of so great a thing, is not called but by the name of the thing itself. 
Cip. tom. 2. de unct. Chris mat. fere fine.  Thus far Augustine. S. Cyprian was before S. Augustine certain hundred of years; he telleth us without any scruple, or bone cast in of doubt, both what Christ did at his last supper and what on the cross, in sound words & few: Dedit dominus noster in mensa. Our Lord at the table whereat he received his last supper with his disciples, with his▪ own hands gave bread & wine; But upon the cross, he gave his own body with the soldiers hands to be wounded. This is by S. Cyprian the sacrifice of the table, & the sacrifice of the cross; at the one he gave bread & wine; upon the other he gave his body; Here is no veiling of him under forms and shows of bread and wine, nospeaking of quantities & qualities without substance, nor offering up of him to God his father. In an other place he saith in most plain words. 
Tom. 2. de bap tism. Christi & manif. trinit. fine.  Nec sacerdotij eius paenituit deum It never repent God (saith he) of Christ's priesthood; For the sacrifice that he offered upon the cross, is so acceptable in the goodwill of God, & so standeth in continual strength & virtue, that the same oblation is no less acceptable this day in the sight of God the Father, than it was that day when blood & water ran out of his wounded side, & semper reseruatae in corpore plaga salutis humana exigant pretium & obedieutiae donatiwm requirant. And the scars teserued still in his body do suffice for the redemption of man and do require a favour because of the obedience. This is plain according to the scriptures, 
Heb 7.23.27. &. 10. v. 12. & 9 v. 28.  that once Priest, by one sacrifice once offered, that is our saviour by giving himself to death upon the Cross hath reconciled us to God, & sanctified us for ever; & cuteth of their many Priests, to offer often, as though there were left now after the death of Christ an offering for sin, or his precious blood were of no greater value than the blood of Bull: & Goats which were offered often, because they could not purge sin.  
There is a Master amongst them called the Master of the esntemces, 
Vide Genebr. Chron l. 4. an. 1159. fol. 932.  P. Lombard. or Longobardus (who collected a brief of doctrine out of the Greek & latin Fathers) ancienter by far then the counsel of Trent, Allen, Canus, or the Rhemists, and before any Protestant (if they say true that are accustomed to lie) who lived in the year of our Lord Bishop of Paris anno. 
Paris.  1160. upon whose books, survey hath been made, & although they have gathered no Index upon him, as they have done upon others, yet they have noted him in many places where they mislike him with a non tenetur, the master is not allowed here. 
Magister hic non tenetur.  This Catholic Doctor much renowned amongst them taught even as the protestāns do, in this quae●stiō of the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, & yet hath escaped from amongst them, without so much as an item for it, which manifestly showeth that though they have us offenders in that matter they have their chief Master also a ringleader therein & themselves or brethren accessary thereto, because they have not taxed him therefore. And howsoever we may be faulty, (the case standing as it doth) our answer is the same with the woman's in the poet Nam si ego digna hac contumelia sum maximè, 
Terenc. in Eunueh. act 5. scen. 2. Senec. in Medea▪ act. 3.  at tu indignus qui faceres tamen. For although I be never so well worthy to be so spitefully handled, yet were you no meet man to do it (saith she) And as Medea saith to jason Omnes coniugem infamem arguant, solus tuere, solus insontem voca. Tibi innocens sit, quisquis est pro te nocens. Let others defame me with infamy, yet do thou only take my part; do thou call me just & undefiled, let him be an innocent to thee, who for thee doth transgresie. The words of Lombard are these, 
Scent l. 4. dis. 12 parag. 7. Christ is not now really offered, but the memory of his sacrifice is celebrated.  Post heac quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos propriè dicatur sacrificium, vel immolatio, & si Christus quotidie immolatur, vel semel tantum immolatus sit. I demand (saith he) whether that which the priest doth be properly called a sacrifice, & an oblation or not; and whether Christ be daily offered, or else were offered only once. To this (saith he) our answer in brief is, that that which is offered, & consecrated by the Priest, is called a sacrifice & oblation, because it is a memory & representation of the true sacrifice, & holy oblation which was made on the altar of the cross. Et semel Christus mortuus in cruse est, ibique immolatus est in semetipse Christ also died once on the Cross, & there was he offered himself, quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento, but he is offered daily in a sacrament, because in the sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once done on the Cross. And this is not Peter Lombard's opinion only, but his strong proof & collection out of all the Father's Greek and Latin, no one of them ever dreaming of sacrificing the son of God to his father, or of making the same sacrifice unbloody, which Christ made bloody, or to have the sacrament, both the thing itself, and a remembrance of itself, & all at one time.  
Wherefore although the sacrifice be a true, & proper, & sovereign propitiatory sacrifice, as it is defined by the Trent Fathers, yet that sacrifice which the ancient Church of God 1400. years before those of Trent spoke of, was not so called properly, & according to the rigour of the word: with them the celebration of the lords supper is called an oblation, for that it is a representation of Christ's death, & sacraments have names of the things which they signify, & because the merits & fruits of Christ's passion are by the power of his spirit divided & bestowed on the faithful receivers of these mysteries. Thomas of Aquine was in his time of greater credit with them then the Master of the sentences, 
Acutè diws Thomas ut omnia▪ Cam●. rat. 9 argutissime. Canus. l. 12: to 408. Melius diws Thomas ut omnia dixit, Allen, fol. 419. p. 3. q 83. art. I resp. dicendum ex Aug. ad sim pl. quest. 3. If Thom. had thought that Christ had been killed & sacrificed to God his father (as D. Allen disputeth l. 2. c 11) he needed not to have hand led it as here he doth Camp. rat. 5. Duraeus ea●… fol. 265. Art. 17 count luel. fol 206. b. & 207. a.  though in time later, the Master is not ever allowed by them, but Thomas, they say hath done all things acutly & well: & yet he saith as we say in this. In two respects (saith he) celebratio butus sacraements dicitur immolatio Christi; the celebration of this sacrament may be called the sacraficing of Christ; First because as S. Augustine saith resemblances are wont to be called by the name of those things, whereof they are resemblances & therefore the celebration of this sacrament is a certain representative Image of the passion of Christ, which is his true sacrificing; Secondly touching the effect of Christ's passion, quia scilicet per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus dominicae passionis, because by this sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords passion. This of Thomas we receive against their real, external, & corporal kind of offering the live flesh of Christ to God the Father by the Priests hands under the forms of bread & wine, as now they teach they do. With what facility of language D. Harding & D. Stephan Gardiner proceeded in this question I will now also show you: and the rather because Campian, & Durous both, do highly commend D. Harding & his work; he having spoken something of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, done with shedding of blood in his own person, as the scripture witnesseth; cometh to show how he is handled in their Mass, saith; Sacramentally or in a mystery Christ is offered up to his Father in the daily sacrifice of the Church, under the form of bread and wine, truly, & indeed, not in respect of the manner of offering, but in respect of his very body & blood really present. And after reciting the words of the Evangelists (
Luc. 22  how that Christ at his last supper took bread gave thanks broke it, & said take eat this is my body which is given for you, and this is my blood which is shed for you in remission of sins) out of which he would prove his sacrifice, saith they are words of sacrificing & offering, they show and set forth an oblation in act & deed, though the term itself of oblation or sacrifice be not expressed; & therefore belike seeing nether any terms nor words to make for it there; afterwards upon more deliberation, he peeceth out the Evangelists & S Paul, for Christ said, Do yes this in my remembrance, he readeth do ye or make ye this in my remembrance. 
Rejoinder. f. 283. & 305. Tully de nature. deotum. l. 1. fe●e fine.  Elephanto belluarum nullaprudentior, at figuram quae vastior? Of beasts saith Tully none is more wiser than the Elephant, in shape none more deformed. M. Harding was thought for that time, to have dealt substantially against his adversary; in substance of matter none more weak. Who can explain how Christ is offered really in their Mass, & yet not in respect of the manner of offering? what manner & what respect is this? Or what words of sacrificing and offering did Christ use at his last supper, without any term of oblation & sacrificing, Hoc non est considerare, sed quasi sortiri quid loquare. 
Tull. ibid.  This is not to speak with discretion but as it were by lot & haphazard.  
But the truth is Christ used no word, term or act of sacrificing, at his last supper. we marvel not then though M. Harding say he expressed it not by any term. Yet the farthest of from all truth is, 
Hard. Ibid. fol 209. A necessary point of Christian doctrine & yet without all manner of Religion.  that which in the prosecution of this article he delivereth, which is, that Christ at the very same instant of time that he offered himself on the Cross with shedding of blood, we must understand (for a necessary point of Christian doctrine) that he offered himself invisibly (as concerning man) in the sight of his heavenly father bearing the marks of his wounds and there appeareth before the face of God; with that thorn pricked, nail bored, spear pierced & other wounded, rend & torn body for us. Here are 4 sacrifices made of one. The same Christ sacrificed at his last supper, the same Christ on the Cross, the same Christ at the same time sacrificed in heaven, & the same Christ sacrificed in the Mass. How M. Harding can bring Christ's sacrificed into heaven without his tormentors is hard to conceive. A●…as Caiphas, judas, Pilate, & the rest of that damned crew indeed for without those wretches, Christ's blood was not shed, and without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin: Where M. Harding should ever findany such doctrine delivered before him I cannot judge, 
Heb. 9 l. 12. fol. 421. a incruentam oblationem Christus in caelis fecit. In his explication & assertion of the true catholic faith. l. 5. fol. 144 b. No iteration of Christ's sacrifice,  except he did alight upon it in Melchior Canus, who amongst other idle & vain discourses of their Mass insinuateth such a thing, speaking of an unbloody sacrifice in heaven, offered there by Christ.  
Stephan Gardiner sometime Bishop of Winchester, a sure card to the posters at Rome writing purposely of the sacrifice of the Mass, beginneth well, saith it is agreed & by the scriptures plainly taught, that the oblation & sacrifice of our saviour Christ, was & is a perfect work, once consummate in perfection without necessity of iteration, as it was never taught to be iterate but a mere blasphemy to presuppose it. This is sound & Catholic, if he would abide by it, but within two leaves after, he saith we must believe the very presence of Christ's body and blood on God's board, and that the Priests do their sacrifice, and be therefore called sacrificers. If the Priests do there sacrifice, 
Ibid. fol. 146. b very sacrificers.  them do they either iterate Christ's sacrifice or have an other. An other they will not say they have & then must they needs iterate Christ's, which indeed (as he saith) is blasphemous to think on. And again he would infer out of Lombard, 
Ibid. 148. b.  that the same most precious body and blood is offered daily, that once suffered, & was once shed. And yet in the next page he saith. 
Ibid. 149. b.  The Catholic doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christ's most precious body & blood to be an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the Cross, 
Ibid. 149. b. Of the virtue of the sacrifice of the Mass and of Christ's on the Cross Gard. Ibid fol. 149. b. Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was & is propitiatory  but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice, & showeth it also before the e●es of the faithful, and refresheth the effectual memory of it. What should any cockle do amongst this corn? why should he presently insert that the catholic doctrine teacheth the daily sacrifice to be the same in Esse●c that was offered on the Cross once. Come to the comparison between the sacrifice of the Mass, and that of the Cross, of the strength virtue & force of the one and of the other, they know not what to say. The offering on the cross (saith he) was & is propitiatory & satisfactory for our redemption & remission of sins, 
Note well. Ibid, 150. a. The mass is propitiatory, also, so they make 2. propitiatory sacrifices, which can no more stand together, than if they should make 2 almighty's.  whereby to destroy the tyranny of sin, the effect whereof is given & dispensed in the sacrament of Baptism.  
The daily offering (meaning the Mass) is propitiatory also but that it is not in that degree of propitiation, for to call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory, must have an understanding that signifieth not the action of the Priest, but the presence of Christ's most precious body & blood, the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered being propitiatory & satisfactory for all the world. And yet not ten lines after in the same page, he saith that the act of the Priest done according to God's commandment must needs be propitiatory & provoke God's favour, and aught to be trusted on to have a propitiatory effect with God.  

Tantae molis erat Romanan condere gentem.  Here any man may see what a business & hard work it is, to patch these popish doctrines together, what absurdities they fall into thereby. One while he saith that the act of the Priest must needs be a sacrifice propitiatory. And now to have an understanding for the same, he is driven to a very shameful shift, that he must either say clean contrary, that it is not the action of the Priest, but the presence of Christ: or else that the action of the Priest is no otherwise satisfactory, than all other Christian men's works be, for so he averreth that all good works, good thoughts, and good me ditations, may be called sacrifices, and the same be called sacrifices propitiatory also. D. Allen having showed by some reasons that both the sacrifice of Christ at his last supper, and that on the cross stand well together, 
De euch. sacrif l, 2. c. 10. f. 544 Quam hody cuiuslibet sacerdotis sacrum in ecclesia.  and are in their natures very commodious, addeth (but it is saluo meliori indicio) according to his own opinion; that that sacrifice which Christ himself offered at his last supper, had not any other effect or greater strength, than the Mass of every Priest performed in the Church now hath, whereby without quesion is confirmed the action of the Priest, or else gardiner's staggering is in vain.  
And yet me thinketh, 
Ibid. post c. 23. fol. 596.  Allen himself stumbleth at this again, when he would have the sacrifice of the mass to be held, not an absolute and independent sacrifice, but to be referred as all the jewish sacrifices were, to the only fountain of sacrifices the death of Christ, why should it not be absolute & independent? since you say that Christ's sacrifice at his last supper had no greater effect than that of your mass done by the Priest: & that of your mass being the same in essence with that of the Cross, what blasphemy is it in Allen to compare it with those sacrifices of the jews; & refer it to the fountain, that is to itself? Again is it any marvel if Gardiner show himself unconstant in these kind of questions? 
Mirum vero, impudenter mulier, si facit meretrix. Ter. in And. act. 4. seen. 4 Gard. ib. 151. b 152. a.  The pure sacrifice of the Church (saith he) is there offered for the effect of the increase of life in us as it was offered on the cross to achieve life unto us. And yet in the very next page out of Cyrill, he would have the sacrifice of the Church to be vinificum, a sacrifice giving life. And yet he addeth which is more wonderful, that that can be only said of the very body & blood of Christ so that one where he divideth our redemption between the Priests sacrifice & Christ's, 
Intolerable blasphemy.  the one to give life, & the other to increase our life, & that is no less than flat blasphemy; For all Christians do believe, that the sacrifice made on the cross doth both give us life & also increase & continue the same, & the Priest's oblation doth neither of both, for our redemption & eternal salvation standeth not only in giving us life, but in continuing the same for ever, as Christ said that he came not only to give us life, but also to make us increase and abound therein: 
john 10. Gal. 2.  And S. Paul saith the life which I now live in flesh, I live by the faith of the son of God, who loved me & gave himself for me. And therefore if we have the one by the oblation of Christ, & the other by the oblation of the Priest, then divide we our salvation between Christ & the Priest, & shall have our salvation & redemption, as much by the sacrifice made by the Priest, as we have by that of the Cross done by Christ himself.  
If any man rescue him by saying he referreth vinificum that sacrifice giving life to the body & blood of Christ, whether on the Cross or sacrificed in the mass, then overthroweth he his own distinction made before of giving and increasing life, & maketh the mass an independent and absolute sacrifice, which Allen will none of. Thus have you a brief of what Gardener hath said touching the sacrifice of the mass, where you see he runneth too & fro so astonished & amazed as if he were at his wit's end, & knew not what to say. For one while the Priest maketh a sacrifice propitiatory, an other while he doth not; now he giveth life, now he giveth none; now is Christ the full saviour & satisfaction, now the Priest hath half part with him, & again the Priest doth all.  
Bellarmine treating of this same question, 
De missa, l. 2. ●. 4. fol. 776.  of the sufficiency of the sacrifice of the mass▪ delivereth according to his manner certain propositions & distinctions of his own only making, without confirming them either by the holy scriptures, ancient Fathers or doctors, and having that liberty he were very simple if he could not make a bad cause show well, 
Hooker prae●, ad lib eccles. pol. fol. 24. The mass is of value finite If this reason of Bellarmine be good, against the value of the mass in the behalf of the sacrifice of the Cross: it overthroweth the whole mass & establisheth that of the Cross. The sacrifice of the Cross is of infinite value  especially to those that will take any thing for good at their hands unto whom they bear strong affection. For commonly such is our forestalled minds, that whom in great things we mightily admire, in them we are not willingly persuaded that any thing is amiss. His fourth proposition therefore is valour sacrificij Missae finitu● est. The value of the mass is finite, that is, the mass is not of infinite worth or price. And this saith he is the common opinion of the divines, & is proved most plainly by the use of the Church. Mark his reasons For if the value of the mass were infinite it were needless to have many masses, especially for the obtaining of one thing For if one mass were of infinite value, it would suffice to obtain all things, & therefore why should we have other? And this is confirmed by the sacrifice of the Cross, which for no other cause was one, nor never is repeated, but only because it is of infinite value, & obtained a ransom for all sins past and to come: But saith he, although the mass be of value finite; which is verje true in itself, yet the reason how it cometh to be so is not so sure; For it may seem strange, C●r valour sacrificij huius fit finitus cum idem sit hoc sacrificium cum sacrificio crucis, 
A great marvel.  why the worth of this sacrifice should be finite, since it is the same, with that on the cross which was infinite, & when there is the same host, 
The offering & the offerer, is one in both  and the same Christ offering himself, which are infinitely acceptable to God.  
Bellarmine might add further of his own, if it pleased him A marvel it is, how the sacrifice of the mass should be inferior to that of the cross, since that of the mass is a most true sacrifice, even one of the terms he gave before to the sacrifice of the cross. And marvel it is, that the sacrifice of the mass should not be of the same value with that of the cross; seeing as he saith one where there is the the same offering & offerer Christ in both, 
Ibid. l. c. 25. fol. 749. etc. 3. in principio.  infinitely accounted of by God; & otherwher that the sacrifice of the mass is a most true sacrifice so in a third place, he granteth that in the sacrifice of the mass it may most truly be said that the blood of Christ is shed there. Take into these, 
Ibid. fol. 49 in fine paginae.  the word propitiatory which the Trent fathers give to the mass to, & then if all these together serve not the turn, 
jewel cont. Hard art. 1 druis. 33. touching Amphilochius foe highly renowned by M. harding.  to make a great marvel, why the sacrifice of the Mass should be of value finite, & that of the cross infinite, we may say as one said in an other case, nothing I trow will serve the turn: For grant those things of the mass, & it cannot but be of infinite value & price, aswell as that on the Cross: but they know that none of those things are true of the mass, and therefore Bellarmine playeth a desperate man's part in giving such reasons as cannot prove the mass inferior to Christ's sacrifice, 
Virg. Aeneid. l. 8. inde repent impulit, impulso quo max imus insonat aether prima exparte hostiae quae offertur.  except he in evitably overthrow the mass itself, as Hercules in the Poet overthrew Cacus his den, when heaven rebounded with the noise.  
His reasons (salve moliore judicio) are 3. The first is drawn from the host which is offered. For in the sacrifice of the cross Christ in his natural being was there sacrificed & destroyed in the form of a man, but in the sacrifice of the mass he is destroyed in his sacramental being, 
In his sacramental being? you say that Christ hath there a real & substantial being. the protestāns say he is slain and his blood shed in a sacrament. Ipsa hostia & offerens Christus.  but his natural being is more noble & more precious than his sacramental. This reason thus drawn from the nature of the host or thing offered is very frivolous & absurd, especially seeing Bellarmine delivered before that the host in both was one, where can he find a defect in that? In flying from his natural being on the cross to his sacramental being in the mass, he joineth with us, for we acknowledge he died sacramentally in his last supper because a sacrament of his death & passion was iustituted; & so when the Lords supper is now administered we say he is sacrificed, because the memory of his sacrifice is celebrated. 
2. ratio sumitur ex part of ferentis Ipsa hostia & offerens Christus.  The second reason is drawn stronger (as he saith) from the party that offereth; for in the sacrifice of the Cross, the party offering is the person of the son of God; but in the sacrifice of the mass the offerer is the son of God by a minister. did he not lay it for a ground in the same page of the leaf (to take away an objection) that Christ is the offerer as well in the Mass, as on the Cross? 
3. Ratio sumitur ex ipsa Christi voluntate, nam etiansi posset Christus per unam oblationem sacrificij inc●uēti, sive per se, sive per minist●um oblati, quae libet deo & pro quibuscumque impetrare, tamen noluit perere nec impetrare, nisi ut pro singulis oblationibus applicaretur certa mensura f●uctus passionis suae, sive ad peccatorum remissionem, sive ad alia b●ne f●cia, quibus in hac vita indigemus.  And hath he not disabled himself, & his fellows of a great excuse, which they were wont to make in that behalf? for when we object the person of the Priest, taking upon him contrary to the scripture, so great an office, not called thereunto, as to offer up the son of God to his Father, they had to say that it was not the Priest that did it, but Christ that offered himself by the ministry of the Priest: end yet now Bellarmine would disable the whole mass as though it were less worth that Christ should offer himself, were it but by the hand of a minister. The third of Bellarmine's reasons is drawn from the will of Christ. For saith he, although Christ could obtain by one oblation of this unbloody sacrifice, offered either by himself, or by his minister, whatsoever he would for whomsoever, yet would he nether ask nor obtain of God any thing but that by every oblation in the mass there should be applied a certain fruit of his passion, 
All the application in the Gospel now of Christ's sacrifice common both to Priest and people is that of the Apostle. Let us draw near with a true heart in assurance of faith. Heb. 10. v. 22. Bellar. de miss. l. 1. c. 25. f 748. H 9.17,20. The Lord, supper or Eucharist is this testament or seal of Gods promise exhibited to us. The matter testamentary, or which is testified, is the sacrifice of Christ's death as Christ saith this cup is the new testament, in my blood. Missa non est nova testamenti Christi institutio sed est repetitio illius eius dem. Ib: c 25. f. 740. Neque unquam repetitur. ib. c. 4. l. 2. fol. 776.  either for remission of sins, or obtaining other benefits which in this life we want.  
Thus have we the full of Bellarmine's reasons to prove that the value, and strength of the sacrifice of the mass is finite, whereas he confesseth the sacrifice of the Cross was infinite, so that by his own grant, the difference between them is, as between finite & infinite, which is disproportion enough, whereupon we may safely conclude, the Mass is not the sacrifice of Christ. And thus hath Bellarmine like an other Hercules cleansed Augeus' stable of a number of filth. For would he would bring, not three but three score reasons to prove that the sacrifice of the Mass is inferior to that on the Cross, he should willingly be heard. I will follow Bellarmine in on note more about his mass, and so give an end to this part: We object the confirmation of a Testament dependeth on the death of the Testator, therefore the confirming of Christ's testament dependeth on his death; Or thus, Where a sacrifice is, the testament is confirmed, but where a testament is, there is death, therefore the mass is a new testament, yea there are so many testaments as there be masses, & Christ must so often die as there be masses to ratify & establish them. Bellarmine answereth, that the mass is not a new feting forth of the testament of Christ, or is not a new testament, but a repetition of his own, which he did & confirmed by his death, so a little before he called the mass an iteration of the oblation of Christ.  
Thus is Bellarmine content to make his mass a repetition and iteration of Christ's sacrifice, which a while after he will not allow. For (as before is rehearsed out of him) speaking of the sacrifice of the cross, he saith it is only one & cannot be repeated. So saith Gardiner very confidently. That Christ's sacrifice was and is perfect without necessity of iteration. If Bellarmine will stand to this that his mass is but a repetition and iteration of Christ's testament, it may very well be demanded where the Rhemists will find their mass or sacrifice done daily unbloodily, 
Annot. Heb. c. 10. v. 11.  that was once down bloodily made by the same Priest Christ jesus, though by his ministers hands, & not many hosts as those of the old law were, but the very self same in number, even Christ's own body that was crucified.  Tub. 
I have observed you with attention in your discourse, wherein you have showed the diversities of handling one and the same thing. It seemeth they cannot tell themselves what they would say, if you have laid down their words rightly without falsification. For in this of the mass they teach the offering up of the son of God to his father, which assertion had need (because it is a matter of the greatest weight) to be strongly confirmed by holy scripture; They teach a true sacrifice a perfect & real, but when they come to confirm, that which first they lay down, they speak of the forms of bread and wine, destroying the truth of Christ's natural body. They make it bloody and unbloody. They know not how far the Priest worketh in it, nor whether they were best to say it is the same that Christ did. 
Articles subscribed unto by the Church of England. art 31. Redemption. act. 20.28. Rom. 5.6, Gal. 3.13. 1. Cor. 6.28. 1. Pet 1,18. Propitiation. Act. 10.43. Rom. 3.25 Heb. 9.12.28. 1. john. 2.2. 1. Ioh 4.10 Satisfaction Io. 1.29. 1 Pet. 3.18. 1 Io. 1.7. Gardiner. Saunders. harding.  Their discourses herein are me thinketh unprofitable and uncomfortable.  Rom. 
Unprofitable and uncomfortable said you? you never judged righter in all your life. For where the offering of Christ once made on the cross is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world both original & actual, there being no other sacrifice for sin but that alone, they in stead of that brought in sacrifices of Masses wherein they offer Christ for the quick & dead to have remission of pain & guilt, & have handled the proof as before is set down: whereby you may observe the boldness & impudency of them in defence, & liking of their cause; who are not any whit a hashed to bid the readers sift, try, and examine, & weigh without partiality their reasons and arguments, and then to judge, which who soever doth, shall assuredly find no sincere dealing, on their parts, but shifts, cavils, and base trigiversations, a sufficient proof whereof is gone before and more shall now presently follow, in continuing their several declarations of the manner of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament (which I hindered before in discoursing so largely of their sacrifice) which I did reserve to this place because we are to examine the force of every word in the institution of the Lords supper, and their manner of contriving them for their purpose.  
The sentence of holy scripture, by which they would prove both their sacrifices & real presence in this. 
The real presence of Christ in the sacrament. Mat. 26.26,27 Marc. 14.22. Luc. 22.19. 1. Cor. 11.23.24  When they were eating, Jesus, when he had taken the bread, and given thanks, he broke it, & gave it to the disciples, & said take ye, eat ye, this is my body. And when he had taken the cup & given thanks he gave it them, saying, drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for the remission of sins. By this narration of the Evangelist you see both what Christ did and said at his last supper, He took, he blessed, he broke, he gave, and said Take eat this is my body, Do this in remembrance of me. Now I ask you this question, what thing was it which Christ took? all men agree, 
The words of the institution examined. This bread is my body.  it was bread. What blessed he? bread. What broke he? bread. What gave he? bread: & then said, take, eat this (what? bread) is my body. We say by this it is clear, that when Christ said, Take eat this is my body, he spoke of the bread as if he had said, Take eat this bread is my body. One the other side they expound it, Take eat this (nothing) is my body, we know not what. Or this invisible thing, Or this thing I have in my hands; but in no case this bread is my body. For you must understand, that in the trial of this one word, standeth all our whole controversy both of the real presence, Transubstantiation, & the sacrifice of the Mass; if Christ spoke of the bread when he said, Take, eat this is my body, 
This reason hath his force in nature confessed by all men  both they & we are agreed that the substance of bread remaineth, & so nothing on their side will fall out right, the reason is, one contrary thing (as bread & body) cannot be spoken of, or be said to be an other thing, but in and by a figure so that to say of the bread this is my body must needs intend a figure. And because they would avoid the figure, they do violate the eternal law of Reason, which intendeth that if a man say take this, he must mean something, which he giveth or hath in his hand;  
The evidence of this is so clear, that I could confute them divers ways, but according to my first institution, I will openly show, by their own dark & perplexed speeches, that did they not strive to uphold a thing once apprehended, they might more easier yield then defend their errors. 
jewel. art. 24.  The Reverend Bishop of Sarum made this one of his questions at Paul's Cross publicly enough, whether the people were ever taught to believe that when Christ said This is my body, the word this, pointed not the bread, but something in general, they knew not what. M. Harding who seemed to say something to every of those articles denied by the Bishop, said least of all to this, which argueth he had not what to answer, lest he should have run himself upon on shelf or other, there is so many diversities of opinions amongst them in this. How this word Hoc in that saying of Christ is to be taken and what it pointeth, 
Hard count jewel. art. 24. f. 2 28  we know (saith M. harding) who have more learnedly, more certainly and more truly treated thereof, then Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin, Cranmer, P. Martyr, 
We know.  or any their offspring. We know saith he. But what he knew touching this point, nether he whilst he lived, 
Gard. in his explication. fol. 39 b. referreth the word this to the invisible substance. In his detection of the devils sophistry fol. 29. b. Now it demonstrateth the bread.  nor his friends since he died, would never let us know, unkind as they are Freindlier yet hath D. Gardiner dealt with us in this same case, who hath yet given us words, though we know not his meaning. When Christ said this is my body, there is no necessity saith he that the demonstration this should be referred to the outward visible matter, but may be referred to the invisible substance. what outward visible matter, & what invisible substance is there? Is Christ's body that invisible substance? Then the speech will be This body is my body: yet was not the same man always of the same opinion (though he would be called Marcus Constantius. 
Allen de euch sacrif. l. 1. c. 34. fol. 420. Disparata sunt opposita quorum unum multis pariter op ponitur sic homo, arbour, lapis & ciu smo di res infinite, disparantur, nec eadem res potest esse homo arbor lapis. Ra mus de disparatis. Ib fol. 419, 421 Hoc demonstrat corpus. ut sit sensus, hoc corpus meum est corpus meum. This is it indeed that moveth us. Bread & wine are there indeed. Vagè & indefinite nec per sehocaut illud exact demonstrare donec compleatur oratio, AEneid. l. 4. Staplet return of untruths against M. jewel. art. 1. fol. 16. b.  For before he had thus written: Christ spoke plainly making a demonstration of the bread, when he said, this is my body. If it be plain, why are they so obscure. For they dare not say what it meaneth neither one thing nor other. A third of theirs, & a country man of ours reproving the Protestants for referring the word this to the bread, saith it is absurd, both in philosophy & divinity that two things different & distinct in nature & substance should be affirmed & spoken the one of the other.  
It is true it cannot be without a figure So Dureus Quid obsecro, stultius, quam disparatorum, ut dialectici appellant, alterum dies de altero? ac si lignum esse lapidem, aut murem Elephantum deceret. What is more foolish I pray you saith he, then as the Logicians use to speak, that one contrary should be spoken of an other, as if a man should saya piece of wood were a stone or an mouse an Elephant. These men (to avoid the figure) rectifying what is amiss in us, have made that crooked which before was strait. Allen saith the word this demonstrateth the body. But saith he, if there be any man whom it doth trouble how the word This can demonstrate the body & blood which are not there present, when the word This is spoken: Or that they should not show the bread and wine, which are there indeed, let him read not the scriptures, (for those overthrow you) Guimundus & Thomas, who have largely, elegantly, & subtly treated of these things. To amend all he saith, the safest & best way is to take the word THIS in the beginning of the sentence wandringly, & without any certainty, & nether to signify this thing or that, exactly until the speech be ended.  
Stapleton is as variable as the best; we need not so much remember the Poet, varium & mutabile semper foemina, a woman is an unconstant and changeable creature, as marvel at these Doctors in their uncertain speeches. Now M. jewel (saith he) do you think it an untruth to say, that in tertullian's time Christian folk or the old Fathers called that bread, the body of Christ, & so consequently our maker & redeemer? 
By Stapleton here, Christ spoke of the bread when he said this is my body.  But what saith our saviour himself in the Gospel? Doth not he say of that bread which he took into his hands which he broke & blessed This is my body: Doth not he in these words call it his body? To this we agree, we desire no more, let him stand to this & the controversy is ended. We say as Stapleton saith, that Christ did say of that bread which he took in his hands, which he broke & blessed This is my body. 
Staptlet: ibid. art. 2. fol. 41. b. Now he will not have it sig nify the bread  But he will not abide by this, he goeth from it in the examination of the second article, for there he reasoneth after this manner. The scripture saith Hoc ost corpus meum, this is my body which this M. jewel? Can you say, this bread is my body? you know Ho this, is the neuter gender, panis bread, is the masculine. 
Was it not bread which he blessed.  Then what this? This forsooth which Christ had blessed, & made saying This is my body. Thus far Stapleton. Doth not his second affirmation frustrate his first, & his first the second? In the first he is plain, Christ spoke of the bread which he broke & bless sedan the second he wrangleth about the genders, and maketh interrogations, when he knoweth well enough what it is as he in the Poet, that said Sed quid hoc? pner herclè est, 
Ter. Andr. act. 4. scen. 4. 1. Rejoin. fol. 304. 2. Tonstall. fol. 58. 3. Bellar. de sac. euch. l. 2. ●. 6. fol 155. 4. Dureus' consur resp. Whirrat 9 fol. 657. 5. Hard cont. jewel. art. 17. fol 210. b. 6. Bell. de missa. l 1. c 10. fol. 687. Hard Rejoind pag 305. a.  in no case he will not have this to point to the bread.  
M. harding coming as near the truth as 4. and 4. is to 8. dare not yet stand unto it, he telleth us out of Ireneus, that Christ took the creature of bread (or that which by creation it bread) & gave thanks saying this is my body. Can any man in his right wits imagine that Ireveus: did not think writing so plainly as he doth, that Christ spoke of the bread when he said this is my body. And saith himself in the next page that for signification of mystery, they broke & distribute also unto others that heavenly bread in the form of common bread. I hope to salve this they will not say that they break the real & fleshly body of Christ; & break bread they do though heavenly. & heavenly bread we do not deny but the bread of the holy communion may be called, when it is sanctified & made holy by the word of God and prayer, put apart for that holy use; 
Dureus' cont. whit. rat 2. f. 114 Stapl. reto. art. 1. fol. 12. Rejoin. fol. 149. b.  but yet bread and such bread, as of which the substance of our flesh is increased & consisteth, as they all teach with one joint consent out of Ireneus also. I hope they are not come to that degree of blasphemy, as to say that our substantial & natural bodies are augmented & do consist of the real and natural body of Christ. Therefore he must needs mean by their own travises out of him that Christ both spoke & meant the bread when he said this is my body; 
Quam uterque est similis sui Teren. in Phor act. 3. scen. 2 & act 1. scen. 5.  & such bread as is in use amongst us. You shall see further, how like they are in this one to an other, Ecce autem similia omnia, omwes congruuni, Vuum cognoris, omnes noris, all feathers of one wing, know one & know all, Tradunt mutu as operas. They help one an other, but bring their causes to no good pass.  

Lib. 1 fol. 18. Saunders saith Christ spoke of the bread. Gratiarun actio Fractio panis bene dicti. This convinceth plainly he spoke of the bread. L. 7. fol 629. Now he cannot tell what to make of it. Nec ad visibilem corporis Christi formam nec ad hunc panem velut qui maneat panisnec simul ad hune panem & hoc corpus nec&c  D. Saunders in his visible monarchy, treating of the sacrament, saith very plainly Christus de pane quem Apostols nondum acceperant dixit. Christ said of the bread which the Apostles had not yet received This is my body: & then he handleth his giving of thanks, & after cometh to the breaking of the consecrated bread. which I hope they will not verify of Christ's real body. And a little after the words of our Lord (saith he) in the Eucharist are referred to the Elements, for that saying This is my body is referred to the bread. This is my blood to the Cup. But after (yet a great while after so that well he might forget himself) in the same work treating of the same matter, he hath these words. Disparata sunt panis triticens & Corpus Christi. Bread & the body of Christ are (saith he) two separate & divers things; so that we justly say that the pronoun hoc this cannot be referred to the visible body of Christ nether to the bread, as it should remain bread, nether to the bread together with the body, nor to the whole action of the supper, but only to the body of our Lord, iam tum de substantia panto factum, even then made of the substance of bread, & exhibited under the form of bread.  
Thus doth Saunders here make Christ have two several bodies, one visible their present, & the other made of bread & to that body there made of substance of bread he referreth the word this, in the sentence this is my body: so he maketh the sense thus, This body made of the substance of bread is my body, which is a very vain speech & to no purpose, For by that exposition Christ's body should be there before the words of consecration were pronounced, & so there should be no force and virtue in consecration, or rather there should be consecration before consecration, & so consecration without consecration. And a little after he saith At nunc pronomen hoc. But now the pronoun hoc this, which showeth the whole substance rei proposita of the thing that is proposed or showed, 
What thing? you are afraid to call it any thing.  doth demonstrate no other thing than the body of Christ, not remembering what he said in the first book, as I even now recited; that Christ spoke of the bread which the Apostles had not yet received, when he said This is my body. If he spoke of the bread, he spoke not of his body, if he spoke of his body, he spoke not of the bread, and yet Saunders avoucheth both. 
Saunders ibid. l. 7. fol. 633. Mark this that he cofesseth the blessing came before the breaking.  In an other place going about to prove that the word this cannot be referred to the visible body of Christ saith thus Cum Christus post acceptum panem, & benedictionem interpositam, Seeing Christ after the taking of the bread and the blessing coming between, did break and give to his disciples saying, take & eat this is my body, it is clear by the order & course of the sentence, that he called that thing his body which he gave, & which he commanded his disciples to eat; in somuch that in the delivery of the cup he said Drink ye all of this for this is my body, In vain therefore after the commandment of drinking, had he added the word for, 
Two bloods one in the veins of his body, & the other in the chalice.  if the blood which he then showed; had been believed to have been then only in the veins of his body, & not exhibited & given to have been drunk.  
In this last sentence of the 4. things in the supper which Christ did that is his taking, blessing, breaking, & giving, Saunders seemeth to allow 3. of them to appertain to the bread taking, blessiag, 
Deinde cum Christus subiunxit hoc facite: non solum praecepit, ut id ageremus, quod illepanen accipiendo, be nedicendo, fran gendo & distribuendo egit, vetum etiam ut opus quoddam relinque. remus in mensa domini post nostras actiones finitas. fol. 634. Saunders cometh to the distributing of bread, & then must they needs eat bread Ibid fol. 637. The substance which I show? what substance. This is my body that is behold my body where are the words which make the change? Ibid fol. 639. This is my body worketh the Change. Note.  & breaking, but not his giving, & their cating: yet in the next leaf he cometh some what nearer, for he confeseth that Christ did not only command that we should do that which he did by taking the bread, by blessing the bread, by breaking the bread, and by distributing the bread, but that we should leave a certain work done at the table of the Lord after we have finished all. So cometh he now to the distributing or giving of bread, & what should they eat, but what he distributed, which was even bread. After this, finding the ill conclusions of some of his own speeches, where he referreth the word this to the body there presently made he doth deny that they resolve the sentence thus hoc corpus meum ost corpus meum, this body is my body, but thus, the substance which I show is the substance of my body; as if it should be said, Behold the substance of my body, or Behold my body under these accidents of this bread. Why mince you so finely with substantia quam demonstro the substance which I show, what substance is that? if the bread, them Christ spoke of the bread, which once you affirmed; if the body, than the speech must needs be (maugre all gain saiers) This body is my body: which now you deny. Take your foot out of which fetter you will, our of both you cannot.  
Again, where he resolveth or expoundeth the words of Christ, this is my body, as if he should have said, behold the substance of my body, or behold my body under these accidents. I demand where are the words of Transubstantiation, or that turned or made the bread, the body of Christ? For according to Saunders opinion here, these words this is my body, are but demonstrative, as if he should have said. Behold the substance of my body: & then of necessity the words that made it so must go before. But where? neither they nor he can tell. But to my seeming he falleth upon his old Bias again which he did before, where he saith Itaque olla verba Hoc est corpus meum, therefore those word; this is my body being directed to the bread taken & blessed, doc change the substance of bread into the body of Christ, If they be directed to the bread, the speech must be, this bread is my body, 
This bread is my body.  how can they be directed to the bread else. And if it remain bread till those words of this is my body, come, what need they fear to say he gave bread, for those words come last of all yea after giving & eating. He took (saith he) at first, 
Ibid fol. 645. Accepit eni●… ab initio, non quidem corpus suum sed panem velut materiam & elementum etc. Saunders Ibid. fol 658. 659. He breaketh bread, them the real body is not there.  not his body, but bread as it were a matter & element, whereunto his word was to be joined, that it might be made a sacrament: did he not speak of the bread then, when he said this is my body? Furthermore going about to prove, that the body & blood of Christ are in the eucharist, although it be neither eaten nor drunken, he beginneth with S. Paul, who saith. 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a partaking of the blood of Christ: and the bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of Christ? and inferreth, we break the bread before we deliver it, or give it to be eaten For the breaking is both to revive the memory of the passion (wherein the flesh of Christ was rend & torn with whips, nails, and spears) as also that to every communicant a part & morsel.  

He distributeth the bread in pieces, the real body of Christ is not yet there them. Prius ergo quam iste panis▪ frangatur▪ etc.  At the first then when the bread is broken, it is the partaking of the body of Christ; for the blessing causeth that the bread be the partaking of the body of Christ, the blessing I say of the Lord, whereby he giving thanks said This is my body, and commanded us to do it, in his remembrance. Here is a gallimaufery of fustian terms, woven Lincy-wolsy fashion. He speaketh of breaking, & distributing of bread, & yet the real body must be there according to his account, before the breaking come, for that is his drift here: and then will he say, it is the real body of Christ? No by his own confession, it is but the breaking panis benedicti, of the consecrated bread as he calleth it before. Again he saith, the blessing is done by sayrng this is my body, but the order of the Evangelists is contrary, they place that blessing last of al. The words are, He took bread & blessed it, & after the blessing cometh the breaking, 
He took. 1. He blessed. 2. He broke 3. He gave 4.  & after that, the distributing; & then this is my body. So that except he will interrupt the narration of the Evangelists and confound those terms which are distinct, and refuse that for a blessing, which the Gospel pointeth & calleth a blessing, & on the other side, call that a blessing which the Gospel doth not, 
Instit. l. 5. c, 3.  he can never justify his report. Haec est mendaciorum naturae, ut cobaerere uon possint. This is saith Lacta●tius the nature of lies that they cannot agree together. 
& cap. 6.  Valet enim visua veritas,, but the truth doth prevail of her own force whosoever resisteth.  
If one or two of them did thus dote or dream in their discourses it might be excused by the insufficiency of the men but since amongst them all, there is no one that standeth sure either to himself or to his fellows, it must needs be judged the weakness of the cause which they maintain, 
Con●ut, resp. Whitak. rat 9 sol. 601.  that cause them thus to stumble. Dureus the jesuite coming to handle this matter against D whitaker's saith, If Christ testified that which he gave to his disciples was his body, assuredly it could not be bread, from whence it necessarily cometh to pass, that the bread which Christ took into his hands was changed into his body by the force and virtue of his divine words? 
●oc (totam nimirum quam manicus tenebat substantiam demonstrans) est corpus meum.  Accipit● (inquit Christus) & comedite. Take saith Christ & eat. Quid tandem? what then? This (showing all that substance which he had in his hands) is my body. Why how now Dureus,? why walk you in these clouds? why do you not tell us what substance that was which Christ had in his hands. Bread, or no bread, the body or no body. That which Christ took, he gave, although you deny it, saying panem in manus accepisse fatcor, 
Dureus' rat. 2. fol. 94.  dedissenego. That Christ took bread in his hands I confess, that he gave bread I deny: but was not the bread which he took, that substance which you say he showed, having it in his hands, it cannot be otherwise for the words of change as you say, this is my body not come yet. If Dureus answer (as he will) that he spoke not of the bread which he took; let him yet resolve us what inbstance that was which he had in his han des & showed his disciples when he said Take eat this is my body. 
Fecistis probèi incertior sum mul●o quam dudum. Teren in Phor. act. 2. scen. 3. Si verò quenquam illud ad. huc moveat quomodo pro. nomina in sacramentalibus verbis possint demonstra re corpns & sanguinem, quae adhuc non sunt cum ca efferuntur: aut quomodonon plane in dicent panem & vinum, quae revera tum ex istunt-Legat. etc. Allen de sac Euch. l. 1. f. 42● Bellar. de sacr. Euc. l i c. two f. 83 This, doth not demonstrate the bread; nor the body. according to Thomas. It doth not demonstrate the bread precisly Sic tamen ut demonstratio proprie ad species pertineat. Sed in obliquo, hoc modo. Ibid fol. 85. Ibid. fol. 88 This Ens this thing, or this substance.  If he resolve not this, he resolveth not our doubt, but leaveth us more uncertain than before; for this is it that troubleth us, how the word this can demonstrate the body and blood, which are not there when the word is spoken; & not demonstrate & point the bread & wine, which certainly are there then; as saith D. Allen: And if the bread & wine be there then, even when the words this is my body are spoken; then are they there both at the breaking and giving, as they utterly would deny. S●…ll Bellarmine the mouth of their senate conclude the controversy? yes say they we all agree: Hear him them, a man of a polished wit. Although (saith he) the Catholics do agree in the thing, yet do they not agree in the manner of explaining what the word this should demonstrate.  
Two famous opinions there are amongst them, one that the pronoun this should demonstrate the body, which opinion he refuseth as not consonant to the truth, howsoever Allen and Saunders as you heard before, did so teach. The other is of Thomas Aquinas, & others very many who have followed him that the pronoun this, doth not demonstrate the bread precisely, nor the body, but a substance in common which is under those forms; yet so that the demonstration appertaineth properly to the forms, but not that the fence be This, that is these forms are my body; but thus, on this sort this is my body, that is under these forms is my body. So that the word This doth not demonstrate the bread, nor the body of Christ, but that which is contained under those forms Therefore we do not say (saith he) this, that is this substance or as Scotus this Ens: but This, that is the substance contained under these forms. Here in Bellarmine you have all that art or falsehood can devise, to darken the truth with all. Doth any man yet conceive by them what the word This, poiuteth unto? but for very shame he would say it pointed to the bread he denieth it but in part, he saith it doth not precisely point the bread, & therefore I say he doth not precisely deny it. His fellows before him will in no sort have it so: But he utterly denieth that it pointeth to the body, yet is he more out than they, when he saith the demonstration this doth properly belong to the forms, and yet the sense must not be These forms are my body. But not withstanding his denial it must be so, if he sai● true, For if you refer the word this to the bread the sense willbe, 
This bread is my body. This body is my body. The●… forms are my body.  〈◊〉 bread it my body, & therefore they deny it. If it be referred to the body, the sense must be, this body is my body which Bellarmine denieth; And what should let, but if he say it pointeth to the forms, it should be These forms are my body. But he will have it thus; That which is contained under these forms is my body; And what with him & them too is contained under those forms, but the body of Christ? Bread they say there is none: so according to Bellarmine, the sense willbe This body under these forms is my body; or otherwise to tell us directly what it was, that was contained under those forms. In the chapter next before, reciting out of S. 
Bellar de euch sacra. l. 1. c. 10. fol. 69. & Allen de Euc. sac. l. 1. c. 15. Rhem an not. Mat. 26 v. 26. parag. 7. Refertur ad materiam, quae erat in manibus. Luc. 9 Marc. 8 Luc. vlt. Resolve me in this and I will yield the whole  Marks Gospel the order of the Evangelists he saith it cannot be doubred, but Christ having taken the bread, blessed it, broke it, & gave it to his disciples: but as the breaking and giving is referred to the matter which was in his hands, so his blessing too, should be referred thither which was to the bread.  
We grant him (if so that will pleasure him) that Christ blessed the bread; and that Christ never used to bless or give thanks, but at some notable memorable work, as at the multiplying of the loaves in the Gospel, and blessing of his disciples is read, & here in the institution of the supper. But did Bellarmine ever read, that the blessing of any creature, sensible or insensible was the changing & transubstantiation of the substance of it, so that it was not the same substance after, that it was before; if he cannot prove this, he cometh short of his purpose, to take needless pains to prove a thing not denied: For both he & all others of his side, when they speak of blessing of the bread, mean only a turning & change of one substance into an other, such a change as blessing nether can, or ever did work, & yet Bellarmine must remember, that in the institution of the supper, the breaking followeth after the blessing, so that here is a doubt what is broken, bread there is none, & the Body of Christ I say must not be broken, which consideration maketh Bellarmine salve himself an other way by saying To be broken agreeth not to the body of Christ but in the form of bread, 
Bellar. de mis. l. 1. c. 12. f. 699. To be broken a. greeth not to the body of Christ, but in the form of bread. Allen de Euch. sacra l. 1. c. 15. etc. 16. & Bell. de sac. euch. l. 1 c. 10. Rhem. annot Mat. 26 v. 26. parag. 7.  what need he say, in the form of bread? why the body of Christ is not there, but under the form of bread therefore by him there is as very a breaking of the body of Christ, as there is a very presence; a presence under the form of bread, & a breaking in the form of bread.  
D. Allen in two several chapters goeth about to prove; First that Christ did bless or Eucharishze the bread & wine & that with certain words; next that those words Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, are the words of Consecration, & that those two are both one; first from the nature of the word benedicere to bless, he discourseth wonderfully both in Greek & Latin: of the strength & virtue of it, 
Fol. 291 Quanquam totam ceremo niam ordinem non narrent nec plura verba quibus ea seu ●ucharisti● seu Eulogia facta est. Ver bonè an sola voluntat● aut impositione manuum fol. 294. Luc. vlt.  & the use it hath in holy scripture, & in the Doctors, & yet hath not brought any one example near his purpose. For how can he say, that that blessing used by our saviour was the blessing of the creatures & elements, an active blessing, a powerful blessing, seeing he confesseth himself, that the Evangelists do not recite any order of the blessing, nor express any more words, that belongeth thereto, but only the words blessing, & giving thaukes: and also doubteth whether Christ did bless by avie words, or by his intent and will, or by laying on of hands, For we read not (saith he) what Christ did or said in the blessing of the things: Notwithstanding this, he is so far in love with his own conceit of blessing by certain words, that he bringeth the bread for an example, which Christ blessed at Emaus, when the two disciples knew him, (which saith he, is taken of many of the ancients to be the Eucharist) although the Evangelist recite no words in form how it was done: 
No words of consecration, mentioned.  so that we may see whatsoever he is disposed to prove, be there scripture or be there none, all is one with him, he will adventure to persuade what liketh him best. 
Allen eodem lib post. c. 45. fol. 480.  And yet the same man a far of, in an other part of the same book speaking of the same matter, as having forgotten himself, saith, That the text of S. Luke cap. vlt. and all the order of the narration doth show that the whole action was like to the consecrating of the Eucharist, 
Now it is the Eucharist.  he took (saith the Evangelist) bread, he blessed it, he broke the bread and reached it unto them. If this action here done, be like to the order of consecration used at the Eucharist, than there may be consecration without addition of This is my body: which he professeth to prove to be all one, or to be the words of blessing itself, yea & without receiving at all for there is no command of eating.  

Allen traverseth here this example to prove the communion in one kind lawful for the lay people.  But I would not wish D. Allen or any papist of them all, to live by the loss, for although they think to gain by the practice of Christ there in drawing it to confirm their defaulking of one part of the sacrament, from the lay people, because there is no mention made of the wine, yet will they lose by it (if the example were strong enough for one kind) because there is no mention of any consecration, & where no consecration is, there is no real presence, and so they shall lose Transubstantiation & all: And can it be the Eucharist without these? But howsoever D. Allen would have us believe that it is the opinion of many of the ancients, and of great druines, that that is to be understood of the Eucharist; yet Bellarmine who is more freer of his report saith, 
De sacram ieuc. l. 4. c. 24. f. 563.  that touching that place there be two opinions amongst the Catholics themselves. The one is of john of Louvain & others, that it was the Eucharist, the other of jansenius, that it was not the Eucharist, & both these great men with that side.  
But to return to D. Allen (from whom I have a little digressed) & to follow him in his Blessing & Consecration. 
Allen ut ante de euch. c. 15. fol. 294. Qua re credendum est, Christum benedicendo panem verbo aliquo usum fuisse, & non solo tactu aut virtute eum sanctificasse. Et cum eodem verbo quo benedixit, consecrasse putetur ab antiquitate & pene ab om nibus theologis licet pauci quidam negent cumque hic, ut saepe docuimus consecrare materiam sit conficere sacramentum sequi tur idem illud verbum benedictionis esse formam huius sacramenti ut idem sit beney dicere & uti verbis consecrationis, seu applicare verba consecrationis ad elemen ta proposita. To bless & to consecrate is all one. He commendeth this opinion with great reasons & yet he refuseth it. Ibid. 295. 1. He took bread. 2. He blessed. 3. He broke & gave. 4. This in my body. Tho. Aquin. p. 3. q. 78. saith the order should be.  Wherefore (saith he) it is to be believed that Christ by blessing the bread, used some word, & that he did not sanctify it, only by touching it, or by his power. And since it is judged by antiquity & almost by all divines (although some few deny it) that Christ consecrated by the same word whereby he blessed, & that to consecrate the matter, is to make the sacrament, it followeth that that same word that is the blessing, is the form of this sacrament, insomuch that it is all one to bless, & to use the words of consecration, or to apply the words of consecration to the elements set before us: Notwithstanding this (saith he) it must not be dissembled, that there are some divines amongst whom is Bonaventure, Caietane, & Dominicus Soto who affirm that Christ did not bless by the words of Consecration, & therefore to bless the bread, and to consecrate the bread was two divers things in the action of Christ, & so the change was not made by the blessing, but after by the sacramental words. Which opinion (saith he) although it may probably be defended, & may seem to be agreeable to the use of the Church, which now blesseth the bread by the sign of the Cross, before it use the word of Consecration, and may less trouble the order of the Evangelists, who after the mention of blessing do put the breaking & distributing, & then in the fourth place the word of the sacrament; it bringeth also some reverence to the sacrament, for if bread should be broken by Christ after it were consecrate some small mites, of the consecrated host, might by likely hood have fallen away.  
These reasons (saith he) although they be weighty yet the safer opinion & more agreeable to antiquity, and in every Church almost allowed, & which the Tridentine counsel doth in their catechism follow, is, that when Christ blessed, he consecrated the things set before him. That we ought so understand, that Christ blessed by saying This is my body, 
1. He took bread. 2. Blessed it said. 4. This is my body 3. He broke & gave. Cicer. office l. 2.  although the evangelists by an inverted order of the speech, or setting that after which should go before, do put the distributing, & the breaking between the blessing, and the form of the sacrament, which as it is very likely was done after the consecration or else even as Christ did speak the words, Facta omnia celeriter tanquam floscule decidunt. This treachery and deceit cannot any longer be hid, it is apparent to all men; Neither is it any marvel, that they who make of the Gospel as a thing made, to be handled as they think good, should lose themselves in the labarinth of their own druises, as if reason had even purposely forsaken them, who of purpose forsake God the author thereof, For have they these 1605. years been mounted on the stage of arrogancy, out braving a better cause than their own, and crying the Gospel, the Gospel, & you Protestants heretics both deny & deprave it; & now doth D. Allen tell us, freely and unconstrianedly, that the Gospel will not serve their turns, as the Evangelists have delivered the order of the Lords supper? What shall now become of Campians brag Agedum pagella scripta superiores sumus, ac sententia scripticontenditur, 
Camp. 2. ratio.  Go to saith he, we have the better of it by the written word, now we must debate the meaning: No saith Allen the Gospel is not for us; And I say, nether the writing nor the meaning of the writing, is any for you. And therefore Christo proprior, ab hac lite remotior, that age or antiquity which is nearest to Christ, is farthest of from them in this controversy And for that one hand washeth an other, & they both wash the face, & often one foot strengtheneth an other, and they both stay the body; so the testimony of Cardinal Caietane in this case shall stay D Allen that he be not utterly ruinated because of his large grant which they both have yielded in confirming the truth. 
Caiet comment super Tho p. 3 q. 75. art. 1.   
Caietane in his Commentary on Thomas Aquinas upon this question, whether in the sacrament there be the body of Christace cording to the truth of it, saith, that touching that present demand & the rest following for the more manifest & clear understanding of the difficulties in them, it is to be considered, that touching the being of the body of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, there is nothing written in the holy scripture but the words of our saviour This is my body, and those words must be true. And because (saith he) the words of the scripture are expounded two ways either properly or figuratively, 
Vel propriè vel metaphoricè.  the first error about those words, is, of them that did interpret them figuratively, which both the M. of the sentences, & Thomas do prove in this article, 
Ft consistit vis reprobationis in hoc.  & the strength of the reproof resteth in this, that the words of the Gospel are understood of the Church properly. I say of the Church, because there is not any constraint in the Golpell to cause us to take them properly, ex subiunctis siquidem verbis, 
There is nothing in the Gospel to constrain us to take these words properly & without a figure. De lapsis ser. 5. Cont. haeres. l. 3. c. 11. fol. 237 Parisijs anno. 1545. Allen ut ante. l. 1. c. 16 Reciteth 4. several opinions amongst them, touching the words of consecreation. The judgement of that Pope is refused, who determined transubstantiation for them.  for truly by the words following which shallbe given for you in remission of sins it cannot be concluded evidently, that the former words This is my body are to be understood properly.  
So here be two cardinals Allen & Catetaine, who say that not the Gospel but the Church maketh for them. Is there a Church where the Gospel is not? Non iungitur Ecclesia qui ab Evangelio separatur, he is not joined to the Church (saith S. Cypriam) who is separated from the Gospel. S. Ireneus saith, Columna & firmametum ecclesie est Evangelium & spiritus vitae. The Pillar and stability of the Church is the Gospel, and the spirit of life. But the truth is, there is on their side in this question, neither the Church nor the gospel, nor any antiquity, at all. To proceed with D. Allen, in the other Chapter specified before by me (wherein he laboureth to prove that the words of Christ This is my body, are the words of Consecration,) he is further willing to let us know, what differences there hath been amongst their school divines (who ever have been the upholders of popery) about the words of Consecration which they should be.  
The first opinion is of Innocentius (the third who called the great council of Lateran and decreed Transubstantiation) who said that Christ did consecrate by his divine power when he blessed, and used therein the power of his might, doing that without form of words, which we cannot do without a prescript order, so that after he had consecrated he delivered to us these words, This is my body, by which words the Church should ever after consecrate. This opinion of the Pope is reproved by Thomas Aquinas, as being directly against the words of the scripture, and by Allen as being untrue. The second opinion is of some, who thought that Christ when he blessed did consecrate, 
2.  but with other words, than those where with he taught us to consecrate. But that opinion (saith he) can scarcely be excused from heresy now. 
3.  The third opinion is of some who thought, that Christ did consecrate twice, once secretly whereby he did consecrate, and then openly for the Church's instruction. But this saith he is most absurd of all. 
4.  The fourth and last opinion (saith he) is the common opinion, 
The 4. & last opinion, is their own now, & How many amongst them, have denied, that Christ did either break bread or gave bread? Quanquam propter narra tionem Marci adducor in eam sententiam ut putem potius priorem commentarium esseverun & Prothusteron esse. Multò melius D. Thomas (ut omnia) dixit. Allen. fol. 419.  & without question Catholic, which, although in the explaining it be two fold, yet this in general, it teacheth, That Christ did then consecrate when he blessed, & with the same words once spoken before the breaking & giving, or which (as Aquinas thinketh) were spoken either before the breaking and giving, or (which he thinketh) to be more agreeable to the text) at the very breaking and distributing, that so blessing, breaking and giving bread, he said, This is my body. Although (saith Allen) by reason of the order of S. Mark, I am brought into the mind to think rather, the former exposition to be true, & that it is not in order. For S. Mark saith, & when he had blessed, that is, after he had blessed, he broke; and so it seemeth not, that he did break and consecrated at once, or altogether.  
Thus have you seen in brief the discourse of D. Allen proving against his fellows their consecration; But with such difficulty and hardness, that in the conclusion, he leaveth the chiefest of his pillars Thomas Aquinas of whom afterward he giveth a definitive censure; that he saith allthings better than his fellows. Bonaventure, Caietane, & Dominicus a So●o, thought that Christ did not bless by the words of consecration, and that therefore with Christ it was two things to bless the bread, and to consecrate the bread, & that there was no change made by the blessing, but after by the sacramental words. This opinion of his fellows, he confesseth, hath good matter in it, insomuch that it seemeth to be agreeable to their own use, & doth not disturb the order of the Evangelists, & doth bring revence to the sacrament, and that these be weighty reasons for them so to think; And yet as being Lord of himself, he chooseth such an opinion, as is most absurd in itself, & overthroweth the order and whole narration of the Evangelists: For thus saith the Evangelists, 

1 Christ took bread.  
2 He blessed it.  
3 He broke it and gave it saying.  
4 Take eat, this is my body. 
Tho. Aquin. 3. p. 78. q. art. 1. ad. 1.    They pervert the order, and say, 

1 Christ took bread.  
2,3. He blessed it, said Take eat This is my body.  
4 He broke it and gave it.   And yet to see the miserable straits that these men bring themselves into, they are feign to cleave to the former opinion against themselves, for so in effect they say the breaking was even as he did consecrate it: as who should say the breaking, blessing, and cansecration were done at once, because indeed they cannot tell what he broke whether his body, or the bread. So saith Gardiner, 
Gardinerve. ante. fol. 97.2.  Though the words sake eat, go before the words, This is my body, we may not argue, that they took it and eat it, before Christ told them, what he gave them, & all these rehersals of bread, with, he took bread, he broke bread, and blessed bread, and if you will held bread: all these induce no consequence, 
He broke bread.  he gave bread, why? They do manifestly argue that he gave bread, & not his real body.  
If we may examine the Master in this point, we shall find him as unready as the scholars, 
Sent. Lumb. l. 4. dist. 12. b. Diversities of opinions touching the breaking.  I mean in this matter, of what is broken in the sacrament. It was wont (saith he) to be inquired touching the breaking & partition which seemeth to be there, whether it be a true breaking or no, and if there be a true breaking indeed, then wherein it is, and in what thing it is made; 
1.  And seeing there is no other substance there, than the substance of Christ, it seemeth to be made in the body of Christ, but that cannot be, since the body of Christ is incorruptible, (because it is immortal and impass●ble. Therefore it pleaseth some to think, 
2.  that there is no breaking, as it seemeth to be, but it is said to be broken, because it seemeth to be broken: 
3.  some others say, That as the form of bread is there, & there is not that thing there, wherein the form remaineth, so there is a breaking, which is in nothing, because nothing is there broken, which they say is by the mighty power of God, that there should be a breaking where nothing is broken: 
4.  Others deliver that the body of Christ is essentially broken, & yet remaineth whole and incorruptible which opinion they gathered from the confession of Beringarius, who confessed before Pope Nicholas and others, that the bread and wine which are set on the Altar, after consecration, are not only the sacrament, but also the very body and blood of Christ, and that they are sensually touched and broken with the hands of the Priests and torn with the teeth of the faithful, not only in a sacrament, but also indeed and truth.  
But the more probable opinion (saith he) is, that because the body of Christ is incotruptible, 
●.  it cannot be said, that the breaking and partition is in the substance of the body, 
The breaking is in the form of bread sacramentally.  but in a sacrament that is in show; in the form of bread sacramentally: Neither may we insult or marvel that the accidents of bread seem to be broken, seeing they are there without a subject, 
Accidents of bread broken.  although some say they be in the air. There is a true breaking and division which is made in the bread, that is in the show of bread: As the Apostle saith, the bread which we break, because the show of bread is broken and divided, Thus far Lombard.  
If any thing were ever dreamt & not done, this doctrine is only devised in show without substance what a breaking is here, & no breaking? bread broken in show, & the show of bread broken, & this to be a communion of his flesh that was crucified for us, for so S. Paul saith, 
1. Cor. 16.16.  Is not the bread which we break, a communion of the body of Christ, & if nothing be broken but in show, let them show me what is the communion of the body of Christ. Again, were it not strange if whiteness should be broken, & yet nothing broken that is white, yet so it must be if they say true. 
Steph. Gard. ut ante f. 13●. b  Stephen Gardiner will not have the accidents to be broken, I would (saith he) in other terms answer thus, That thou seest is broken, & then if any ask further, what that is, I would (saith he) tell him, the visible matter of the sacrament. O marvelous matter! you said plainly before, that the bread was broken: 
Gardiner, dark & contrary to himself. Detection. fo. 15. b. Answer to M. jewel. art. 23. f. 227. Allen de euch. sacra l. 1. c. 37. fol 435. will have somewhat broken beside the body of Christ. Christ's glorious body mingled with our sinful flesh.  And in the detection of the devils sophistry you confess contrary to yourself in both these places That the form of bread only is said to be broken, which doctrine D. harding taking to be the sounder relieth upon, & saith, The form only of the sacrament is broken and chewed of the receaner.  
D. Allen forcibly & as it were against the hair, erecting a new opinion touching this breaking whereof we now speak faulting many Catholics, for saying that the accidents only are chewed, broken & seen; affirmeth himself, that not only those things do properly & truly agree & appertain to the body of Christ (which did before agree unto the bread) although by mean of the forms: But also by the mean & service of those forms & accidents, we handle the body and blood of Christ truly, eat him, carry him about with us, & mingle his body and blood with our flesh, tear him with our teeth, & can place him in this or that vessel, and can show by the small pieces where he is, here, or now: & can sacrifice him sensibly in the accidents, & can propose him visibly to the eye to be adored, etc. All which things whether they fall out (saith he) to the body of Christ in the sacrament in respect of itself or by means of the accidents it skilleth not; so we firmly believe that these things are truly and properly done to the body of Christ, no less then if he were in his own shape, & form, & no less, than they might be done to the very bread indeed. Although saith he I am not ignorant, that Thomas Aquina● followeth an other opinion (especially touching the very sight of Christ's body in the Eucharist) granting that the very body may be touched and not the accidents only, 
P. 3. q. 80. art. 4 ad 4. Allen leaveth Aquinas.  but that the accidents & forms are only seen, and not the body of Christ, But as this man's opinion is not clear, & by no means agreeable to reason, for it is most certain that the body of Christ is no more obvious, & comprehended by means of the accidents of one of our senses then of an other: so is the doctrine & teaching, of other some schoolmen, touching the moving, sight, place, breaking, & eating of the body of Christ, full of curiosity & danger. 
De motu, tactu, vi●u, loco fractione, & comestione.   
Here you have from D. Alten, that what the rest of his fellows have fearfully doubted to affirm, he doth not stick positively to deliver, affirming every action and thing to be done verily and really to the body and blood of Christ, under the show of bread and wine after consecration, as could be verised of the bread itself before consecration, yea that the body of Christ should be mingled most grossly with our flesh. 
Corpus & sanguis Christi carninostrae immiscentur. L. W●nton. dialo. against the lesuits p. 4 fol. 770. 771.  A position, as void of all religion, so without all warrant, save theirs that deliver it, and not to sink into a wise man's head, that ever they would deliver such doctrine. A position which maketh our bodies to be fed and nourished, with the natural and substantial body of Christ, as we are with other meats. A position that joineth the body of Christ with our bodies, in one and the same substance, For food doth go into the substance of that thing which it nourisheth; and besides D. Allen, 
Hard. Rejoin. fol. 150. Rhem. annot. 1. cor. 10. v. 16.  Harding averreth, That the flesh of man, is fed & nourished with the body and blood of Christ, and what more Caparnaitical? So the Rhemists say, That we are made a piece of Christ's body & blood. But denied utterly and expressly by the fathers. Nostra & Christi coniunctio nec miscet personas, nec unit substantias: 
Cypr. de cae●… domini.  sed affectus consociat, & confoederat voluntates. The conjunction (saith Cyprian,) that is between us and Christ, neither wingleth persons, nor uniteth substances: but joineth affections, & knitteth wills. The mixture of his bodily substance with ours, 
Hooker. l. 5. pa. rag. 56. ecclespolit.  is a thing which the ancients disclaim. Yet the mixture of his flesh with ours, they speak of, to signify what our very bodies through mystical conjunction receive, from that vital efficacy which we know to be in his, and from bodily mixtures they borrow diverse similitudes rather to declare the truth, than the manner of coherence between his sacred and the sanctified bodies of Saints: but this is sundry other ways performed besides than by the Eucharist, as by his taking our flesh on him in his nativity, and by our regeneration in the water of baptism, by faith, and the word preached; so that you see when Allen wrote as before is set down, he thought to outbid those former schoolmen, whose doctrine he taxeth with curiosity and danger; verifying that of the Poet, O●…llo scelus credibile in avo, quodque posterit as noget, That no age, 
Senec. in Thyestes: act. i. & 4. iam nostra sub it stirpe turba quae suum vincat genus ac me innocentem faciat, & in ausa audeat. De sacra. euch l. 1. c. 2. fol. 28. cotrarieth D Allen.  ever saw the like, and whereof posterity willbe ashamed, making those that have gone him even innocent, as Tautalus said of his nephews.  
But see how it happeneth to those, that so peremptorily and by their only authority abate the credit of others, even their credits willbe again abated. Bellarmine handling the same matter, affirmeth that it is a doubt of certain amongst themselves, whether those things that are verified of Christ by reason of the accidents, may be spoken of him truly and properly, or by a trope. Some there be (saith he) (and it may be secretly he meaneth Allen, though he name him not) that will have all those things verified of Christ truly and properly in the same manner, as they might of the bread, if it were present: For the bread is verily and properly seen, handled and broken by means of the accidents: so will they have Christ's body in the Eucharist, to be verily and properly seen & handled by mean of the accidents, 
Then those that Allen checketh did teach well. Peraliquem tropam.  But the common opinion of the divines doth teach the contrary, that is, that those things cannot be spoken of the body of Christ, though by mean of the accidents but by a trope. Now if by a Trope, Bellarmine mean a figure, a sign or token, as the Eucharist is, we willingly agree with him, and with Allen too, that whatsoever may be verified of the bread and wine before consecration, may be said also of the body of Christ: that we see it, feel it, break it, eat it, and that it increaseth the substance of our bodies, 
Chrisost. de sacerd. l. 3. quoted by the Rhem Heb. 9.20 Hard. art. 6. fol. 137. Toastall l. 1. f. 71. Dureus 2. rat. fol. 118 Bellar. de eve. sacra. l 1. c. 2. fol. 27. 29. & l 2 c. 22. fol 220. tum vero turbam circumfusam precioso sanguine in ting● ac rubefieri. They borrow each others names.  and feedeth them, and that Christ is seen there, by all the faithful, and handled with their hands, as the Rhemists, Harding, Tonstall, Dureus, and Bellarmine do quote S. Chrysostome, & the rest unto us; so as they will take withal, that which the same Chrysostome saith in the same place, that the people standing about (to receive) are besprinkled and made red with that precious blood: and that we are not then conversant in earth among mortal men, but translated into heaven.  
If all this be too hard and harsh to affirm of the body & blood of Christ, let them consider it is spoken by a trope or figure, and verified actually and really of the bread and wine, which speech & the like are used of the fathers, only to draw their hearers from fi●…ing their minds below on the earthly elements, but to mount up to heaven, and their seek Christ. For as the bread in the Eucharist is called the lords body, but in plain and simple manner of speech is not fleshly and really the Lords body: so is the body of our Lord sometime said to nourishour bodies, and feed us, because the sacrament of his body feedeth us, and this is done in respect of the Interchange of names; the sacraments bearing the names of the things, whereof they are sacraments; and the things having attributed unto them, which is due only to the signs. If Bellarmine mean any other thing by the word Trope, than I have expressed, he falleth from the use of the word, and hath not satisfied the question, nor rectified his fellows error.  
But it is a world to see into what straits the want of consideration in these points hath driven the adverse part, proving their discourses to be hungry and barren, & hitherto without fruit, because they proclaim war against the general edicts of nature & reason. Bellarmine again, 
De sacra. euch. l. 1. c. 14. fol. 117. 118.  to avoid the grossness of Allens and Hardings' opinion of the mingling of the flesh of Christ with our bodies, saith, That the body of Christ going into the mouths of the communicants, passeth into the stomach, & then the outward forms being corrupted and gone, 
The Eucharist is no meat for the body, & yet goeth in at the mouth, and into the stomach.  the body of Christ without any detriment to itself ceaseth to be there, and that the body of Christ, eaten by the faithful, is not for the nourishment of the body, but of the soul. Here is the rule of Christ, and difference between the body and soul of man quite antiquated and confounded. Our saviour decideth that nothing can enter both the heart and the belly, and yet Bellarmine will have one & the same thing, enter in at the one, & yet feed the other. If our souls be nourished, and not our bodies, as he saith then must our souls eat it and not our bodies; Can our bodies eat, and our souls be nourished by it? What more contrary to all Religion? Eating, digesting, and nourishing, be consequent and coherent actions, and therefore they must all three be either corporal, or spiritual; If the soul be nourished, the soul must eat and digest that which is eaten; If the body eat, the body must digest and be nourished by that food. Eating is therefore in vain without nourishing; If then Christ's flesh do enter our mouths it is utterly without profit to us, if it nourish not our bodies. Thus are the wits of the greatest amongst them even snared in their own gins. They handle the rest that follow as ungainly as those before, which lest I should consent unto by silence, I will also set down unto you, & then judge you of all.  
To the question, what it is in the sacrament that nourisheth our bodies, (seeing generally, they deny it, 
One is hungry & an other is drunken. 1. con 11. 21.  of the body of Christ) and taken immoderately after consecration will make a man drunk (as S. Paul reproved the Corinthians for their abuse that way Thomas Aquinas the father of all popery, 
Comment in 1. Cor. 11. lect. 4. in fine.  and most acute disputer amongst them, leaving the grossness of the one, & absurdity of the other opinion before, saith; 
1.  That some amongst them have said, That those things are not wrought by any conversion, but by an alteration of the senses of a man by the accidents of bread and wine, which remain after consecration, for men have been accustomed to be comforted by the only smell of meat, and to be overcome, and as it were made drunk, by the abundant smell of wine. 
2.  Some others have said, That the consecreted bread and wine, may be converted into an other thing, & so nourish because the substance of bread and wine remaineth with the substance of the body & blood of Christ: but this saith he is against the scripture; 
3.  Some others have said that the substantial form of bread remaineth, which worketh the operation, & so it nourisheth, as the bread should nourish. This he refelleth. 
4.  Some have said, that the air round about is converted into the substance of that which is nourished, or into some such thing. But this saith he cannot be; 
5.  And therefore some have said, that by the power of God, the substance of the bread & wine, is restored again to the intent that the sacrament might not be found in such like conversions; But that is unpossible. 
6. The accidents & shows of bread can nourish. De euch. sacra. l. i c. 37. f. 432. How can you sever the natural properties of a thing from the very thing itself. Part. 2. q. 33. f. 189.  His own conclusion is that the accidents & forms of bread and wine can nourish & make drunk, as well as if the substance of bread & wine were there. So D. Allen (although he be loath so to say) The forms & accidents of bread and wine are able to nourish, make drunk, & perform all the offices & duties natural, that the bread & wine could when their substance was there. So the Romish Catechism. Why is it called bread after consecration, say they? aswell because it hath the show of bread, as also the natural property of nourishing & feeding the body, which is proper to bread. Is it called bread because it hath the show of bread? by what figure? Hath it the natural properties of bread, & yet is it not bread? say again, & say truly, it is called bread, therefore it is bread. It hath the natural properties of bread, feeding, nourishing, as also the accidents savour, weight, taste, colour and all, and therefore it hath the name & is indeed very bread.  
They are so far removed from the centre of truth in these points, that rather than they will leave their wills, & shut up the stream of their own affections, they will leave all hope of a sound belief. What eateth the mouse, if she (or he I know not whether) chance to catch of the consecrated host? 
Lumb. l. 4. dis●, 13. a fine.  Ask the schoolman (it becometh their gravities to treat such questions) It cannot be said (saith Lombard) that the body of Christ, is eaten of bruit beasts, although it seemeth so to be, when the mouse eateth then, what eateth he? Deus novit God knoweth that, and he that saith otherwise, 
God knoweth that.  is adjudged an heretic. How then escapeth the Angelical Doctor. Quidam autem dixerunt. 
3. p. 80. q. art. 3 ad. 3.  Some have said faith he) that as astone as the sacrament is touched, by a Mouse or a Dog, the body of Christ ceaseth to be there; But this derogateth from the truth of this sacrament: neither must we say that a bruit beast doth eat the body of Christ sacramentally but it must be said that the Mouse eateth by chance, 
Ibid. fol. 24. 2.  as a man that should eat the consecrated host unknown unto him. Now Gardiner saith contrary, that no creature can eat the body and blood of Christ, but only man.  
I let pass the rest of Aquinas prodigious & base discourses touching some other cautels, belonging to this sacrament, 
Ib. q. 83. art. 6, ad. 3.  as if a spider should fall into the consecrated wine or poison should therewith be mingled, which although with warrant good enough I might lay them before you (Tuberius) because I am by all honest & direct courses, to warn you to beware, you drink not at that fountain, 
The main scope of this treatise & discourse.  whose fairest Streams are so filthy and loath some: yet I will omit him now, & return to some hand summer discourse, and show you that as they are found to falter touching the particular drift of every word in the institution of the lords supper as the blessing, breaking, & This is my body: so if those were granted unto them to be as they would lay them down themselves, & that we should agree and say with them that the real, and substantial body of Christ is present in the Eucharist, yet can they not tell you neither the manner of the presence, 
Art. 5. cont. jewel. fol. 127. b. Christ gave his diciples the same body which suffered on the cross, & the same body is there corporally, carnally and naturally, but not after a corporal, carnal, or natural wise, but in visibly, spiritually, divinly, & by way to him only known. The manner of his presence is not local; or natural, but such as God only knoweth Art. 6. fol. 136. Corporally & yet spiritually Carnally & yet divinely. Naturally and yet supernaturally, and by all these ways, & yet by none of these. God only knoweth the way.  nor according to what body that presence is, as whether according to that wherein he lived here in earth, or whether as it is now qualisfied and glorious in heaven. Whether with parts or without parts, neither are they agreed how he is eaten. D. Harding saith it is clear by many places of holy scripture, that Christ at his last supper gave to his disciples his very body, even the same which the day following suffered death on the cross, which have ministered just cause to the godly & learned fathers of the Church to say that Christ's body is present in the sacrament really, substantially, corporally, carnally, and naturally, by use of which adverbes, they have meant only, a truth of being; so that we may say that in the sacrament his very body is present really, that is to say indeed, substantially, that is in substance, and corporally, carnally, & naturally, by which words is meant, that his very body, his very flesh and his very human nature is there, not after corporal, carnal, or natural wise: But invisibly, unspeakably, miraculously, supernaturally, spiritually, divinely, and by way to him only known.  
Again, Concerning the manner of the presence (saith he) & being of that body & blood in the sacrament, they (that is the fathers) & we acknowledge and confess that it is not local, circumscriptine, definitive, or subiective, or natural, but such as is known to God only. In the next article, The body of Christ (saith he) is made present in the blessed sacrament of the Altar under the form of bread & wine, not after a gross & carnal manner, but spiritually & supernaturally, & yet substantially, not by local but by substantial presence, not by manner of quantity or filling of a place or by changing of place, or by leaving his sitting on the right hand of God, but in such a manner as God only knoweth, and yet doth us to understand by faith, the truth of his very presence far passing all men's capacities to comprehend the manner how. Historia maxima nascitur do nihilo. If M. harding know not how, it was in him an idle diligence to be so copious in striving to express the manner how. Hath not he told us? He hath expressed our belief, & his own two: which is more than the manner how, Corporally, Carnally, naturally saith he, spiritually, dininely say we. And yet he saith all, confounding substantially & spiritually. God doth us to understand (saith he) by faith the truth of the presence. What need faith sale I? It is taken into the hand, from the hand conferred to the mouth, & there they fasten their teeth, 
Bellar. de sac. euch. l. 1. c. 2. f. 28. 29.  and from thence to the stomach.  
The senses of sight, & feeling have their offices here, faith hath none, neither is it hard to comprehend all, this and more two. Here is also one, & the same Christ with proportion of body & members distinct, each from other; & also without distinction of members & parts which overthroweth the truth of a natural body; and yet so they make him at one and the lame time: at the table and under the show of bread, not by local but by substantial presence, not by manner of quantity or filling of a place: and yet the same man did say before, 
Art. 5. fol. 130. b. Put & laid. Fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa, agnum illum dei sunt verba magni Niceni Synodi ex Cut Tonstall lib. 1. de euchar. fol. 40. & Bellarm. de sacra. euch. l. 2. c. 10. f. 183. Step. Gard. f. 21. b.  that the real body of Christ is on that holy table put and laid the better to signify the real presence. Put and laid (as all men know according to the natural signification, require situation of place and bodily description. How doth he not fill a place, when he is put & laid there? Stephan Gardiner is as far at odds with his own reason in this matter as D. Harding: When we acknowledge by faith (saith he) Christ's body present, although we say it is present truly, really, substantially, yet we say our senses be not privy to that presence, ne the manner of it but by instruction of faith, and therefore we say Christ's body is not locally present, nor by manner of quantity, but in visibly, and in no sensible manner, but marvelously in a sacrament, & mystery truly, and in such a spiritual manner, as we cannot define & determine, and yet by faith we know his body present, the parts of which be in themselves distinct one from an other, in their own substance, but not by circumscription of several places to be comprehended of us. What Mr. did Gardiner follow in this? Christ's body is not locally present, and yet hath distinction of parts. Christ's body hath distinction of parts, and yet not by circumscription of several places to be comprehended of us. Thomas of Aquine denieth this, The determinate distance of parts in a natural body, 
P. 3. q. 76. art. 3. ad 2. Distance of parts is in the true body of Christ. but not in that body which is in the sacrament.  is in respect of the dimensive quantity such a distance of parts (saith he) is in the true body of Christ but according to that distance of parts, he is not in this sacrament, but he is there according to the manner of his substance. Here, besides the disagreement of Thomas from Gardiner, Thomas hath framed such a Christ, as indeed is no Christ, he hath nether quantity nor proportion, of body, nor distance of parts: yet he confesseth that his true body in heaven hath so; and if his body in the sacrament have not so▪ then either he overthroweth the truth of Christ body, or else it will Inevitably follow without any qualifications, ifs, or and's, that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament. Gardiner saith The body of Christ is there in no sensible manner as before, Allen saith Corpus Christ's est sensibiliter in sacrament●. The body of Christ is sensibly in the sacrament. 
Allen ut ante fol. 435.  Again within three pages doth Gardiner contradict himself twice very directly. In the first he saith Christ in the sacrament giveth truly his flesh to be eaten, 
Fol. 87. b.  the same which he took of the Virgin. Next we receane not in the sacrament Christ's flesh that was crucified, being so a visible & mortal flesh, but Christ's flesh glorious, incorruptible & impassable, a godly, & spiritual flesh. And yet, so constant is he, in the very next page, 
Fol. 89. a.  he striveth to prove out of S. Jerome & others, that they do not mean that we eat the flesh of Christ as be sitteth in heaven reigning. Some joseph or Daniel must expound these dreams. First, we receive not the flesh, that was crucified, Lastly we receive him not as he sitteth in heaven reigning and is glorified. So by this reckoning nether first nor last, do we receive him at al. 
De Euch. sac. l. 1. c. 2, fol. 24.  How can Bellarmine say, and say truly, That the body of Christ hath his natural manner of being in heaven, but in the sacrament it hath not his natural but sacramental (which we also say) and yet that sacramental manner to be expressed by the word substantially? And again to say That wheresoever the body of Christ is, 
Ibid. l. 3. c. 7. f. 317. 320.  there he hath his form & human shape & situation of parts & order which he hath in heaven, and that he is in the sacrament aswell as in heaven, & yet in the one to fill a place, and have distinction of parts; And in the other to fill no place, and yet have his dimensions & distinction of parts: which is very hard. 
Ibid. l. 1. c. 2. fo. 26. 27.  A gain he teacheth that the body of Christ in the Eucharist is, verum, veal, naturale, animatum, quantum, coloratum, etc. A true body, real, natural, having life big or great, & coloured; & yet we may not say that it is sensible, visible, to be touched, stretched out, although it be so in heaven.  
Bellarmine in this controversy is like Turnus in the skirmish with Aeneas petit aequor a Tornus, he traverseth the field, 
Virg. in. AEnei l. 12.  as though he would do much; but incertos implicat orbs, but his turnings and rounds foreshowed his ill success, nam perfidus ●…sis frangitur in modi●que ardentem des●ritictu, His treacherous sword broke and left him burning in rage in the heat of the conflict: so doth Bellarmine's own words confute his cause. Hath the body of Christ wheresoever it be, his form & human shape and situation of parts, and yet may we not say, it is extensum, extended into place, and yet may we say, that he wanteth not his dimensions nor is without shape & countenance in the Eucharist? 
Nos non dicimus Christi corpus in Eucharistia dimensionibus aut fancy career. In sermone de sancto Martino twice cited by Bellar. l. 1. c. 2. fol. 27. & l. 2. c. 11. f. 186.  What should hold in the extension? Allen alloweth the word sensibiliter sensibly, Bellarmine refuseth it; and so doth he corporally, which Harding and some of the rest useth. Bellarmine holdeth the word spiritualliter spiritually, as a man holdeth a wolf by the ears, where there is danger in holding him and danger in letting of him go; He confesseth that S. Bernard useth it, and opposeth it to carnaliter carnally, speaking of the sacrament, tamen non videtur hac vox multum frequentanda, yet that word (saith he) seemeth not much to be used, because there is danger in it. Thus must Bellarmine's conceit be the model, whereto our faith must be framed.  
He saith further, That the counsel of Trent expressed the manner of Christ's presence in the sacrament by the word Realiter really, 
Really, & substantially used by the Trent Count▪ & opposed against the terms used by the Calvinists.  opposing it against the counterfeit term of Calvin, who will have him so present, that he be apprehended by faith (and so S. Bernard saith also, in the same place Bellarmine quoteth unto us) And that they use the word substantialiter substantially, against the Calvenists also, who teach that the body of Christ according to the substance is only in heaven, but I know not (saith he) what virtue and power they derive from thence to us. Will they stand to this? Strange it were, they should sup up their own words again, so plainly delivered. 
Ibid. fol. 20 a. & 21. b & Har. ut ante. 136.  How oft doth Gardner tell us, that, but by faith he knoweth not how Christ is present in the sacrament. God doth us to understand by faith the truth of Christ's presence. And Bellarmine himself within four hours reading after, 
Athanasius useth the word spiritually.  answering to the ancient father Athanasius (who saith the flesh of Christ is our spiritual nourishment, and spiritually distributed) is driven to say that it is most rightly called our spiritual food, 
Christ's body is food for the spirit and not for the body. Bellar de sacr. euch l. 2. c. 11. fol. 186.  because it is given for the food of the spirit, and not of the body, and distributed spiritually. And that Christ made mention of his ascension to show that his flesh is not to be eaten as other meats are, which was the carnal understanding of the Caparnaites said spirituals quodam modo but after a certain spiritual manner. Is not Bellarmine come to that term which he was so much a frayed of? If the Caparnaites were gross and fleshly in thinking that Christ's flesh was to be eaten more aliarum carnium, as other flesh is; I am well assured Bellarmine is a Caparnaite also, & he hath as gross a conceit of Christ's flesh, 
Bellar ut ante l. 1. c 2. fol. 28. & 2. c. 8. f. 163. & l. 1. c. 11. fol. 92 most gross absurdity.  as they could have, for he saith the flesh of Christ is transferred from the hand to the mouth, & from the mouth to the stomach; which I understand to be as the manner of other meat is, and this he inculcateth more than once. And if Really be opposed and set, to exclude our term by faith, as Bellarmine saith it is, let him show why it is not opposed against spiritually, and spirit, and spiritual manner, which they and he use also. We say it is received by faith, he saith it is meat for the spirit, and not for the body, most absurdly sutting that thing out, from being meat for the body which is taken into the hand, mouth, and stomach; and making that a spiritual food and nourishment, and which is received after a spiritual manner, and apprehended by faith, to go into the mouth and down into the stomach, by human & natural instruments, as the hand, tongue, and palate. And then again he doth most strangely leave himself in joining the hand, mouth, tongue, palate and stomach, in the eating of the body of Christ, 
Attritio denti. bus facta. Bellar. ib. f. 29.  and yet deny the chewing or grinding of the teeth which necessarily accompanieth the rest, especially having told us before, that infigimus dentes carnichristi, we fasten our teeth in the flesh of Christ. Neither is this Bellarmine's case alone when he is pressed with any authority of the fathers, to fly to our very terms and to use our phrases, but all others of them also do the like. 
 ante ratio 2. fol. 106. A spiritual kind of eating a natural and substantial thing. If real be used in opposition to spiritual, how can real, inter. pret spiritual, as Dureus saith.  Dureus being urged with S. Augustine's authority, touching the eating of Christ in the sacrament, saith that S. Augustine accounted it an horrible thing to eat the flesh of Christ as we do other meats that are sold in the shambles, and that therefore he calleth us from that kind of eating ad spiritualem alium, to an other kind that is spiritual, & such an one, as is agreeable to that sacrament, but yet a true and real eating. Here he both cometh to our term spiritual, and yet confoundeth it with real, which S. Augustins whose mind he interpreteth never used: & which Bellarmine saith, the counsel used in opposition to that other. A third jesuite is mightily busied like a builder of the tower of Babel using a contrary language to that, 
Torrens: conf. Au l. 3. de sacr. Euch c. 4. fol. 318. b. in gloss▪ Carnen christi sacramento panis valetan.  with which he began his work, for being troubled as his fellow jesuit was, with answering to S. Augustine (a father who is most plain against them) is fain to express that manner of eating which S. Augustine ●speaketh of to be done, dentibus fidei, with the teeth of our faith, but the body is hid under the show of bread, which latter clause S. Augustine never used, to show the manner of Christ's body in the sacrament. That is only the jesuits colour to avoid S. Augustine, 
With the teeth of our faith with the eyes of our faith. Lud. Granat. de freq. commun fol. 100 ut ante f. 20. a. 21. b. 55. 40. 41. & 72. a. But in a spiritual manner. I know by faith, that I have it in my hand. A gross & dull speech. The presence is only spiritual.  and no part of his meaning. The teeth of our body, can & doth as they say eat Christ's flesh in the show of bread, what need we use the teeth of our faith, or the eyes of our faith either, to see it there, as an other of them saith, if he be really and substantially present in the host, the same flesh that the Virgin Marie did bear, and the jews crucified.  
Stephan Gardiner as is before noted useth the same. I know by faith Christ to be present; we acknowledge by faith Christ's body present. Christ's body there is present but in a spiritual manner. It is called a spiritual manner of presence. And yet in receiving that sacrament, men use their mouths and teeth, being by faith instructed that they do not tear, consume or violate that most precious body and blood. Only faithful men by faith can understand this mystery of eating Christ's flesh in the sacrament. And, the manner of presence is only spiritual. What need faith? What need spiritual manner only? What needs faith to be the instructor, when the Council as Bellarmine saith hath devised those strong & able terms of truly, really, and substantially, and opposed them against our imaginary terms, of spiritually and by faith, which imaginary terms they use also. 
Tom. 2. trac. 2. c. 3. & 5. annexed to the 1. p. of Tho. Aquin. & sometime to the 3. The body of Christ is taken spiritually in the Eucharist.  Cardinal Caietane in excuse of those divines who drew the form of Beringarius confession which was most gross, touching the eating of Christ in the sacrament useth no other word but spiritually, and saith it is most false to affirm, that they held, that the body of Christ is taken corporally, for it is taken spiritually in the Eucharist by beleeing, and not by receiving it. Again he saith, They eat the true body of Christ in the sacrament, not corporally but spiritually. The corporal eating is but of the sacramental signs, but the spiritual eating, which is performed by the soul, obtaineth the flesh of Christ which is in the sacrament. If Bellarmine abridge Caietane of the word spiritually, he leaveth him never an other to express his mind by.  
Now to draw towards an end in this point, 
Trent counsel. Caietane. Bellarmine. Allen. harding. Gardiner.  let us lay in brief what we unfolded more largely. Our Lord and saviour jesus Christ God & man is truly, really, & substantially contained under the form and show of bread and wine. He is transferred from the hand to the mouth, we fasten our teeth into his flesh, and from thence he goeth into the stomach, and is mingled with our flesh, etc. And compare them with these of the same men in the same matter. Christ is in the sacrament spiritually, the manner of his presence is only spiritual: he is eaten after a certain spiritual manner The flesh of Christ is meat for the spirit, & not for the body: It is a spiritual nourishment. By faith we understand he is there. We see him with the eyes of our faith, & eat him with the teeth of our faith by beleening & not by receaning. If ever there were a difference between the body and soul, heaven & hell, light and darkness, sweet and sour, joy & pain, fire and water, North & south, & whatsoever may be imagined to be contrary, then is there a repugnancy in those their words expressing their meanings in the matter of the sacrament. They will have both true, and yet our opinion must be false and heretical in using the later stile to express our meanings. But as we and they are most opposite, in the question, so are one sort of their terms which they use against us, unto an other, and such as can never verify the truth of their assertion. If they can reconcile all, and prone us heretics, I say they may undertake any thing, yea though it be to the making of a black horse white, or a white horse black, as that cunning Grecian Autolycus did. Of whom it is said, 
Ovid. Met. l. 1●.  Candida de nigris, & de candentibus atra facere assuenerat. Although it hath been a long time thought, that they could do much, y I hope they can make no contradictory propositions both true where evermore if one be true, the order will be inevitably false.  Tub. 
I assure myself, so much as you have said, out of their own books & writings will make any reasonable man astonished to think, with how fair & plausible terms, they will plead their religion, as though there were agreement no where but amongst them; & disagreement every where save with them; where if your collections & quotations stand true & sound, I see not but they may have leave to go aside, & pen a new form of words, whereby to express their meaning in this point, for the old will not serve them.  Rom. 
Yea and a new Gospel too, 
Allen  
Caietane.  for Allen & Caietane, confesseth both against themselves, the one that the order of the Evangelists is perverted, and standing as it doth will not serve their turn. The other, that there is nothing in the Gospel that doth bind us to take those words in the proper signification as they sound, to make the real and substantial body of Christ present under the show of bread. In explicating of which their opinion, you may now call to mind the grossest of the figures which they use, and let pass a many of others, 
Figures used by them in the sacrament.  in those few words of Christ at his last supper.  
First they say 
1,2.  Christ took bread, he blessed, that is he transubstantiateth, or changeth it, he broke, not the bread, but the accidents, or show of bread, he gave not the bread, but his own body. 
3.  How they expound the word (This) in the sentence This is my body, you have heard before. This, that is, that which is contained under these shows is my body. 
4.  
5.  Again, where the words lie in the Evangelists Take eat this is my body, they have devised an hideous figure of figures which is called Hysteron Proteron the Cart before the horse, and say it should be This is my dody, take eat. 
6.  Christ blessed (say they) by saying This is my body, although the evangelists place it not so in order. 
7.  How many figures & how often are they out, in the breaking, some saying one thing and some say an other. 
8.  And in the words of consecration which and where they should be. 
9  And of the accidents being there in nothing, that is whiteness and nothing white, Roundness and nothing round, colour, and nothing coloured, and an hundred monsters & differences else amongst them, hath this one monster Transubstantiation begot. 
The antiquity of Transubstantiation.  But when was the monster himself begotten? It was holiday at Rome then, he is not so old by 1200. years and more as you have by told & made believe.  
Our country man Tonstall telleth us it was concluded in the counsel of Lateran, 
L. 1. fol. 46. de ●…rit corpor. & sang. 3 Opinions touching transubstantiation  held under Innocentius the third Pope of that name. Before which time (saith he) there was 3. opinions concernning that matter, some thought that the body of Christ was there together with the bread, as fire in a piece of flint, which way it seemeth Luther following held the Consubstantiation. Others thought that the bread was gone & corrupted. Others, that the substance of bread was changed, into the substance of Christ's body which way Innocentius followed refusing the other two, although no fewer miracles (he should say gross absurdities & contrarieties in nature) nay more, seem to be builded upon the opinion which he did choose, than one the other which he refused. For before that time it was left free to every man to think as himself liked. Now for the antiquity & credit of this Lateran counsel, we may consult with Andradius, 
Defenc. Trid. conc. l. 2. f. 427. Genebrard. Chro. l. 4. fol. 955. reckoneth in for the 12. general, so doth Bellar. l. 2 c. 5. de conc. & eccles.  the late defender of the Tridentine counsel, and as great a Doctor in his time as Bellarmine is now, and therefore his testimony may not be denied; In order it was the ninth general, for place it was held in the palace Lateran in Rome, for time it was held in the year of our Lord 1215. twelve hundred & odd years after Christ. It was called together (saith he) rather to amend the ill manners, that then reigned, then to decree any matters of faith, nether did they much trouble themselves, to expound any hard places of scripture or open any mysteries, such good heed was taken to establish so high a point. Thus having the receipt, you may distill the water, I mean having these things brought to your hands so plainly, you may learn those two points of wisdom, so much spoken of, Be sober & distrustful. 
Amicus Plato amicus Aristoteles, magis amica veritas.  Let Plato be your friend, Let Aristotle be your friend; but the truth, let it be more your friend; for he that betrayeth the truth, betrayeth his own soul.  
I crave no more of you but that you examine both doctrines before you yield your free assent to either, if you have me any way in suspicion either for my judgement in concluding against them, that I pervert their meaning, or that I treacherously abuse their texts, I will if you will, take the pains, to show you every quotation, & make yourself judge in both.  Tub. 
I thank you for your free & open offer. It were hard to suspect him who yieldeth such liberty, I will at my further leisure repair unto you, for such of them as I shall think, I may most directly charge them with al.  Rom. 
You cannot choose amiss choose where you will, they be all true and not one of them, but maketh against them, in one point or other. All bewraying the weakness of that cause, which that it might be quite overthrown, lacketh but to be thoroughly sifted by wise and judicious men, such as would but try and examine, it must not be those who think it a tempting of God to read or hear any thing, that shall make against them. And as I have given you testimony of their dealing in this point of the sacrament, so if you will but hearken to that more, which I shall deliver I will show you, that in other things as in that, they deal absurdly, confusedly, weakly, & do even go from their own grounds, & although like themselves in all, yet not like such as they would make the world believe they are. And will very clearly & plainly prove unto you (without sending you to their quotations when they cannot be found, as they do in most they do (that it is only true against them, which they plead against us, that there are with them, 
jesuita Torrensis in epistol. dedicator. in conf. August.  no principles but those of Protagoras which was, that that should be true which every one would allow, and that there is no rule amongst them, but the leaden Lesbian rule which will turn every way.  
And because I will give you as little breath as I can, I will begin with the jesuite himself first, who so chargeth us, and either prove his ground false, and his tongue too too lavish, or els● his friends very unfreindly towards him, who will not let his word stand, but disannul it, and make it of no force. In the preface of that work of his, which he hath entitled S. Augustine's confessions (as though all that he had there laid down were indeed S. Augustine's both for the books named, 
jesuit ut ante. Praises given to S. Augustine by the jesuite.  and the questions handled) he hath wonderfully praised that ancient father (as indeed he did deserve very much in the Church of God) even so much that (to draw it into a breeze) he saith, whatsoever S. Augustine doth deliver, was not the doctrine or teaching of any one province or kingdom alone, but the universal consent and approbation of the whole catholic Church; and which did not continue allowed for the space of three or four hundred years, but hath been received & stood firm in the world these thousand years. He was, (saith he) a sincere and true witness of the Catholic faith, 
Omni exceptione maiorem, & qui non de sua tantum sed & de communi antiquorum patrum & Apostolicae ecclesiae constanti atque stabili consessione nos bona fide reddat certiores.  beyond all exception, & one that did not only deliver, what was his own judgement in any thing; But what was his, was also the common consent of the ancient fathers, & apostolic Church; and who was free from partiality touching either part in whatsoever he wrote.  
The Church had a Pastor and Bishop of him, in the dexterity of whose wit posterity did wonder, at the soundness of his doctrine, at his knowledge in the holy scripture, at his subtlety in disputing, at his constancy in maintaining, at his wisdom in judging, at his holiness in living, at his singular faith & industry in accomplishing. In the end he admonisheth his reader to repair to S. Augustine's books, as to the fountain, and draw from him the confession of the true faith and Catholic Doctrine. Be it unto Torrensis & all those, that so love S. Augustine, as he hath said; I will say nothing now to the contrary. More you see cannot be said of the man. But what if these very men, who so much praise him now in a generality in a good mood, do when they are urged with his opinion in a particular point of doctrine, with the same breath blow hot, and cold; are these men not like our common slanderers in these days, that hold no man for honest, any longer than he pleaseth them, when indeed the more a man doth please them, the more dishonest he is, which consisteth only in following their brutish and beastly affections, no more savouring of Christianity than their stables and dog kennels do of Civet or perfume. An instance against the jesuite I will give presently. S. Paul writing unto the Corinthians, speaking of the jews in the time of the law, saith they did eat the sane spiritual meat, 
1. Cor. 10.1.2.3. verse. The same spiritual meat.  and did drink of the same spiritual drink for they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them and the rock was Christ. Now the question is, whether S. Paul meant, they drank of it, amongst themselves, or, that they and we had one in common between us, 
The jewish sacraments and ours in substance all one.  which is Christ. We say that the jewish sacraments were in effect & substance all one with ours, and that the spiritual meat of theirs, was Christ the Messias to be crucified, the outward signs differ they had Manna, and we the bread of the Eucharist, which is plainly S. Paul's drift in that place; & not to speak of what they had among themselves, but only that they & we had one Christ in divers different signs.  
The Rhemists offended at this, 
Annot. 1. cor. 10. verse. 3.  yet knowing not how to amend themselves but by railing (for quotations should not have wanted; if they could have told where to have found them) do say that it is an impudent forgery of the Calvinists to write upon that place, that the jews received no less the truth and substance of Christ and his benefits in their figures, 
The jews among themselves did all eat of one spiritual meat.  or sacraments, than we do in ours: and that they and we eat, and drink of the self same meat and drink, the Apostles saying only that they among themselves did all feed of one bread & drink of one rock. This say they, turning the Apostles words and meaning, to a clean contrary sense. But how shall it be known (besides the text of S. Paul) who interpret that place truly, they or we.  

The Rhemists name not one ancient father, who interpreteth that text as they do.  First you see they have not so much as named any ancient father, who may be imagined to lean towards them; which is one manifest argument there is none, nether undoubtedly is there any, for considering their intolerable ambition in other parts of that book, how they tally up fathers by scores, when they can but pretend their names, they would not now have omitted them, if they could have told which of them, did but look that way. Now for our parts, we can name & do daily read, in the volumes of that great Doctor so much renowned by the jesuite even S. Augustine, 
Super joan. tract. 26.  that he doth inter pret that place as we do. For after he hath recited the text of S. Paul, he saith, verily the same spiritual meat, but the corporal was other, because they did eat Manna, and we another thing: Where are the Rhemists now, & where is Torrensis, & where are they all? Hath shame and grace so left them that they are passed blushing. Periere mores, ●us, decus, pietas, fides, & qui redire, 
Senec. in ●ga. act. 2.  ●um perit, neseit pudor. All right religion honesty good manner, yea and that which knoweth not how to return when it is once gone, shamefastness, are clear cassired by them, even as though the safest way to stop one mischief were to fall into many enormities. This is so clear out of S. Augustine, 
Per celera Sen. per tutum est sceleribus iter  that those divines amongst them, who gathered the book of sermons, & homilies set out by the decree of the Trent fathers, do charge S. Augustine in that point, with a violent interpretation. Which is both an injury to that ancient father, 
Opera Laurentij cum dij Itali, & post obitum eius à Francisco Gerardo Molan● Ludg. anno 1588. in tertio tomo f. 279. violenta interpretatio ponitur in margin eiusdem libri.  & deeply engrosseth the Rhemists amongst them who think that books will not blush, whatsoever faces will; and assureth us that our interpretation is true and consonant to S. Paul's meaning, and the Papists in general are overthrown in that whole question: For if the ancient Jews could and did eat the same Christ that we do; & that the same substance was in the Israelits sacraments that is in ours, and that a good jew is a good christian; It must needs follow, that we eat him no more really & substantially in our sacraments, than they did in theirs, and for them to have him really and substantially in theirs, 2000 years before he was incarnate was impossible, therefore nether have we him so. I could show this matter more largely out of S. Augustine, if I would stand about it. It sufficeth me, first to have found Torrensis so praising S. Augustine as I have set down, than the Rhemists most shamelessly denying our interpretation, & lastly S. Augustine charged by them with using a violent interpretation in the holy scripture, and that in that interpretation he is ours: Bellarmine himself handling that question giveth over S. Augustine, 
Bella. de effec. sacram. l. 2. c. 17. fere fine.  plainly by name, & saith he will prefer Chrisostome before him in that. Where is Torrensis now, who said, that S. Augustine's judgement, is the judgement of the whole Church, & that his witness is without exception? Doth not this plainly show that they will allow of nothing, to further than it shall make for than? Do not they show that they have no rule but the Leaden Leshian as Torrensis calleth it? 
In his discovery of our translations. c. 19  Doth not Gregory Martin chide the Protestants in general for following S. Augustine, in reading a text of Scripture as he doth, and saith they follow him against all antiquity? Why? if Torrensis say true, he is as good as all antiquity. For his testimony is the testimony of all antiquity. 
De eccles. hier. l. 3. c. 4. fol. 153 &. c. 5. fol. 163 D. Augustinus varius & inconstance in scriptutarum expositione. Mat. 16. Doctrine. princip. l. 6. c. 3.  ante. fo. 82. 83. Allen. ut ante l. 2. c. 5. fol. 517 Mel. Can. ut ant. l. 12. c. 12. fol. 411. The prophecy of Melchy. c. 1. 11. for the calling of the gentiles and what manner of sacrifice they should offer.   
Albertus' Pighius, an other great, but late proctor for the Church of Rome, imputeth as much infamy to S. Augustine, as ever Torrensis did virtue & as much in constancy, and perplexity in change of doctrine, as ever the other did constancy. Augustine (saith he) was constant in nothing, but what did please him now, did anon displease him. And this is, because S. Augustine is against them, in expounding Christ to be the rock upon which the Church is built, and not upon Peter's person as Pighius and the Papists would have him say, Mary D. Stapleton censureth that very fault in S. Augustine somewhat modestly, caling it lapsus humanus, an oversight proceeding of ignorance. Yea Torrensis himself doth gnaw at S. Augustine for so interpreting that place, of Christ; & not of Peter; although he will not much defile that nest, which he took such pains to beautify; D. Allen & Melchior Canus doth both confess S. Augustine to be ours in an high point of difference between them and us, and namely in expounding the words of the Prophet Malachy (From the rising of the sun to the going down of the same my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shallbe offered unto my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the heathen saith the Lord) of the sacrifice of praise and thanks giving, as we do, & therefore not of the sacrifice of the Mass, as they do. And thus doth S. Augustine by their own confession stand with us against them, in the most principal differences be●eene us and them. Now I doubt not the later Masters will ●…ther condemn the jesuits fraud, for commending him, whom they do not love, rather than at that composition, give over the questions which he holdeth with us, wholly into our hands: But though they do abate their jesuits credit we will yet hold the questions in despite of their cunnings, to wrest the verity of them from us. But leaving them mired in these▪ I will proceed to other things, to see if they be there any cleanlier.  

Of general councils.  There is a great question between them and us, whether general counsels, gathered together for the benefit of the Church to appease questions that arise therein, touching matters not only of life, but of doctrine and faith also, may nor can err. They affirm that touching matters of fact, ceremonies, or things belonging to discipline or manners, that such a council may err in such things, but not in concluding matt●…s of doctrine. On the contrary side, we hold (in few words) that they may err in all, having no more assurance from above, for the one then for the other. For confirmation of which our position we allege S. Augustine, who speaking both of the private writings of Bishops and of councils, held in particular regions, and of general counsels gathered of the Christian world saith Etipa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, 
Tun. 6. de bapt. con. Donat. l. ●. c. 3.  plenariorum conciliorum authoritati quae fiunt ux universo orb christiano sine ullis ambagibus ceder●▪ And even those counsels which are held in every region or province, without all doubt must give place to general counsels, which are gathered of all the christian world, and that even the general counsels themselves, are often corrected the former by the later, when by any trial of things, that is opened which was shut up, and that is known which was hid, without any swelling of sacrilegious pride, without any stiff neck of arrogancy, without any contention of malicious envy, with holy humility, with catholic peace, with Christian charity. Here we have a plain place, that only the holy scripture cannot err, that all other writers may err, that all provincial counsel may err; and last of all, general councils themselves may be corrected, the former by the later, therefore without question they may err. They agree with us in this text of S. Augustine but the meaning of the words (not withstanding they be very plain) they do deny, framing the text to as many fashions, as possible they may. They seem by their answers utterly unacquainted with the occasion of S. Augustine's discourse in that place, as though it were a very hard thing either to see the original, 〈◊〉 having seen it, to judge of it. But the multiplicity and crookedness of their shifts doth plainly show, that the authority maketh against them and for us.  
Andradius the defender of the Tridentine counsel, 
Andr. defeal. conc. Trid. l. 1. fol. 51. 53. They may be explained or unfolded, is the first shift.  saith, that S. Augustine seemeth to him to say no more but, that later counsels may with clearness unfold those things, which the former had overslipped. And that S. Augustine insinuateth so much, where he saith, when by trial of things that is opened wh●…h was shut up, and is known which was hidden. This gloss of Andradius will soon eat out, the bowels of the text. S. Augustine saith a general council may be amended, & therefore corrected, which is more than to be explained or unfolded. And the opposition that S. Augustine makes between the holy scriptures, which is not to err, & all other authorities must needs stand firm, & that must be inferred upon general counsels which cannot 〈◊〉 spoken of the scriptures; but the scriptures may be said to be unfolded, explained, or enlightened, but not corrected: therefore S. Augustine meaneth more of general counsels than so, 
Advers. haer. l. c. 8. fol. 17. a. leaveth out the principal member.  even plainly that they may err. Alphonsus a Castro, allegeth this of Augustine by the half, For where S. Augustine saith, and even general cou●cels are often corrected, the former by the later, he breaketh it of, and saith nothing of it, & allegeth the former part to prove that provincial counsels may err, as though S. Augustine had gone no farther and not spoken of general also. 
3. Locor. Theol. l. 5. fol. 185. b. ad 10. Non videtur loqui de emendatione fidei sed legum.  Melchior Canus coming to answer this place of Austin deviseth a new shift. That S. Augustine there speaketh not of any amendment in a matter of Faith, but of Laws, which are to be referred to things either done already, or to be done. A strange kind of harmony these men make in opening one poor place in this ancient father. But they do herein as thieves indicted for robbery, they will confess nothing, because they know they are guilty, but must have all things proved against them. He speaketh plainly of the question of Rebaptisation as by and by I will declare when I come to Bellarmine.  
The Rhemists' glance at this text of Austin▪ in their notes on the new testament, 
4. Annot. in 15. Acts. v. 13. of accidental & changeable things. Tull. offic. l 3.  and do therein exceedingly give the world to understand, that when they compiled that work they aimed only to uphold folsehood, and not to open any truth. But as Tully said of falsehood in oaths, Fraus distringit non dissoluit periurium. Deceit bindeth but doth not discharge the oath, so let them huddle & shuffle, cloak & hide, gloze and do what they will, the text of Augustine is open for all men, and there may they most be discovered, He speaketh (say they) of circumstances accident all which require alteration and not of essential points of doctrine when he saith the former general or plenary counsels, may be amended by the later: 
Quasi matrimonio habet dotatam rempublicam. Cicero Octavio. 5. Bellar. de con. author. l. 2. c. 7. fol. 119. Why cannot Bellar. mine tell. whereof S. Aug. speaketh.  quasi matrimonio habent dotatum Augustinum. As though S. Augustine were given to them in marriage, and all men else shut from him, and so they use him. The jesuite Bellarmine according to the manner of his answering cometh in with two or three fortès, peradventure he speaketh of this, & peradventure he speaketh of that; and yet never hitteth the right peradventure.  
To the authority I answer, first, (saith he) Perhaps S. Augustine speaketh of unlawful councils which are amended, by others after that are lawful, as it happened to the 2 Ephesine counsel, 
6. De questionibus facti non juris.  which was amended in the Chalcedon. Secondly, it he spoke of lawful counsels, than (saith he) he speaketh of matters of fact, and not of right, in such kind of questions it is out of doubt, that a counsel may err, for the principal question of the Catholic with the Donatists, was about one Caecilianus whether he had delivered the scriptures into the hands of the heretics, or not? And it may be answered by a third way (saith he) if our adversaries contend. That S. Augustine speaketh generally of all questions when he saith That former councils may be amended by later, that then he speaketh of precepts of manners, and not of questions of Faith, for precepts are changed according to times, places & persons, and those change are called amendings, not that the thing was before ill, but that it began to be ill the circumstances being changed. And both these answers are confirmed by the words of Augustine, when he saith that then Counsels are amended, when by some experience that is opened which was hid, questions of matters of fact, or of manners, & not all questison of right are opened by experiment. Thus far Bellarmine wherein I cannot choose but marvel at his gross and poor shifts in a case so plain, so taken, so known of all men. What devices? What impostures? What weakness hath he showed in his guesses? As though he had never seen nor read the place. Doth S. Augustine speak of unlawful counsels? Doth he speak of delivering over the books of holy scriptures to the heretics? doth he speak of matters of fact? Doth he speak of precepts of manners? Or doth he speak of all of these? Or of any one of these? Nether of any one of these doth he speak, nor of all of these. But because it appeareth by these guessing answers of theirs, that the controversy would soon be at an end, if the occasion which drew those words from him, were rightly & truly delivered, because all men agree Intelligentia dictorum ex causi● est assumendi dicendi. 
Apolog. Thes. Rey. de sacra. scrip. fol, 215.  The understanding & true sense of words must be fetched, from the occasion that gave the speech: which was this. In that ancient father S. Cyprians time a counsel was held in Carthage, Cyprian being precedent thereof, wherein was concluded an error of faith that such were to beere-baptized, as had been baptised by heretics. The Donatists urged that decree together with S. Cyprians authority, against S. Augustine, S. Augustine as he refused the opinion (holding no rebaptisation although heretics had baptized) and the authority too, answering that only the scriptures could not err, but all other both Bishop's writings, provincial counsels, yea & general too might err, and therefore be amended. And this is plainly to be seen both in the first chapter of the first book, 
Aug. de bapt. contra Donat. l. 1. c. 1, &. lib. 2. c. 1.  where he saith he will diligently handle that question of Baptism in the books following, which elsewhere he had omitted, & prove it too against all those, qui non studio partium cacati judicant, who judge not according to parts taken. And also in the first chapter of the third book, where he reciteth the very state of the question, which he was to handle against the Donatists, and that decree which was urged, wherein was concluded that all heretics & schismatics, that is to say, all that are out of the fellowship of the Church, have no baptism, and therefore whosoever being baptised came from them to the church, were to be baptised again.  
Unpossible it is that either the Rhemistes, or Bellarmine, or any other writer amongst them, should be ignorant of this. But when malice shadoweth men's minds they do very really lay open themselves. Hardly can any of them say, that this question of Baptism was a matter of fact, & not of faith, or of manners and not of doctrine, when it is of so high a point as baptism by heretics, whether we ought to baptise those again, who have by them been baptized first. He that mistrusteth what I have said herein, let him either read S. Augustine; 
Confer. in the tower 2 day. Annot, in 15. act. v. 13. Praelect. Whitak. co●t. Bell. de con. q 6. f. 318.  & that shall best resolve him, or the learned writers of our age, D. Fulkes second days conference in the Tower with Cawp●an. And in his answer to the Rhemists. 15. acts. v. 13. D. whitaker's in his tract of counsels against Bellarmine, set out since his death, Or D. Reynolds in his Apology of his Thesis, and Whitaker s against Dureus. 
Apol. thes. Io. Rey. de sacra. scrip. fol. 225. Whitak. count Dureum. l. 4. de conc. f. 291. Bellarm. testifieth against himself. that S. Aug. spoke against. rebaptisation, which I hope he will not say is a matter of fact. Bellar de. conc, auth. l. 2. c. 3. f. 111. & de conc, & eccles▪ l. 1. c. 10. fol. 46. 47  all which do mightily discover the folly of their adversaries in this point. Compare their concord in this question with the inconstancy of those on the other side. But see the high impudency of Bellarmine against the witness of his own conscience, and against all the excuses, and devices before set down, to darken the place in question. He doth scarcely full four leaves before, say plainly, in praise of general counsels, That S. Augustine did excuse Cyprian from heresy, only because at that time there had been no general counsel held, quo definiri potuisset questio illa de baptismo haereticorum. Wherein that question of the baptism of heretics, might have been defined, & quoteth Aug. lib. 1. de baptc 18. And could Bellarmine tell that in the first book & 18. Chapter Augustine spoke of baptism by heretics, and that that was the Donatists case, and his; They alleging, and he excusing S. Cyprian, & could he not tell that it was the same which Augustine spoke of, in the 2. book and third chapter being the place in question with us: but four chapters of? But we may thank the truth for Bellarmine's confession against himself, as Tully said of it, O magua vis veritatis, quae contra hominum ingenia, 
Tull. pro. M. Coelio.  calliditatem, sollertiam, contraque fict as omnium infidias, facile se per seipsam defendat. O the great strength of the truth, which will easily defend itself, against the wits, craft, subtlety & all devices of men whatsoever:  
As before you have seen their several observations touching that authority of Aug. so will I yet more plainly discover their pretended right to a Canon of a great & ancient counsel, 
Can. Nic. con. 6, jewel, reply to Hard▪ art. 4. di. 7, fol. 240. Reyn conf. with Hart. c. 9 diuis. 2 f. 573. Defenc. of the Apology. p. 2. c. 3. divis▪ 6. fol. 214.  the first general, held at Nice in a question between the bishop of Rome and us, we saying the Canon maketh for us and they for them. The canon goeth thus, Mos antiquus perduret in Aeg●pto, Libya & Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem quandoquidem & Romano Episcopo parilis est mos. Let the ancient custom remain throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have the government over all these, because the bishop of Rome hath the like order. Likewise also in Antiochia & in other provinces, the privileges are to be kept to the churches. Which canon of the council is acknowledged by ours, to be plain for the purpose it was written, viz: that the Bishop of Rome, hath no sovereignty over other patriarchs, but only a fellowship and equality with the rest, to walk carefully within his own division, as others were bound to do within theirs; For the council grounded themselves on the custom of the bishop of Rome: that as he had pre-eminence of all the bishops about him; so Alexandria and Antioch should have of all about them, and likewise other Churches (as the Metropolitan) each in their own provinces, do show, that the Pope neither had pre-eminence of all through the world before the Niceene council, nor aught to have greater rule (by their judgement) than he before time had. This is the true and genuine sense and meaning of that council and canon. The contrary part are divided in this, and yet not divided. Divided touching the original text of the canon, 
Ekius ench. de loc. con. f. 58. Hard. in conf. Apol. p. 2. c. 3. divis 6. f. 114. Saund. de visib. monar. lib. 7. fol. 220. 228. 288. 332. Staplet. ret. of unt. against Jewel. art. 4. fol. 38. b. Andrad. deafen▪ Trid. conc. l. 2. fol. 234. 1. Instead of the Bishop. of Rome, he readeth Metropo. litane.  some of them saying it is unperfect: And again not divided, in that they all claim by it, not respecting the unperfectness of it.  
A strange sentence it were, that could both extol the bishop of Rome's authority overall churches, and yet limit him to his scantling, as well as other bishops, and serve this turn both when it is perfect, & when it is unperfect, & wanteth. Friar Ecchius in his book of common places, doth read the canon word for word as we do without any adding or diminution. So doth D. Harding in his confutation of the Apology of the church of England.  in his visible monarchy, doth four times iut upon this sixth canon, even as we read it, without any addition in words, saving a sinister interpretation sometime. Andradius confesseth the canon as before it is read, and yet he hammereth foully about it, bringing in instead of, because the bishop of Rome hath the like order or custom, these words, because the Metropolitan hath the like custom. And so instead of the bishop of Rome, he readeth the Metropolitan. Mary this was out of an old Latin copy which he standeth not much upon, because the canon itself was written in Greek. But saith he, where the Niceene synod speaketh of the like custom to the church of Rome, yet doth not make equal the church of Alexandria to the church of Rome, but confirmeth the prerogative of the church of of Alexandria to the judgement of the church of Rome, and saith it is the custom of the Church of Rome, that the Church of Alexandria should be taken for the primate of Egypt. What? by the judgement of the church of Rome? as though the Church of Rome allotted it to be so. To take his judgement, 
〈◊〉 He expoundeth his custom to be his judgement.  for his Custom were an hard interpretation, & flat against the text, for both their limits are grounded upon old customs, and not one upon the others judgement. Dureus goeth more exactly to work and setteth down the canon in Greek and Latin, even as we read it without alteration: But addeth that nothing could have been spoken more plain & clear, 
Dureus' conf. resp. Whitak. rat. 4. fol. 170.  for establishing the authority of the church of Rome, over all charches: For those fathers (saith he), bring the custom of the church of Rome for an argument whereby they limit the authority of the bishop of Alexandria, & therefore the church of Alexandria dependeth on the Church of Rome as on 〈◊〉 mother, and receiveth all she hath from her.  
Which gloss of his, is the farthest from the text that may be imagined, 
Dureus' exposition.  his exposition standeth thus, Let the bishop of Alexandria gonerue the Churches of Egypt and the rest of the metropolitans in their provinces do the like because the bishop of Rome hath jurisdiction over all churches, what coherence, hath one part with an other? 
Panffoote. fo. 91. Antioch & Alexandria▪ were chief patriarchal churches.  If the bishop of Rome had power overall, why did not those father's express that they bestowed his charge upon others, & that with some dependency on him? And how is it, that they themselves tell us, that the churches founded by S. Peter and namely Antioch and Alexandria▪ have been named the chief patriatchal churches, and did go before all the others in the counsels? Hardly then can Dureu● tell us, when Alexandria depended on Rome as on a mother: But Dureus saith further that we might learn the meaning of the canon, from Paschasinus the Pope's Legate in the counsel of Chalcedon, where he recited that sixth canon thus, 
The Church of Rome hath always had the primacy.  Tre centorum decem & octo patrum sextus canon quod Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum. The sixth canon of the 318. fathers, that the church of Rome hath always had the primacy. Well may this be the preface of the Pope's Legate, before he came to the Canon, but the canon it could not be in common sense and reason; But Dureus hath broken the Ice & set in his foot and Bellarmine must finish the rest. This of Paschasinus, but the church of Rome hath always had the primacy was spoken by him 120. years after the canon was made, and yet Bellarmine is come to this, that those words should be the beginning of the canon, and that the canon wanted a beginning till now of late, where it is plain that those were but the Legates words in favour of the sea of Rome and no part of their meaning.  
Four several times doth Bellarmine assay this canon to make it serve his turn. 
1. Bellar. de Rom. pont. l. 1. c. 24. fol. 151. 2. l. 2. c. 13. fol. 221. 3. l. 2. c. 17. fol. 250. 4. l. 2. c. 18. fol. 266.  In the first, he alloweth the canon only as we read it, without claiming any addition to it. In the second he handleth it roughly, but yet confesseth against himself, that as the canon is extant in the common prints, the beginning lacketh, which is, Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum, mos autem perduret. The church of Rome hath always had the primacy, let the ancient custom remain, etc. For so (saith he) did Paschasinus read it in the counsel of Chalcedom: If it be so, then doth Dureus abuse his reader, for he saith, 
The Church of Rome hath always had the primacy. Ruffinus expoundeth the canon as we● do.  Paschasinus read it thus, The sixth canon of the 318. fathers, That the church of Rome hath, etc. why doth Bollarmine suppress the word That? but to make us Believe, the recital of the eanon, is the canon itself. But Bellarmine doth freely confess that the ancient father Ruffinus for more than 1200. years since, expounded the canons as we do, that is; That the bishop of Alexandria should have the care of all Egypt; as the Bishop of Rome hath of the Churches near about him. But Bellarmine saith that this exposition is false, as also that of Theodoret Balsamon a greek borne, who doth also to that effect interpret the Canon; who, howsoever he displeaseth them now, 
Cope dial 1. f. 166.  yet doth Alan Cope confess him to be a learned divine. But that exposition amongst many that pleaseth Bellarmine best is, That the bishop of Alexandria should govern those provinces allotted to him, because the bishop of Rone is so accustomed, that is, because the bishop of Rome before any definition of any council did accustom, to permit the government of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis to the Bishop of Alexandria, or was accustomed to govern those provinces by the bishop of Alexandria. 
Oratio pro Muraena.  jacerent in tenebris omnia nisi literarum lumen accesserit saith Tully; Allthings had lain buried in darkness, had not the light of good letters awaked them. How do these men, with the knowledge of good letters involve allthings into more darkness, then if they were reduced to the first Chaos? There is none of them all but know, that the canon about which they keep so much stir is directly against them. The very recital of it, is a sufficient confutation of the arguments brought to the contrary. They only desire to force their wits to uphold their wills. If the beginning of the canon hath been wanting so long time as Bellarmine maketh account it hath, how did Eckius, harding, Saunders, Andradius, and Dureus, make it serve their turn against us when it was wanting are they so good workmen that any tools will serve their turns, whether they be blunt or sharp, will any thing against the Protestants serve? But popery was never fully clothed in all her colours till the late jesuits set it to sale. How or by whose means that piece was wanting so long, or how it came to be wanting▪ or how to be found Bellarmine doth not show. What record maketh mention of it either counsel or father, or Doctor, or whoever said so but he, he is taken with, manner, and until he doth manfully acquit himself, he must sland charged with the wrong done to those 318. fathers, whose words he hath falcified, If he bring out an other jesuite, elder than himself to testify with him; it may not serve, the intelligence shallbe but as between an incendiary and a robber, the one to fire the house and the other to rifle it There was a time when the showing of this canon (if it do make for the bishop of Rome's authority) would haun greatly pleasured the Roman bishops, namely in their great and long conflict with the Bishops of Aphrica, even touching superiority and command, du●ing the full time almost of three Pope's Zozoman, Bonisacius, & I●…ocentius 1. presently after the Nice●e counsel, who contended with them & denied it them. Then or never had that canon been to be showed, had it been at all, and fit opportunity to have found it was never offered▪ But none of the Bishops of Rome, ever hard of the making of it, which is an undoubted argument there was none such. On the other side we have testimony both for the Canon, ever since it was made, that it was never altered, and beside the evidence of the truth in the very language of it, we have Ruffinus for 1200. years ago, expounding of it, as we do.  
But let us compare their new patch, with the whole cloth, 
Mat 9.16. Contraria interse apposita magis elucescunt. The right canon as they all agree.  and see whether that that should fill it up, do not take from the garment, and so the breach be worse; Let the ancient custom be kept through out Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alaxandria have the government of all these, for the bishop of Rome hath the like order. Likewise also in Antiochia and in other provinces the privileges are to be kept to the churches. After their forgery we may read it thus. The sixth canon of the 318. fathors That the church of Rome hath always had the primacy, 
Dureus ut ante  let the ancient enstomes remain, etc. After Bellarmine thus. The church of Rome hath always had the primacy, let the ancient customs remain through out Egypt, Libya, 
Bellar. ut ante  and Pentapolis that the bishop of Alexandria govern those provinces, because the bishop of Rome is accustomed so to do; that is because the bishop before the definition of any council accustomed to permit the government of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis to the bishop of Alexandria; or accustomed to govern those provinces by the bishop of Alexandria. Having this liberty to do and say what they list, to add or take away when they will, they were to be reckoned as simple and childlike, as now they are found fraudulent, and base; if they would ever yield to any authority, that is alleged against them. But yet they shall not lose their labours, it shall be with them as with the Grecian artificers eos aulados esse, 
Cicero pro L. Muraena. orat. 23. fol. 750.  qui citharaedi fieri non potuerint. Who were taken to be pipers when they could not attain to be good players on the harp; and they shall be accounted Cobblers and butchers, for fair and good work they set up none. I could cloy you with proof against them in this kind of dealing, but I will only add one or two more, and so an end. 
Antwerpiae ex cudebat joannes Crinitus. anno. 1541. Cypr. de simppraelat sive de unit. eccles. All the Apostles were equal.   
The ancient father and martyr S. Cyprian who lived above 1300. years ago within 250. years of Christ, hath this sentence, Hoc crant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit & Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis. Verily the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, endued with like fellowship both of honour and power. From which the Protestants argue that S. Cyprian knew no rule or dominion that S. Peter had over the rest of the Apostles, for saith he they were equal both in honour and in power: 
jewel con Hard. art. 4. diuis. 6. fol. 239. Caus. 24. q 1. loquitur dominus. Caiet. de rom. pont. instit. ton. 1. tract. 3 c. 3. & de author papae & conc. ton. 1. tract. 1. c. 2. Saund l. 7. num. 46. fol. 262.  and so hath shut out the bishop of Rome from having that sovereignty over the rest of the bishops of the church. Bishop jewel in his time without any mistrust, thought this authority of Cyprians strong enough (amongst others) to show the ancient father's minds in that point. Gratian who compiled the decrees, hath recorded this sentence of Cyprian, even in this form that we lay it down: Cardinal Caietane eiteth it twice in two several tracts writing of the Pope's authority, even as we do without any addition at all to it.  
Saunders also in his visible monarchy argueth upon this text of Cyprian for Peter's supremacy over the rest of the Apostles, but quoteth the text as we do, without the late addition added by the jesuits; so that for our warrant we have all the ancient texts of Cyprian. The decrees of Gratian, the testimony of Caietane, and the allowance of Sanders. Notwithstanding which testimony & witness, they have of late found out a piece belonging to this text of Cyprian, which shall not only contrary the true reading, but even palpably & grossly cause him to confound & overthrow his own former words. They read it thus, Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pariconsortio praediti, & honoris & potestatis, 
Bellar. de. rom. pont. l. 1. c. 12. sol. 103. league & lib. 4. c, 23. sol. 591. Et primatus Petro datur & the primacy is given to Peter is added to Cyprian by them.  sed exerdium ab unitate proficiscitur, & Primatus Petrodatur, vi Ecclesia una monstretur, The rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, endued with like fellowship both of honour & power, but the be ginning cometh from unity, And the primacy is given to Peter, that the Church might be showed to be one. Et primatus Petro datur, and the primacy is given to Peter, hath been added unto Cyprian of late becuse they saw the former words did quite overthrow them, and so in adding them they have overthrown us and Cyprian too. Will they have any man to think that S. Cyprian would say first. The rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, endued with like fellowship both of honour and power; and to add presently, And the primacy is given to Peter. How were they the same? how were they endued with like fellowship both of honour and power, if Peter had the Primacy? Unless such a primacy be meant, as notwithstanding will leave them the same that he was, & so the same, that they shall be like in honour and power: such a primacy I hope they have wit enough to discard, and yet any other primacy shall contrary Cyprian, and prove them forgers.  
They are Masters of the presses beyond the seas, they compass sea & land to make a proselyte, they spare no cost, shall we think that if the ancient manuscripts of Cyprians text, had had that clause, that the first printed copies would have wanted it? Would Gratian have omitted it, in his decrees or Caietane or Saunders, 
Dial. dial. i. s. 123. Rhem: annot. joh. c. 21. f. 280 Dureus. rat. 6. fol. 286. Fulk against the Rhem. lo lo citato. Rey. conf. with Hart c 5 diuis. 2. fol. 165. Whit. cont ●ur. l. 6. fol 433.  not have seen the very words, that should point out the supremacy, it is hard so to think, & against former experiences. And yet doth Alane Cope in his dialogues, The Rhemists in their testament. Dureus against whitaker's, in defence of Campian, all which go along in that string, and hold in that addition, but most crookedly in so strait a cause. Doth not this justify the complaint of our men against them, who lay it sound to their charge, that they from beyond the seas have twenty such devises as these, to make their religion go currant, among their novices here in England? You have seen in the former examples of the Nicene counsel, and S. Cyprians authority, how bold (without shame) they have been to add unto their texts, that which the original books had not; Now will I show you with how great show of diligence, they can handle other authorities when they do but seem to make for them. The thing is this. The Ecclesiastical histories of Socrates & Sozomene, 
Eccles. histor. Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. & Sozom. l. 3. c. 7.  do make mention of certain troubles, that befell unto Athanasius, Paulus, and Marcellus, Asclepas and Lucius, all Archbishops of great places in the East, who being expulsed from their churches, fled unto Rome where julius was bishop, who bestirred himself as well as the time would give him leave, to see them restored to their seas, if possible it might be. This authority & record seeming to make for the bishop of Rome's power and dominion, is garnished with glorious titles, and often alleged with great pomp, as if the matter were clear, and to be received without further examination, that the bishop of Rome had supreme power on earth over all other bishops.  
Bellarmine allegeth it four several times, 
Bellar. de rom. pont. l. 2. c. 15. fol. 237.  under four several titles, and in all four agreeth with himself; That Athanasius & the rest being deposed from their seas fly to Rome, where julius for the dignity of his place, gave them comfort and relief, and in plain terms restored them to their bishoprics. 
1. By the witness of Greek fathers.  First he allegeth it in the Chapter of proofs for the Pope's monarchy, by the witness of Greek fathers: because the historian Sozomene who reporteth it, was a Graecian. Next, 
2. Bell. ut ante. l. 2. c. 18. by his authority over other bishops. 3. Bell ut ante l. 2 c. 21. by appeals made unto him. 4. Bel de conc. auth. l. 2. c 17. The first reporter of this is Socrates Eccles. histor. l. 2. c. 11. You shall read before that they fled to Constantinus the younger, l. 2. c. 2. Loco contumeliae. Cap. 14. Constans Emperor of the West. Cap. 16.  for the authority which the bishop of Rome exercised, over other bishops, because he wrote to the Eastern bishops about them. Then in the chapter of appeals, because they came from the East into the West for secure. In the fourth place, he bringeth it in for the Pope's authority over counsels, because the Eastern bishops had deposed the other in a council. It is a sign that Bellarmine would play the good husband with the whole piece, that can do so much with such small rags. The first reporter of this is Socrates a Greek writer, aswell as Sozomene & before him in the history; He showeth how that Athanasius, Paulus, Asclepas, Marcellus, and Lucius being deprived of their churches came to Rome the princely city, and cettifie julius of their troubles; julius by reason of the prerogative of his church upheld their parts, writing his letters into the East, which they trusting unto, go every man to his own home, and send the letters according to their several directions. But those of the East took the letters of julius in scorn, & will not be directed by him. After this the Emperor Constans writeth to his brother, in the behalf of them, desiring him to send those thither, who might render a reason before him of the just causes of their deposition. His letters took none effect, in so much that they make humble suit that an other counsel might be called, wherein both parties might be the better known. By the commandment of both Emperors a general counsel was proclaimed at Sardice a city of Illyria: by the better part of the counsel is Paulus Athanasius and Marcellus restored to their bishoprics. Notwithstanding these things, 
Edicitur concilium generale, idque de sententia duorum Imperarorum. Constantius Emperor of the East. Cap 18.  Constantius the Emperor of the East deferred from day to day, the execution of his brother's request concerning the deposed biships, wherefore he gave him in choice, either to restore Paulus and Athanasius, and so account him for his friend, or else to hear the proclamation of open war and so find him as his deadly foe. The letters he sent were to this effect. There remain with me Athanasius and Paulus who as I am credibly given to understand are persecuted for godliness sake; 
The letters of constance, to his brother Constantius.  If thou wilt promise me to restore them to their seats, & to punish severely such as have injured them; I will send the parties themselves unto thee; But if thou wilt not accomplish these things as I require; I will that thou know, that I will come thither, and whether thou wilt or no, restore them to their seats. Constantius understanding this, assembled many of the Eastern bishops and demanded of them what were best to be done. 
They did not conclude thus up on the Bishop of Rome's. letters. In fine epistolae lulij Romani episcop. ad clerum & populum Alexandrinum.  They answer, it were far better to restore Athanasius, than to raise deadly and mortal war. Wherefore the Emperor restored Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus, Asclepas and Lucius, every one to his bishopric again, so that by the emperors edict they all received their own seas, the cities were commanded to entertain them, with willing & cheerful minds. Thus much briefly out of Socrates concerning the troubles which befell on Athanasius & the rest of the Catholic bishops.  
What Sozomene reporteth (which is all the show that Bellarmine hath) of this matter, 
Sozomene of the same matter. l. 3. c. 7. His reports of this same matter.  shall as breeflly follow as the rest is gone before. In his third book & seventh Chap. he mentioneth the same matter that Socrates did, in his second book & eleventh Chap. That is the flight of Athanasias & others from Alexandria and other places, to Rome, julius his writing letters in their behalf, which he calleth his restoring of them (even as in an other place he saith they deposed Pope julius, who yet was not deposed) Their answering of Julius letters rethorically and ironically, telling him withal, that although Rome from the beginning had been famous and the Metropolies for religion & godliness tamen authores religionis Christianae primum, 
Christian religion came first out of the east  ex Oriente eò veaeissent yet the authors & founders of the christian religion came first out of the East thither, & that julius in doing that which he did, had broken the laws of the church in meddling with those that they had dealt against. In the mean time new accusations were coined unto Constantius, which julius understanding thought it not safe for Athanasius to like in Egypt, but sent for him to Rome, 
Cap. 8. &. 9  And wrote again to the bishops of the East, who met at Antioch replying to the letters, and found fault with them that contrary to the faith of the Nicene counsel they had undertaken new matters, and contrary to the laws of the church, they had not called him to the counsel: For saith he, there is a law belonging to the honour of Priesthood, which taketh those acts for void, which are enacted without the consent of the bishop of Rome, the matter cometh to this issue, 
Cap. 19 He is the issue of what julius could do. He brought the matter into the Emperor hand.  when julius saw that those things for which he wrote took none effect, causam Athanasijs & Pault ad Constantem retulit, he bringeth the cause of Athanasius and Paulus unto the Emperor Constans, who did write unto his brother both for the sending of Athanasius his accusers unto him, with request (in that manner as before you did hear) to see them restored himself. The conclusion of Sozomens history concerning Athanasius and the rest, is the same that Socrates (before mentioned) was, 
Sozom. l. 3. cap. vlt.  thus: Athanasius returned from the West unto Egypt: so did Paulus Marcellus Asclepas. & Lucius recover their Episcopal seats, for by the emperors letters they also had liberty to return, to their own home.  
There is a third historiographer who is very plentiful in reporting the troubles that befell on these bishops, 
Theod. eccles. hist l. 2. cap. 5.  and of Athanasius coming unto Constans the Western Emperor, and his putting the Prince in mind of his father's Acts, and of the great Council of Nice, which his father had called; & then instantly got the Emperor to write unto his brother Constantius, wherein he warneth him to keep inviolably the inheritance of his father's faith. Constantius moved with these letters, appointed a Counsel to be held at Sardice, & willed the bishops aswell of the East as the West to be their present. Whereby it is plain still, that, as the Emperor restored them in the end; so had they power to call and summon the counsels, and to appoint any mean which they thought fit, for the due hearing of the matter, till their own full sentence came. And this is so plain that  in his visible monarchy saith Magnus Athanasius nihil dubitavit Constantis Imperatoris Catholics sidem atque opem contra Constantij Caesaris vim ac perfidiam implorare. 
L. 2, c. 4. fol. 82. ex Theod. eccles lib. 2. c, 5.  Athanasius the great doubted not to crave and implore the trust and help, of the catholic Emperor Constans against the force & treachery of the Emperor Constantius.  
Now let the whole world judge between our adversaries & us, which of us twain have more right unto this question of restoring of Athanasius, and the other Bishops. The history is plain julius authority was to weak to perform what he thought to have compassed, and therefore he appealed to the Emperor, who indeed did strike the stroke. 
1. 2. 3. 4.  Thus is Bellarmine's Four fold proof, proved to be single sold and poor, and yet is not this his case alone but of others before him, 
5. Hard. art. 4. cont. jewel. fol. 111. b. & 117 b  Hardings, 
6. Dorman. count. jewel. fol 64 b.  Dorman, 
7. Pighius eccles. hier. lib. 4. fol. 269.  Pighius, 
8. Cope, dial. 1. fol. 55.  Cope, & 
9 Staplet. return of untruths against M jewel. art. 4. fol 29.  Stapleton, all of them joining in one to suppress the truth, & all of them alleging the story falsely and deceitfully, as though it had been done by julius, which was only effected by the Emperor. And where, in the process of this tragedy touching Athanasius, I have opened (indeed of purpose, because the adversaries should not cavil) that julius alleged a law in he honour of priesthood, which ordained that those acts should be void, which were made without the consent of the bishop of Rome, which may seem at the first sight, to make only for his authority and sovereignty, excluding all others, It may please them that shall so think to understand withal, that over the bishops of Christendom there were constituted & appointed four patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, amongst which four the Bishop of Rome had the first place in order and fitting, when they did meet together, but no definitive sentence to undo that which they did, or to conclude without them, and this held touching general counsels, and something for the nominating of bishops, if need had been, and not touching the bishop of Rome only but also towards others of that fellowship, and thence sprang their letters of mutual certificate each to others, touching that one faith which they all professed, as Gregory the great, seemeth to insinuate when he saith Hinc est etiam quòd quoties in quatuor praecipuis sedibus Antistites ordinantur, synodales sibi epistolas viciscim mittant. 
Gregor. l. 7. episc. 53. ex sandvis. mon. l. 7. so. 358. & Stapl. Princ. fidei doct. l. 4. c. 20. fol. 149. Greg. l. 6. epis. 37. ex Saund. visib. monar. l. 7. fol. 220. The dignity in the 3. patriarchal seats is equal. Rome. Alexandria. Antioch. Sozon. l. 6. c. 23 Sanders abuseth this place alleging it so, as if the consent only of the bishop of Rome were required Declave David. l. 4. fol 80. Socrat. eccles. histo. l. 7. c. 28. No bishop. ordained without the consent of the bishop of Constantinople.  Hence it is also that oftentimes we find that men of chelfe authority are appointed to rule in the four chief seas, & mutually they send synodical Epistles each to others Cum multi sint Apostole▪ pro ipso tamen principatu sola Apostolorum principis sedes in authoritate convaluit, quae in tribus locis unius est. Although there be many Apostles, yet for the principality, the seat of the prince of the Apostles was chief in authority, which authority in 3 places is equal: For he (Peter) exalted the seat wherein he vouchsafeth to abide, and end his life: He also beautified the seat, unto which he sent the Evangelist (Mark) his disciple. And he established the seat, wherein he sat seven years although he removed from thence. And other men's consents were established by law to be had aswell as the bishop of Rome as we may read in the same history of Sozomene that the counsel holden at Ariminum was condemned because nether Vincentius nor the rest to whom it belonged aswell as the bishop of Rome (though his mind should have been known before other) had not agreed unto it. It is moreover read again in plain terms in the division between Sisinius and those of Cyzicium, they appointing one bishop and he nominating an other, Hoc ab illis factum est neglecta illa lege quae jubet nequis episcopus desiguetur absque sententia & authoritate Episcopi Constantinopolis, This they did faith the story because they neglected that law which commandeth that no bishop be appointed, and ordained without the consent of the bishop of Constantinople: so it appeareth if the business concerning the whole church were handled them all their knowledges and minds were had and known in it; if it concerned any particular part thereof, than the particular bishops of the province, 
1. Bellar. de Rom. pont. l. 2 c. 13. fo. 223. ex Theodoret. ec. cles. his. l. 5. c. 9 is abused aswell as the rest By commandment of the Pope's letters saith Bellarm. 2. Bellar. de conc. & eccles l. 1. c. 13. f. 60. By the Pope's letters they came to Constantinople. A most impudent untruth shamlesly avouched. 3. Bel. de conc. & eccles. l. 1. c. 19 fo. 83. & 87. The bishop of Constantinople was precedent. If the bishop of Rome or his Legate, must needs be precedent of counsels; then this counsel lacked a precedent, or otherwise it must appear that Nectarius was his Legate or deputy, both which are absurd to think.  and the patriarch yielded thereunto & the Emperor above alto bridle and call all to account.  
You shall further see their sincerity in alleging the histories by an other example about the bishop of Rome's supreme power, out of the ecclesiastical history also. The second general counsel in their Epistle to Damasus, which is extant in Theodoret do say that they came to the city of Constantinople ex mandato literarum pontificis by commandment of the Pope's letters sent unto them by the Emperor, And there also they confess the church of Rome to be the head, and they the members. This saith Bellarmine in his first report of that history. In the second place, he bringeth it in for proof of the Pope's authority in calling of general counsels, Theoporete reporteth (saith he) that the Emperor Theodosius did not so much call the counsel at Constantinople, as that he sent the letters of Damafus the Pope to the bishops, by which letters the counsel was summoned; For so writ the bishops gathered together in the counsel, unto Damasus the Pope, mandato inquiunt literarum supertore anno à vestra reverentia ad sanctissimum Imperatorem Theodosium missarum. That by letters received the last year from your holiness (meaning the Pope) sent unto the most holy Emperor Theodosius we prepared to take our journey to Constantinople. Although therefore saith Bellarmine Theodosius called the counsel yet he called it by commandment of the sea apostolic. In the 3. place he bringeth this same example for the presidentship, and cheifty of the bishop of Rome in counsels. In the second counsel held at Constantinople (saith he) it is certain that the Emperor fat not chief, but only sent the letters of the bishop of Rome, to the rest, by which they were called to the counsel. And it is certain (saith he) that the Roman bishop was not precedent but Nectarius the bishop of Constantinople, the reason whereof is, because the bishop of Rome was not there, nor any Legate for him, for Damasus the Pope had called the bishops of the East to Constantinople; But from that place he would have had them come to Rome, that so at Rome there might have been a full & plenary counsel both of the East & West bishops, 
How boldly are these untruths avouched? 4. Saund. ●…. fol. 41.  But if Damasus had been there without doubt he had sat chief, as appeareth by their Epistle to Damasus, Vbi illi Damasum vs caput suum agnoseunt, & ipse filios eos vocat, wherein they acknowledge him for their head, and he calleth them sons; so much for Bellarmine.  
Saunders in his Visible monarchy, maketh a brief of this matter thus. The fathers that were (saith he) gathered together, in the second general counsel holden at Constantinople, when they were urged by Damasus the bishop of Rome to come thither, amongst other causes why they could not so do, brought this for one, 
By the Pope's letters they came to Constantinople.  That by the letters of the same Damasus written to the Emperor Theodosius, they were appointed only to prepare themselves for a ●ourney to Constantinople; And that they had brought the consents of the bishops who remained at home in their provinces with them of the celebrating of that one council. Sanders again in an other place. 
5. Sand. declave David. I. 4. sol. 81. The consent of the bishop of Rome.  preambulateth from the matter before he come to it, thus. Although the consent of the bishop of Rome always had & obtained, did confirm the summoning of a general counsel, yet that in a great matter no error should creep in, it was the order that the Pope should send his letters to the Emperor touching that matter, 
As who should say the Pope commanded the Emperor to summon counsels.  and then the Emperor having received those letters, did by his own letters assemble the bishops whereupon the bishops assembled at Constantinople do write unto Damasus in these words, you did send for us as for members of your own body, by the letters of the most holy Emperor to come unto the counsel which is gathered together at Rome by the will & pleasure of God. And a little after. By the commandment of letters from your holiness, sent the last year unto the Emperor Theodosius after the council held at Aquila, we prepared ourselves only for our journey to Constantinople. It therefore appeareth (saith Sanders) from this testimony. That there were two Counsels holden at once, one at Rome, the other at Constantinople, and to both of them the Pope sent for those bishops by the letters of the Emperor. Thus much from  in that place of that matter.  

6. Staplet. ret. o● untruths art 4. fol. 139.  D. Stapleton an other of that side, maintaining the Pope's sovereignty, is no more abashed to abuse the history than those other have done in the places going before, For saith he, Those bishops of Constantinople do write-unto Damasus the Pope, and showing a cause of there not coming to Rome, do further say unto him, That they had assembled themselves but lately at Constantinople by the late letter of your honour sent after the council holden in Aquilicato the most Godly Emperor Theodosius, 
Letters from your honour.  which was the reason why they could not come to Rome. Now touching this present matter (saith he) the bishops here do witness that to that counsel of Rome the Pope called them, by the letters of the Emperor, not as a warrant (they have no such word) but rather as a mean. For they witness he calleth them as his proper members. 
Bellar. thrice. Saund. twice already. Staplet. once. 7. 8 and. de vifib. monar. l. 7. fol. 312. num. 145. 146. The whole mass of falsehood is diseovered. The Eastern bishops writ to all the bishops of the West, and so the letters go in the plural number.  This it the sixth canvas they have had touching this place of Theodoret: The seventh set down by  in a third place of his book, will quite overthrow both himself and them, being enlightened a little by the history, which they all have most shamefully abused; For in this third place of his he hath bewrayed their shameful dealing. There he confesseth that the Bishops of the East, did write to other bishops of the West, and namely to Ambrose, aswell as to Damasus, & not to him alone, (as hitherto they all made us believe they did) and there he confesseth more over, that the Eastern bishops received a letter from the Western gathered together at Rome, in which letter they were prayed to come thither: and that in their answer back, they declare that all the western bishops sent for them by letters from the most holy Emperor. But (saith he further) it appeareth from this place, that the first beginning of a general counsel is the bishop of Rome, but the means which the Pope useth in that matter is to call them by the emperors letters.  
This is all their report that I find of this matter. I would now but ask them this question whether they tell us thus much, because they believe it, or believe is because they tell it us? If they tell it us as believing it themselves, we can say no otherwise of them, than of him that did accustom to tell lies so fast to others, that in the end he took them for truths himself: if they believe it because they tell it us, our incredulity in this case shall do them good, in advising them not to believe that we will any more take the report of any such matter upon their words; so that if our denial will profit them, I assure them, I will not credit them in any thing without due evidence of the justness of it: 
Ter. in Eunuc. act. 2. scen. 1. Nihil. aliud quam Philumenam volo.  And therefore I give them the council in the Poet quoniam id fieri quod volu●t, non potest, velint id quod possit, since they cannot have what they would, that they would take what they may; But they answer they would have nothing but the Bishop of Rome's supremacy, I say again as the Poet saith in that place, it were much better for than to leave that fancy, rather than by this palpable fraud to go about to persuade it. Al their inferences from that text of Theodoret, are false and merely suggested, either of the Pope's power in calling that counsel of Constantinople; or of their writing to Damasus, & oulie to Damasus, or that they called him their head, or that they confessed themselves his proper members; as they have abused the history.  
The writing which the bishops of the East sent to them of the West, is called, 
The true report out of Theodorete. eccles. l. 5. c. ●.  Libellus Sinodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano ad Episcopas missus. The Council of Constantinoples' declaration sent unto the Bishops. The superscription is, Dominis honoratissimis & cum primis reverendis fratribus ac collegis Damaso, Ambrosio, Brittoni, valeriano, Acholio, Avemio, Basilio, et cateris sanct is Episcopis. To the most renowned, 
Reverend brethren & fellows.  and most especial reverend brethren and fellows Damasus, Ambrose, Briton, Valerian, Acholius, Avemius, Basill, and the rest of the holy bishops gathered together in the famous city of Rome: The holy council of Catholic bishops gathered together in the famous city of Constantinople send health in our Lord. Num quid nam hic quod nolis, 
Ter in Eunuc. act. 2. scen. 2.  vides Bellarmine? Is there any thing here o Bellarmine that thou wouldst not see? Yes, neither me nor that which I have brought. Where do they write to Damasus? Where do they acknowledge him the head, & they the members? Where be the letters sens from his honour? All this, like religious and loving fathers to the Church of God they confess each to other, because they consented in one catholic doctrine, & were of one Catholic church, (though divided by East and West,) whose head is Christ as S. Paul saith, 
Ephes. 4.5.  One Lord, one faith, one baptism. But if you will speak of what they were in respect of themselves, and their authority over each other, 
Sozon. l. 6. c. 23.  they were brethren and fellows. And this Damasus himself knew well enough (although these men defile their consciences for him) when he and other bishops of Italy, did write unto the bishops of Illiricum, That it was meet that all the bishops belonging to the Roman jurisdiction should agree in one. 
Qui Romani ditioni subijciuntur.  And great Marvel it were that Damasus should be so suddenly grown potent, and masterfull over the bishops of the East, when it appeareth that Vrsinius durst check with him for the Popedom; 
Socr. l. 4. c. 24.  as Felix did with Liberius who went next before him, 
Sozon. l. 4. c. 14.  which contention the council of Syrmiun● determined willing them to be bishops both together.  
Now touching the terms of Father & Sons which these men catch at for Damasus behoof; It is clear in the letter that Damasus and the western bishops with him, do say of the Niceene council, that they were their fathers, & that their decrees had armed their faith, 
Patres nostri. Fidem nostram cinxêre.  against the weapons of the Devil. If the Pope's Sovereignty had been without limit, and over all; it had been a very harsh phrase to have named the Roman jurisdiction as Damasus and the rest do. Again, this same council held at Rome, by Damasus, was at the same time with that other of Constantinople, & unto which Damasus summoned and called those of the East, how came it then to pass, that both they could shift themselves from their obedience to Damasus and not to come; and have their council held at Constantinople, whereat neither Damasus nor any for him was present, to be celebrated by so famous a name as The second general council, and so remaineth unto this day, rather than that other of his at Rome, if Damasus were so great at that time, as they would make us believe he was.  
Furthermore, whereas they simper so much about Damasus forsooth of Calling the councelat Constantinople, they cannot tell whether it was done by his advice, or by his authority, or whether he did it at the emperors request or the Emperor at his; or whither their powers were equal; so well have they conned their leer, yet is it plain by the Ecclesiastical history that the Emperor called and summoned it. 
Theodosius called the counsel at Constantinople, anno. 385. Socrat. eccles. hist. l. 5. c. 8.  Imperator nulla mora interposita, concilium Episcoporum, ipsius fidem amplectentium, convocat. The Emperor admitting no delay called a council of Bishops, embracing the same faith which he did, whereby the faith of the Niceene council might be strengthened, and a bishop of Constantinople appointed. Here is no sharing of authority in this point between the Emperor and the bishop of Rome as Sanders would make us believe, 
The Pope's deed and the Emperors all one. Ita ut prima generalis concilij causa fit Romani episcopi, hoc est, primi pastoris convocatio. Moris' fuit ut Papa literas de ea re ad imperatorem daret: is vero papae literi●, acceptis, etiam per suas literas Episcopo● convocarer.  ut ita Papae atque Imperatoris convocatio una eademque esset, that so the Pope's summoning and the Emperors might be but as one act.  
Search all antiquity for these 1300. years, ever since the first famous general council of Nice, and never hear of that practice, except in some petite-graund counsels of their own of late years, such as that was of Trent. And where also Sanders in the process hereof would make us believe, that in those times the bishop of Rome was the first original cause of calling counsels, but the mean whereby he effected that calling was the emperors greatness by his summons, (as also Stapleton beareth us in hand, in the places before cited:) is a mere abuse and absolute forgery without either sense or favour. For he telleth us presently, as if he would purposely frustrate, all that himself had said, that Leo the great did write unto the Emperor Martianus thus, Poposceram a gloriosissima clementia vestra, 
Leo epist. 44. ex Saund. de clave David. l. 4 ● 81. & de visib more l. 7. f. 346. The bishop of Rome desired the Emperor to defer the Counsel. Staplet. ad Eliza. reg. Angliae in epist. praefixa ad Bedan. in Ang. serm. Bellar. de conc & eccles. l. 1. c. 19 fol. 88 89. Leo epist. 58. ex Saund. de visib. mon. l. 7. fol. 352. Vide Stap. ret. of untruths against M. jewel art. 4. fol. 142. 143.  ut synodum, quam pro recuperand●… Orientalis ecclesiae pace à nobis etiam petitam necessariam indicastis, aliquantisper differri ad tempus opportunius iuberetis. I desired of your most excellent Majesty; that you would command that that synod which you thought necessary to be holden for establishing of the peace of the East church, for which I also made suit might have been for a little while deferred to a more convenient time. And this was touching the great general counsel of Chalcedon, which Martianus the Emperor summoned, being often moved thereunto by Leo the Pope, and not only summoned it, but was also present; and not only present but sat in the first place, and sat so ad confirmanda in fidem, to confirm the faith, as before him the good Emperor Constantine did. And when his Majesty was not disposed to sit any longer, he left certain of his secular Princes to sit in his absence. And when the counsel was ended he willed Leo to direct his letters to all the bishops that were present, to signify his consent and allowance to the Articles of faith which they had decreed, which he willingly performed lest any should take occasion to stumble through his default. If the Popes own will and purpose were the first & original cause of counsels, and that the Emperor's duty was but to signify to the bishops, when he had received order from the Pope; Then are they false that tell us (and it is they that tell us) that the Emperor summoned it, and that the Pope obtained so much from him by entreaty, & when the summons was gone out, his holiness prayed it might be deferred, and could not obtain his request. Hardly can it be said that the Emperor and Pope were equal in authority at this time, seeing the Pope by entreaty sought that of the Emperor, which had the matter been as they lay it down he might have compassed by his own power without him. 
The last point touching the succession of the Bishops of Rome.  Let this suffice for these.  
Now for the last point whereof I intended to speak Tuberius, which was touching the succession of the bishops of Rome, for these many hundred years, of which you said at the beginning you had a table, 
Examine their succession upon these points.  because I do imagine that your table is but a bare table of names, without any touch either of the doctrine they taught, or opinion they held, or of the incertainty of the order of their places, or manner of coming into that sea, whether lawfully or unlawfully; you shall therefore have a taste of the weakness of that great pillar whereon you must lean, if you will be a Romanist. Ex successione incertissima incertior fides. From an uncertain succession, is no certain trust to be drawn, and more wisdom were it for than to clear the doubts of their own evidences then to call other in question for theirs. They cry nothing but succession, succession, as though their succession were as David's sling & their bishops had been as so many choice stones in the scrip, which were able to coquere a mighty oppugner; but it hath rather proved like saul's armour buckled to David, more cumbersome than safe for David to wear or for any to trust unto, Successores omnes cupiunt esse, imitatores pauci, 
Bern. in conc. Rhem. f. 361. H.  ut inam ta●… vigiles reperirentur ad curam, quam alacres currunt ad cathedram, saith S. Bernard, They all desire to be the successors (of Peter) few to be followers; I would they could be found to be as watchful in the charge, as they run willingly to the chair. Grant them but to sit at Rome where S. Peter sat, and for any belief, doctrine, ability to teach, virtue, godliness, or almost common honesty, they care not for any. 
Cont. jewel. art 4. fol. 113. 114.  We be plainly taught saith D. harding, that albeit the successors of Peter Christ's Vicars in earth, be found blame worthy for evil life, yet we ought not to dissent from them in doctrine, nor sever ourselves from them in faith. For as much as notwithstanding they be evil, by God's providence for the surety of his people they be compelled to say the good things that be good, 
The Popes be compelled to say the good things they do say.  and to teach the truth the things they speak not being theirs but Gods, who hath put the doctrine of verity in the chair or seat of unity. Which singular grace cometh especially to the sea of Peter, either of the force of Christ's prayer, or in respect of place and dignity which the bishops of that sea hold from Christ, 
The Popes compared to Balaam & Caiphas  as Balaam could be brought by no means to curse that people whom God would to be blessed. And Caiphas also prophesied, because he was high bishop for that year and prophesied truly, being otherwise a man most wicked. And therefore the evil doings of the bishops of Rome make no argument of discrediting of their doctrine, neither ought the evil lives of the bishops of Rome, to withdraw us from believing and following the doctrine preached and taught in the holy church of Rome. 
Annot, in Luc. c. 22. v. 31. Liberius Marcellinus Honorius. They know well that worse than the●e have sat in that seat. Stapl. return of untruths art. 4. f. 111. & 116. Bitont. in ora. Conc. Trident. ex Duraeo contra Whit. rat. 7. fol. 369.  The Rhemists will confess more of their Popes, Liberius (say they) in persecution might yield, Marcellinus for fear (of death) might commit idolatry. Honorius might fall into heresy, and more than all this some judas might creep into the office, yea and all this without prejudice of the office and seat. We do say that the Pope may err (saith Stapleton) and hath erred both in faith and manners touching his own private person. Let it be true (saith he again) that many Popes have forsaken the faith, yea and Christ too, because of their wicked lives & heinous deeds. Cornelius' bishop of Bitonto, in his oration to the holy council of Trent, spoke bitterly to this purpose, utinam à religione ad superstitionem, à fide ad infidelitatem, à Christo ad Antichristum, à Deo ad Epicurum velut prorsus vnanimes non declinâssent. I would to God (saith he) that they had not altogether declined from religion to superstition, from faith to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist, and from God to Epicurus, The penners of the late supplication to the King's Majesty: in the behalf of the papists could not hide this truth, 
Supplic. anno 1604.  that the wicked lives of several the professors, and chief rulers of their religion, could not hitherto, 
Wicked lives in the chief rulers & professors of their religion. A manifest contradiction in the petition.  nor shall not to the world's end, either extirpate or darken the visibility of their Church: & yet very wanton in an other part thereof, they say clean contrary, that the professors & spredders of their religion were always of a known holy life and semblable death.  
Here have they gained a manifest contradiction to themselves, or must confess that by the chief vulers, and professors of their religion, they do not mean the Popes. Thus much you see by their own confession, that in extolling their Popes in general, they will allow them to be Idololaters, heretics, or men of monstrous and beastly lives, so they get but into the chair all is well: be they like unto judas, Caiphas, or to whatsoever accursed miscreant else he is in the place they care not; as though that having once gotten thither, 
Quique ea vitia quae à natura habebat etiam study & attificio quodam maliciea condivisset. Cic. pro Cluentio. Furtum verris amici morbum appellarunt. Cic. l. 4. in verrem.  he were bound to perfect and season himself thoroughly of all those vices which before he had by nature. And so make murder, adultery, incest, conjuration, rapine, theft and such like, no vice but a certain disease uncurable, to follow him that shall fit there, as Verres friends did call his theft, his disease, as though it had been hereditary. And on such Popes as these doth he that gathered your table tell you, that Christ did build his church, and to them he committed his lambs and sheep to be fed, even by their own description to foxes and wolves, traitors, and Apostates, for, for these many hundred years they have been no other. The first of those texts in your table viz: the 16. of Matthew, where it is said, Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: 
The examination of the table. Mat. 16.18  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc. is to short to reach whether you would have it; for in the same chapter it is said by Christ to Peter again, Get thee behind me Satan, 
Cap. ibid. v. 23.  thou art an offence unto me, because thou understandest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. Now because this later rebuke should nothing prejudice the former grant, but that still S. Peter should alone be the Rock, and foundation on whom the Church was built, and also have the keys, and consequently the Popes from him; Bellarmine bestirreth himself earnestly and mainly, to purchase those privileges, 
De Rom. pont. l. 1. c. 10. f. 90. S. Peter was not yet the foundation. Ob. Mat. 18.18.  & yet keep the text sound and not wronged. First therefore (he saith) that when Christ said to Peter, vade post me Satan. Get thee behind me Satan, he was not then the foundation, for in that place Christ did promise that, which he gave him after his resurrection. When we object the other text of Matthew ca 18. for all the Apostles, aswell as for Peter, where Christ said to them all, 
Sol.  whatsoever ye bind on earth shallbe bound in heaven, etc. He answereth, That nothing is there given to the Apostles, but that power only, promised, explained, and foretold, which the Apostles and their successors should afterward have and exercise. We reply, 
Reply.  if neither in that place were the keys given to the Apostles, 
Ibid. c. 12 fol. 102. Whatsoever was promised to Peter in the 16. Matth. was performed to all in the 20. &. 21. of john.  but only promised, in what place then are they given? I answer (saith he) They are given in the twentieth and one and twentieth chapters of S. john's Gospel. Thus hath Bellarmine confessed, that whatsoever was promised in the 16. of Matthew, as it were to Peter alone, or in the 18. of Matthew to all the Apostles, was performed both to Peter & to them all in the 20. and 21, chapters of john, which concession & free grant, although it overthrew both what he would say else where, & all other his fellows in this question of Supremacy for the Pope: yet doth he afterward further enlarge it thus. That the Apostles received all their jurisdiction & power immediately from Christ, 
Bellar. de Roman pont, l. 4. c. 23. The Apostles had their authority from Christ even▪ the same that he had of his father.  it appeareth from the words of Christ, job. 20. As my father sent me so send I you, which words, the ancient fathers Chrysostome and Theophilact do so expound that they do plainly say, That the Apostles were made Christ's Vicats, yea that they did receive the very office and authority of Christ, Cyrill addeth upon this text, That the Apostles, were properly created Apostles and teachers of the whole world, and that we should understand that in the apostolic authority all ecclesiastical power was contained, therefore Christ did add, As my father sent me, surely the father sent his son endued with full power. Where you see that the same thing is given to the Apostles by those words I send you, which was promised to Peter by those I will give thee the keys, & was afterward showed by those, feed my sheep. Thus far Bellarmine, by whose testimony and grant it appeareth, that the rest of the Apostles had as much power in the Church, or over the Church, as S. Peter had, and consequently other bishops in their several places, will have as much as the Pope even by those places of scriptures, which they would challenged to make most for them. 
The order of their succession. Stapl. return of untruths. art. 1. fol. 12. b. calleth Alexander the 5. pope after Peter. & here he is the 7. L. 7. consist Apost. c. 46. ex Bellar. de Rom. pont l. 2. c. 4. f. 192. 193. 195. Damasus in Pontificiale. Tertullian. Jerome. Optatus. Augustine. Epiphanius. Ireneus l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. eccles. hist. l. 3. c. 4 & 2. & l. 4. c. 1. & l. 5. c. 6. & Bell. de Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 15. &. l. 1. c. 27. Vterque Apostolus Romanam ecclesiam fundavit et gubernavit. Annot. 2. G●l● v. 7. fol. 500 In their table and notes at the end of the Acts of the Apostles. & Bellarm. de Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 4. fol. 192. Sanders de visib. mon. l. 7. 222. 223. 224.  Thus much I thought good to show you touching the glorious title of your table. Now for the order. The first is S. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Higinus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherius, which is the fourteenth in number. By the histories and most ancient fathers, this succession is at first disordered and interrupted. Clemens, saith that S. Peter when death did draw near appointed the Roman Bishopric unto him, Dorotheus, (as Bellarmine also telleth us) doth place Linus next after S. Peter, & yet Damasus who was bishop of Rome, and wrote thereof, saith that Linus died before S. Peter. Tertullian placeth Clemens after S. Peter, and so doth S. Jerome. Optatus, and S. Augustine put Linus next Peter and Clemens in the third place; S. Augustine mentioneth not Clerus at all, but utterly discardeth him: so doth Optatus, Epiphanius readeth them thus Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Ironeus, who is ancienter than any of those before, both leaveth out Cletus, and bringeth Clemens after Anacletus. It appeareth further by Ireneus & Eusebius, that they took S. Peter no more for a bishop of Rome than S. Paul. The church of Rome (say they) was found by the two most glorious Apostles Peter & Paul; and so in his catalogue reckoneth them; And then how do you reconcile your table to Ireneus, who maketh Eleutherius to be the 12. but if you take in S. Peter for one; and Cletus for an other, you then make Eleutherius the 14. which is gain said by Ireneus, in whose time Eleutherius lived, and whom by name he calleth the twelve. To confirm this truth the Rhemists themselves confess, that the Church of Rome was founded by S. Peter, and S. Paul. And further they tell us that Prudentius the christian Poet calleth them both Principes Apostolorum princes of the Apostles, giving that title equally to them both: and they themselves call them the two principal Apostles, and the two chief Apostles. The like appeareth also from Epiphanius that ancient father, 
Peter & Paul founded the church at Rome.  who saith In Roma fuerunt prim● Petrus & Paulus Apostoli, ijdem & Episcopi. In Rome were the two Chief Apostles Peter & Paul, and they were bishops also, Cyrillus also calleth them Praesides ecclesiae, Precedents of the church. And touching his bishoplike residence there 25. years, as they say he sat, they are feign to extenuate the time, 
S. Peter often absent.  because he was seldom found there, & say he was often absent from the city. Thus is appeareth that the Church of Rome was founded aswell by S. Paul as S. Peter, and that he had the title of Principal, Chief, & First Apostle as well as Peter. Thus much from an essay of the order of the first 12. But touching the men, 
The first 300. they were all martyrs.  we confess them all good & godly martyrs for 300. yeaers together, to the number of 30. or there about, although Marcellinus in the persecution under the Tyrant Dioclesian did for fear of death offer sacrifice to Idols, yet repenting he died a Martyr. Sun upon this, it pleased almighty God to send ease to his Church in making her chief enemies, her dearest friends, Then began Kings to be her nursing fathers, & Queens to be her nursing mothers. Then first called he Constantinus surnamed the Great to the knowledge of the truth, 
Esay. 49. v. 23. After the first 300. years.  of a Pagan becoming a Christian, putting down Idololatry, and erecting the true service of God. Under him and his sons there lived the Roman Bishops Melchiades, Silvester, Marcus, julius, Liberius, and Felix. 
Strife about Felix. Eccle 1. hier. l. 4 c. 8.  There is much strife in the church of Rome at this and Felix. 
Strife about Felix. Eccles. hier. l. 4. c. 8.  There is much strife in the church of Rome at this day, about this Felix, some of them reakoning him for a Pope and some putting him out. Albertus' Pighius saith, they that register him for a Pope bewray their own ignorance. Bellarmine saith, 
Bell. de Rom. pont. li. 4. c. 9 fol. 509.  their church worshippeth him as Pope and Martyr. The strife between them two about Felix, groweth about Liberius, who was Pope next before him; This Liberius in his banishment under Constantius the Emperor did subscribe to the Arrian heresy, and so in his absence out of the City, Felix was Pope in his room. Thus much doth Bellarmine connfesse of Liberius. And because Pighius most impudently denieth that he subscribed, 
Chron. l. 3. fol. 574. Ammianus Marcellinus Comes. So was Marcellinus martyred, yet he fell before. They were wont to tell us that Christ prayed for Peter, but now they tell us, he prayed for the chair he sitteth on. Contra haer. l. 1. c. 4. Defen. Conc. Trid. li. 2. fol. 244. Fasc. Tempor. in liberio. Platina in liberio. Annot. Onuphrij. Anast. Bibl. in Lib. & Feli. About the year of our Lord. 370. A schism at Rome between Damasus & Vrsinus. Polid. Verg. de inven. rerum li. 5. c. 4. f. 401. Bellar. de cleric. l. 1. c. 18. f. 92. Aug. epist. 93. & l. 2. ad Bonif. cont. 2. epist. Pelag. c. 4.  therefore he shutteth out Felix from being Pope at all. D. Genebrard cannot tell what to say directly on this Felix part. First he telleth us that Ammianus Marcellinus in his Chronicles did pass by him as suspected of heresy, and Onuphrius (one that wished as well to the sea of Rome, as well might be) maketh him a schismatic, and an unlawful Pope, for Liberius over lived him, & obtained the place alone. But other more truer (saith he) do report that he was Martyred in a tumult by the Arrians. And yet in the next words he saith that Felix was appointed by Acatius the disciple of Eusebius into the place of Liberius, and held for an Arian. But such was the force of the Chair, that it would rather hold a Martyr Pope, than an heretic Pope, or one that should favour the heretics. Thus far Genebrard. Alphousus a Castro, maketh no question, but that Liberius was an Arrian heretic. Anàradius is content that we should call him unconstant, faithless, or unjust, but in no case an heretic. Fasciculus Temporun, saith he was the first infamous Pope. If you desire more of these two Popes Liberius and Felix, read or cause to be read unto you Platina who wrote the lives of the Popes, and Onuphrius annotations on him; and Anastatius Bibliothecarius on the same argument, set out by themselves not above three years since: and you shall see diversity enough.  
After those followed Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, Innocentius, Sozimus, Bonifacius, Celestinus, Sixtus 3. and Leo the great. There was a schism then in the Church of Rome, between Damasus and one Vrsinus or Vrcisianus, but Damasus obtained, yet not without blood. Siricius was the first that in the west parts forbade priests to marry, as Polidore Virgil allegeth out of Gratian, whereunto Bellarmine is now fairly come, That it is not forbidden by the law of God that Priests should marry. Innocentius the first, held and taught a dangerous error, that is, That it is necessary to salvation for infants to receive the communion, contrary to Saint Paul's rule, that none should receive, but those that are able to examine themselves, and contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome under Pius quartus in the Tridentine counsel which accurseth those that think the Eucharist is to be given to infants before the years of discretion; 
Sess. 21. can. 4. The bishops of Rome contended with the bishops of Aphrica for superiority. Bonifacius 1. was the son of lucundus a Priest as saith Platina. so was Felix 3 who immediately followed, son unto Felix a Priest. Leo epist. 45. Fasciculus temp Geneb. in Chron. l 3. fol. 600. Eulatius against Bonifacius an. 423. Gelasius was the son of a bishop called Valerius. Plat. in vit. eius. The first 600. years. Gelasius decreed in 2. main points against them now. Anastasius 2. an heretic.  so that the Apostolical seat, in one of these two must needs er. In Sozimus, Bonifacius, & Celestinus time there was much controversy between them & the Aphrican bishops touching appeals to Rome. Sozimus began the claim, and could not make it good, he graced himself with warrant from the Nicene council, which being demanded no canon, nor decree could be showed. The Aphrican bishops deny their appeals thither, and so grew much turmoil. But if all Churches in all cases were subject to the sea of Rome iure divino by God's law, as they would make us believe now, very simple was Sozimus to claim by the Canons of the council of Nice; and very forgetful of their duties were the Aphrican bishops who would put him to prove his authority by an human invention, when the high God had by his laws subjecteth them unto him before. Leo the great, yet was his authority so small, that he could not remove Abbot Eutiches from him, but was forced to entreat the Empress Pulcheria to use her authority therein. By this time there had been four schisms in the church of Rome, yet Genebrard acknowledged but three. After Leo, were Hillarius, Simplicianus, Felix 3. Gelasius, Anastasius 2. Simmachus, Hormisda, john 1. Felix 4. Bonifacius 2. john 2. Agapetus, Silverius, Vigilius, Pelagius, john 3. Benedictus, Pelagius, 2. Gregory the great, & these reacheth down to the first 600. years, Amongst which Gelasius decreed that to minister the holy communion in one kind is open sacrilege and again he defined that the substance of bread and wine remain after consecration, both which are diametrally opposite to the doctrine of the new church of Rome. Anastasius the second was an heretic as appeareth by the histories. Wernerus saith he was the 2, infamous Pope he was a Nestorian heretic as before him his predecessor Liberius was an Arrian, 
Vigilius used indirect means to attain to the Popedone. Huius Vigilij ingressus parum legitimus suit, cum praetet ecclesiasticas regulas praedecessore suo Silverio vivente, & Pontificatus administratione submoto, per vim Pontificatum Romanum occuparit. Onuph. annot. on Plat. in vit. Vigilij. Agapetus and Sylverius, were both Priests sons. Deno●is eccles l 4. c. 8. Bell. ibidem 303. & 304. Ibid fol. 306. Bell. de Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 26. & de conc. & eccles. l. 2. c. 18. Gregory the Great. Bellar de Rom. pont. l. 2. c 31. fol. 324. Stap. ret. of untruths against M●uell. art. 4. fol. 6.  Vigilius wrought means with the Empress Theodora for the removing of his predecessor Silverius out of the Popedom promising her, if she would help him thereto, to call home Anthemius the heretic, whom Agapetus had banished, and so as Bellarmine saith, he played the Catholic at Rome and the heretic abroad, for when he had obtained by most unlawful means what he sought for, he kept no promise with her, by whose procurement he can into the seat: and in effect answered as the foresworn men in times past were wont. juravilingua, mentem iniuratam gero. I swear with my tongue, but I meant otherwise. A very Machivellian resolution. But since Vigilius came in by this indirect means, I demand with what face Bellarmine can make succession of bishops in that sea, an eminent note of the true church Al that come not in by lawful succession and ordination are thieves and robbers. And succession takes no place, but either when bishops die, or are lawfully deposed: For the pope cannot be deposed by any coactive power either Ecclesiastical or civil which conclusions inevitably prove that Vigilius succeeded unlawfully; Silverius being nether dead nor lawfully disposed. And as Bellarmine saith, the pride and ambition of Vigilius drove him into those straits of perjury & shifts which he used; so hath Bellarmine's bad cause coloured with cleanly words, made him gain say in one place, what he affirmeth in an other, which he cannot do, since there are so many eyes to look on, but he shallbe discovered. Gregory the great being the last of those I named last, utterly denied the name of universal bishop, and prainly said Saint Peter was never called universal Apostle: yet Bellarmine reackoneth it amongst the titles of his holiness, and the title universal bishop to be the 15. in number. Howsoever D. Stapleton not so sovereign for the Pope as Bellarmine, saith plainly we call not the Pope universal bishop. The Pope writeth not himself so but servum servorum dei, the servant of God's servants. But what would he practise if he might? I leave that to M. Doctors secret discussing. Thus have you Tuberius a taste of your succession and manners of Popes for the first six hundred years. In none of the Popes of the first three hundred years appeared any stomach towards other churches abroad save in Victor, 
Victor reproved by Ireneus Euseb eccles. history. l. 5. c. 23. 24.  who was next to Eleutherius, who showed himself earnest in excommunicating the Churches of Asia for not keeping the feast of Easter according to the manner of Rome: But he was sharply rebuked for attempting it, especially by Ireneus bishop of Lions in France, in the name of the rest of the brethren there, who would not yield unto him. After Constantine's time down to Gregory the great, I deny not, but men they were tolerable enough, saving for a little ambition creeping in amongst them. And because men are denominated virtuous, whose good gifts are many, and faults not too great, they may go all in the number of good men, even till Gregory, who may be said to be the last of the good, and first of the bad. And of all these passed I will say in respect of them that follow after as noble Sr. Philip Sidney was wont to say of Captains and learders in the wars, when complaint had been made to him of some of them, 
Sr Roger Williams report in his brief discourse of war pag. 2.  Let us love him for his small virtues for a number have none at all. And so is it with those former Popes in respect of those that followed after, only here and there one religious amongst a number of miscreants as one R●scius now and then enriching a whole rabble of counterfeits: For intrusions into the sea, heresy, witchcraft, murder, adulteries, and such like, Rome was the Sentina a sink of sins, a lake of all lewdness, which ever yieldeth perpetual vapours of pernicious and execrable villainies. God do so and more to me, if I report them otherwise than their own histories record. After Gregory the great followed Sabinianus, Bonifacius, 
Geneb. chro. l. 3 fol. 664. Fase. tempor. Platina in vita sabi.  3. Bonifacius 4. Deus dedit. Bonifacius 5. & Honorius the first. Sabinianus hated his predecessor Gregory, insomuch that he burned all his books, he did not any good worthy of memory. This is the 3. infamous Pope, as the Papists themselves confess who lived a bad life and died a fearful death. After Sabinianus came Bonifacius, 
Carion. in chro l. 4. f. 568. & l. 3. fol. 369. The first setting of Mahumets' foot in Arabia was when the Empire began to be divided by the bishop of Rone means. vide Fascicu. temp. anno. 614. Honorius amo nothelite, heretic, who held that christ had but one wil Geneb. Chro. l. 3. fol. 675. ea est vis cathedrae ut cogat bona & vera dicere, non bona facientes, neque vera sentientes nec su●… docere sed aliena permittit. Apolog. thesium joan. Reyn. de sacra. scrip. & eccles. a pag. 351. usque ad finem. Anno. 687. Geneb. Chro. l. 3. fol. 698. Genebi. ibid. fo. 708.  3. who obtained of the Emperor Phocas to be called universal bishop, and head of all churches, about which time, when the fury of Mahumet had prevailed against the churches in the East, the bishop of Rome's authority increased in Europe. And the mystery of iniquity having before wrought did then show itself. And this Phocas who gave that title to the bishop of Rome, was he, that treacherously slew his Master Mauricius, to make himself way to the Empire, & postea multa seelera addidit, and after that, he committed many mischiefs else. And in the end for his reward he was untimely slain according to that saying, Omnis q acceperit gladium, gladio peribit. Whosoever slayeth with the sword, shall perish with the sword. And the reason why Phocas gratified the bishop of Rome with such a title was, be cause upon the slaughter of his Mr Mauricius, he feared the fall of Italy from the Empire, & that by the Pope's means, he might keep the West in safety. Touching Honorius 1. it is notoriously known that he was an heretic condemned by general councils and witness of diverse ancients both Greeks & Latins. They that are disposed to read of him or his cause may consult with A●dradius def. Trid. conc. l. 2. fol. 244. Canus. loc. theol. lib. 6. fol. 213. Pighius. eccles. buy. l. 4. c. 8. Bellarm. de Rom. pont. lib. 4. c. 11. And amongst us D. Reynolds in his conference with Hart. cap. 7. diuis. 2. fol. 237. but especially his defence of his Theses in latin where he hath answered Bellarmine and Caesar Baronius, in whatsoever they could say for the clearing of Honorius. Now from this Honorius downwards towards us the schisms and contentions began a pace: After John 5. who was Pope about the year 687. there grew a schism between one Peter, and one Theodorus, who was created Pope, and yet both of them were expelled and Conon whom your table calleth Cuno, or if you will Zeno, succeeded. After these followed Gregory 2. Gregory 3. Genebrard putteth it upon Gregory 3. that it was he who excommunicated the Emperor Leo for heresy, 
The Emperor Leo excommunicated and deprived for destroying of Images. Geneb. ibid. f. 720. He first absolved the french from their oath to Childericke. Fasc. temp an. 741. Ipsc etiam transtulit imperium a Graecisad francos. Geneb l. 3. fol. 729. Wetnerus in fasc: temp. anno 764. If the devil should sit there, I think they would say the holy ghost preserved the seat in honour & holiness. Coelun undique & undique pontus nothing now but storms & schisms. Anno 800. Geneb. l. 4. f. 771. ao. 824. By this time there had been 10. schisms in the Church.  as he calleth it; But Fasciculus temporum saith it was Gregory 2, that accursed the Emperor Leo for destroying of Images: and that the other Gregory got them approved in a counsel. Next after them was Pope Zacharie, who gave the kidgdome of France from Childricke unto Pipine. And here appeareth the iniquity of that time, when that most famous kingdom of France was translated from the right heirs to strangers. Then followed Stephan 2. who brought the Empire from the Greeks to the French: Then Stephan 3. Paulus 1. Stephan. 4. But Fasciculus temporum and Genebrard place one Constantine 2. next after Paul, who of a lay man became Pope, invading the sea by tyrannyl, who was thrown out again, after he had sat above a year in the sea. And this is the fift infamous Pope amongst so many that had passed before, and so hath the holy ghost preserved that seat in honour and holiness saith Wernerus. And even so I heard a Gentleman praising his servant who was departed from him, to be an honest man, and an honest fellow with iteration again & again, when he knew he had lived in his service, a blasphemer, a swearer, a common drunkard, & a most beastly lecher and one at whose mouth no truth could be hard: But as that Gentleman, seemed not to think sufficiently what honesty was, nether in himself nor in any other, when he would give so reverend a name, to so vicious a person: so did not Wernerus care what he said of honour and holiness when he confessed so monstrous a wretch to have been Pope.  
Then was there 2. schisms one between Theophilacte & Paulus, and an other between Philip and this same bad Constantine, which Philip being chosen by the whole church did sit one year and more, and yet your table hath not that Constantine nor Philipp, nether doth Genebrard nor Saunders reckon either of them for Popes, but pass from Paulus to Stephanus 3. or 4. they know not which coming down to the 800. y. and upwards I find Paschalis 1. Eugenius 2, between whom and one Sisinius there was a schism Wernerus reackoneth it for the eight that had been in that church & Genebrard for the tenth, 
Dame jone about the year 855.  After Eugen. were Valenttius Gregory 4. Sir gius 2. Leo 4. & jone the woman Pope, which your table hath not, nor do your late chronologers reckon her, although they bestir themselves very foully to clear their own stories. For if they be men of their words, they will hold them to this, that the stories that make mention of her, were not of our devising, for they say that our religion came from Luther and Calvin, and was never heard of before their times, who were certain hundreds of years after, the bringers of that matter to light were dead, and therefore they must be Catholics at least, who writ of it; but their labour in this is like the cleansing of a sink, the more they stir the more they stink: And with wise men, the more frivolons excuses are heaped to clear a matter in question, the more will they stick to hear the truth. But what saith Genebrard? Post leonem quartum recentiores, praesertim haeretici, nominant quendam joannem, 
Geneb. l. 4. fol. 779.  8. etc. After Leo the 4. (saith he) the later writers, especially the heretics, do bring in one john. 8. or as Sabellicus saith 7. an English woman, or as other say of Magunce who in a counterfeit kind, sat a year and more, some two year, nam mendacium non sibi constat, for a lie abideth not by itself. This report of his own, 
Is it true, mendacium non sibi constat? & it is as true which Lactantius saith valet vi sua ve●itas. truth will overcome by right tenors lib. 5. c. 13. Omnis in vile caput hoc abcat procella. Senec. in These. act. 5.  he convinceth by these uncertainties. First (saith he) she is said to be the 7. & of some 8. Of some an English woman, of others a Moguntine, of some she is said to sit one year and more, of others 2. years and more. It seemeth by Genebrards' quarreling about these circumstances, he is much afraid that the matter will be proved. But all this storm will light on Genebrards' own head. Turn his book blindsold, & you shall find some variety for the time, or country of many his own undoubted Popes, which his chronicles can never make even. For not many pages before he bringeth in Gregory 4. all. as Leo 4 and by and by again, Leo 4. or 5. he knoweth not which. But Genebrardiam quic quid id est, vel sine causa, vel sera times, whatsoever you fear in this matter either it is without cause or too late. The beast is recorded. And where he further accumulateth errors upon her in saying she is called Anglicus an English woman or Moguntinus, of Magunce in Germany, malice bred that which his wit will not prove: Admitting a doubt that stories should vary, what country woman she was, what saith he to his own Innocentius 1. was he not Albanus sive Scotus, 
Geneb. l. 3. fol. 391.  one of Alba in Italy or a Scot And Celestinus or Celestius, Campanus sive ut alij volunt Romanus, one of Campania or a Roman. 
Ibid. fol. 600.  And of Bonifacius 6. whether he were a Tuscan or a Roman, he knoweth not; for the time he sat, 
Ibid. fol. 799.  magna contentio inter scriptores, there is saith he great contention amongst the writers. After a few cavils more he cometh to this upshot which is a good brag but no proof valeant igitur qui à niles nugas de quadam statua foeminae & sede stercoraria iactitant. God speed them well (or let them be packing, or let them perish and far ill) who brag of their old wives tales, and of the sitting stool, and of the Image of the image of the woman which they say is yet to be seen: 
Read the 6. book of Laurentius valla his eliganties' c. 30 & Lactant. de ira dei. c. 8. for the use of the wordvaleo Ter. in Andria act 4. scen. 2. Saund: de vis. monar. l. 7. fol. 412.  and so indeed valeant qui inter nos dissidium volunt (as the young man in the Poet to which perhaps Genebrard alluded) say I. God speed them well that would set divorce between the truth and us in this case. I will leave Genebrard and come to Saunders, who nothing so shameless as the other but of a far more ingenious and yielding nature in this point, doth confess that she is placed as Pope (by some) next after Leo the fourth. Quodita sievenisset which if it had so happened, yet because it was an error of fact, & not of right, which happeneth in the most wisest, that accident will bring no prejudice to the sea of Rome: But all things should be so reakoned, as if that whole two years wherein she sat, the seat had been void. In deed we need not care for any good they do, 
Nothing will prejudice the sea of Rome.  whether the sea be empty or full, it is all one; they be but painted sepulchres, and as dumb Idols, not so good as old servitors who take their pensions & leave waiting, for they did once good in their lives before their service decayed; and the Popes spend their time before they come, how to get it, and after they have it, how to keep it. Alane Cope another of that brood though fully impudent in other cases, yet is he ashamed to deny the story absolutely, 
Alanus Cope. dial. 1. pag. 47.  but maketh a metamorphosed or changeable excuse, which no man I trow can either disprove or prove (I speak only in scorn of his so base devise) which is, that she might be first a man, and after some time in the seat changed to be a woman. The change is no more unlikely, than that such persons after such change should bear children unheard of, both which be unpossible to all men once to think of, saving to those servants, who are sworn to defend such mistresses as dame jone was. And thus hath he overthrown the fable of joan. 8. 
Lact. instit. l. 1. c. 21. fine.  Quis haec ludibria non rideat, qui habeat aliquid sanitatis, cum videat homines velut mente captos ea serio facere, quae si quis faciat in lusis, nimis loscivus & ineptus esse videatur. Who would not laugh saith Lactantius, at these trifles that hath any spark of wit, when he shall see men doing those things in earnest, as if they were bereft of their wits, whereas if any man should but do them in sport or jest, he would be thought over wanton and lascivious. But to put the matter out of doubt where Genebrard and some other with him do make themselves sport, (as before is said) with the word Anglicus and Moguntinus, referring them to the country, as though it should be in doubt whether she were an English woman or a Moguntine, it is plain to any man not prejudiced in opinion. 
Fascicu. temp. anno. 864. Her name was joan English.  Fasciculus temporum, their own historian saith, Iste joannes Anglicus cognomine, sed natione Maguntinus. This jone English, by birth of Magunce in Germany is said to be about these times: & was a woman disguised in man's apparel; she had so profited in the holy scripture, that her like was scarce to be found, and was chosen to be Pope. But after being great with child as she went in procession she fell in labour and died: 
Sabelli. Aene. 9 l. 1. pag. 469 aut aliter 625 aut aliter 325.  she was plagued of God for it (saith he) nor is she put in the number of the Popes. Sabellicus an other historiographer of their own ancienter than the last recited maketh mention of this Dame Lone. Nullus defunctae honor habitus. There was no honour bestowed at her burial, the report is for the remembrance of her filthy act saith he. They that desire further testimony herein Let them read Bishop jewel in the defence of the Apology of the church of England part. 4. c. 1. diu. 1. fol. 380. 
B. jewel.  And Willet in his Synopsis Papismi. contro 14. quaest. 10. fol. 218. 
Andr; Willet.  Presently after Pope Joan followed that unhappy time in the sea of Rome so much lamented, in so much that Wernerus in Fasciculo temporum crieth out Heu heu domine Deus quomodo obscuratum est aurum mutatus est color optimus, 
Foscicu. temp. fol. 68 a dom. 884. & 904.  quâlia contigisse circa haec tempora etiam in sancta sede apostolica quam usque huc tanto zelo custodisti legimus scandala. Oh Lord God saith he, how is thy gold made dark and unknown. 
Look what happened in these times to the sea of Rone.  The best colour is changed, what reproaches do we read of that happened in these times even to the sea apostolic which hitherto thou hast kept with so great watchfulness, what contentions strifes, sects, envies, ambitions, intrusions, and persecutions hath there been. O the very worst time, wherein holiness is wanting, & faithfulness is fled from the sons of men. Then was there a monster with a dogs head, 
A monster presented to the Emperor.  and members like a man, presented to the Emperor: And well might it (saith he) show the deformity of that time, when as men wandered here and there without an head, 
Chron. l. 4. fol 794. anno 885  as dogs run a bout barking. Genebrard confesseth that some historians following Sigebert in his Chronicles, after Martin 2. (of some called Marinus who got the Popedom by ill means) place one Agapetus who was Pope one year; & likewise between Adrian 3. (who by ordinary account followed the said Martin) and Stephan 6. or 5. (who succeeded Adrian) they place one Basill, who as they say sat 4. years. But we saith he follow Platina, 
For. 150 years together to the number of 50. pope's they all revolted from the faith.  & a great part of writers. This is that time, or near about wherein he also confesseth that for 150. years together to the number of about 50. Popes from john 8. to Leo 9 they were alout of order and rather Apostatates then Apostilicke, Amongst which infamous Popes were these especially playing their parts as it were on a stage, Martin 2. Stephan, Formosus, john 9 Sergius 3. john 12. Sylvester 2. A brief of their dealings is this. 
Bell de Rom. pont. l. 4 c. 12.  Formosus being a Cardinal and a bishop was deposed and degraded by john 8. and got him out of the city, swearing he would never return and become bishop again. After the death of john 8. Martin 2. absolved Formosus of his oath, restoring him to his former dignity, not long after Formosus was created bishop. Stephan succeeded, & being carried with a strong hatred towards Formosus, not knowing or not believing that Pope Martin had absolved him of his oath, decreed publicly in a counsel of bishops that Formosus was never lawful Pope, and therefore his acts to be frustrate. This dealing displeased many & therefore 3. Popes in order Romanus 1. Theodorus 2. and especially john 9 called an other counsel of bishops, declaring that Formosus was lawful Pope, and revoked the sentence of Stephan. But Sergius the third did in all things, as Stephan before him had done. Moreover Stephan took up the carcase of Formosus out of the grave. & cut of 3. of his fingers & cast it into the stream of Tiber, an inhuman and barbarous deed, yet may he be a saint in respect of some that follow after; 
Plat. Fasci. Son unto Sergius the Pope. Platin● in vit cius. De Rom. pone. l. 2. c. 29. r. 310. Polid. Vergil. de invent rerum l. 5. c. 8. De Rom. pont l. 4. c. 12. fol. 535. ann 900. Ex lactant. l. 5. c. 16. fine de officio viri iust●̄.  john 12. was a monster of monsters for pride, whoredoms, adulteries, simonies, sacrileges, blasphemies, in cest; murders, perjuries, and such others. Bellarmine saith Fuit iste joannes omnium pontificum ferè deterrimus. Almost the worst of all Popes, was john 12. Silvester 2. as saith Polidore Vergil got the Popedom by no good means, in his desire to rule, he consulted with the devil about the length of his life. He did the devil homage saith Wernerus. The age wherein he lived, was an unlearned and ungodly age saith Bellarmine. There is no way that I see, to safe the honour of these bishops in this sea of Rome at this time, except we will adventure to say of these bad men, in a word, as Euripides did of Good. Quae hic mala putantur, haec sunt in caelobona. Who are here reckoned for nought, are in heaven esteemed virtuous, D. Saunders maketh a digression, from his ordinary business in hand, 
Saund. de visib monar. l. 7 fol. 420. anno. 895. usque ad 912. Rom. 12.21. The corruption and bad life of the Popes, is brought in as an argument to confirm the good estate of the church of Rome. is the sickness in the head, a proof of the body's perfection? Here hath Bellarmine lost 2. of his principal notes of his church, that is, The agreement and kniting of the members with the head. And holiness of life nether of which by their own confession was at Rome in those times: And yet he maketh them notes & marks of the catholic church: and consequently of the church of Rome. Bel. de notis eccles. l. 4. c. 10. & 13. Still the ill Popes are his best proof of the goodness of the church. Hereby the chair he must mean the chair of Wood at Rome or the people living there if the first it is ridiculous: if the later we never doubted, but the christian people who are the church, may well stand & flourish without such an head, as he hath described many of them to be.  in excuse of the Popes advanced in these times; in devoureth to prove that the church of Rome hath endured all manner of temptations and in the end obtained victory (I trow he meaneth such a victory, as those have had who have been overcome of evil, & sold themselves as slaves to iniquity) First the persecution stood (saith he) by the heathen Emperors, then by heretic Emperors, and their adherents and then by the Popes themselves, underminding that sea most of all, & doing what in them lay to overthrow the church for ever. His words be these. Tunc enim Pontifices Romani. After (saith he) followed the Roman bishops, whose glory & ambition moving them, carried with a desire to cross each other, gave manifest testimony, that no kind of temptation was omitted, which did not endeavour to ruinated that sea. Nether without these things had that promise been so admirably performed, in the eyes of all, when it was said, The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Rock, set there by Christ, whether by the gates of hell we understand the tyranny of the prince of this world, or heresies, and schisms, or sins & lewd manners, except the seat of Peter had been assaulted by all those means, when yet it could not be utterly overthrown by all these But now after so many persecutions of the Emperors, after so many domestical schisms, which even for the sea of Rome the Popes themselves did stir up and raise; after so many heresies abroad by which the sea of Rome hath been attempted, tamen cathedra & successio Petrinon modo aliqua est, verum etiam stat, yet the Chair and succession of Peter is not only somewhat, but also standeth flourisheth & hitherto reigneth, when the other Patriarchal seats are fallen, unde iste honor Cathedra Romana? But whence cometh this honour to the Chair of Rome? What, from the deserts of the Popes? I believe it not (saith he) For they, although for these 800. years almost they have been very good, yet at this present, and often afterward they deserved very ill, insomuch that if you look unto the deeds of the men it seemeth that that church should have been buried in perpetual oblivion. 
An impudently, for he knoweth and they all confess Liberius was an Arrian heretic and Honorius was a Monothelite heretic, if any trust be to be given to general counsels, Popes, or ancient writer.  For scarce is there any sin (but heresy) which may be imagined, but that sea hath been defiled with it. And why it hath not fallen into heresy, no reason can be given but that God's goodness preserveth it. For seeing heresy which is accompanied with blindness of heart, is never the first offence of any man, but a punishment of greater which had gone before; I do not think that any more grievous sins have been either in the seas of Alexandria, Antioch, or Constantinople, then in the sea of Rome. And therefore (saith he) seeing every man (even the bishop of Rome also) is by nature a liar even so touching his own person, he shall be so accounted by me: yet God in the mean time should be so far forth credited to be true that we should think (as the matter is apparent indeed) that he hath set the seat and succession of Peter on a most sure rock, 
How agreeth this conclusion with those premises. Sciant igitur heretici. Esay 5.20.23. Every man is a liar. Saund. Every man may er in the faith Alp. a Castro. adv: haeres. l. 1. c. 4. Fidei catholicae propugnator. Genebra: chr. l. 4. f. 1126. The Pope may fall into heresy.  on which no false doctrine either of Faith or manners could ever alight, because Christ said to Peter I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, etc. Let the heretics therefore know, that the more & more grievous sins they produce against the bishops, our faith (saith he) doth stand the stronger. Thus far Saunders; Where any man may plainly see, that if that curse denounced by the Lord in the Prophet Esay, woe unto them that speak good of evil, & evil of good, which put darkness for light, & light for darkness, do appertain, or was ever directed against any, it will fall on them who build their faith one such a foundation. Again where he saith Omnis homo mendax etiam Romanus pontifex, every man is a liar, yea the Pope also, his old fellow Alphonsus a Castro (a strong maintainer of the catholic faith as Genebrard calleth him) could write against heretics such as Luther was, and yet say boldly Omnis homo errare potest in fide otiam si Papa sit. Every man may err in the faith, yea though he be Pope. For it is certain saith he, Pope Liberius was an Arrian heretic and Pope Anastasius favoured the Nestorians, of this whosoever hath read the histories, doth not doubt; & whereas some do affirm that he which erreth in the faith▪ obstinately, is not then Pope, & by that means the Pope cannot be an heretic est in re seria verbis velle iocari, it is to trifle with words in a serious matter, for according to that reason a man may impudently affirm, that no faithful man may err in the faith, for when he is an heretic, he than ceaseth to be a faithful man. Nether do we doubt saith he, whether One man may be a Pope and an heretic both together, but this we seek whether a man who otherwise is subject to err his pontificial dignity do free him: 
The pontifical dignity cannot privilege him who is otherwise subject to err.  I do not believe that there is any so shameless a flatterer of the Pope that he will say he cannot err or be deceived, in the interpretation of the scripture, for seeing it is certain that many of them have been so unlearned, that they have not understood their Grammar, how is it then, that they should interpret the holy scriptures. Thus far hath Alphonsus gone, if not too far. To conclude this inference against Saunders it must not be forgotten, that he hath described and confessed the Pope of Rome who with him is Christ's vicar, to be such an one endued with such qualities, as no honest, religious, virtuous, holy, faithful, or good man, or any child of God or member of Christ was ever said to be furnished with. 
S. Paul to the Rom. c. 16. 17.  S. Paul gave to the Romans, & other churches these lessons touching the holiness of their lives. Now I beseech you brethren, mark them diligently which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which he hath learned & avoid them: For they that are such serve not the Lord jesus Christ but their own bellies, & with fair speech and flattering deceive the hearts of the simple. Walk wisely towards them that are without, and redeem the time, Let your speech be gracious alwaise and powdered with salt; that you may know how to answer every man, 
Colloss. 4.5.6. Cap. 3.15.  Let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which ye are called in one and be ye gracious. Abstain from all appearance of evil. And of himself who was a teacher he saith. We command you brethren in the name of the Lord jesus Christ, 
2. Thess. 3.6.  that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh inordinately, and not after the instruction which he received of us; for ye yourselves know, how ye ought to follow us for we behaved not ourselves inordinately amongst you. And to the Hebrews he writeth thus, 
Cap. 13.17.18.  Obey them that have the oversight of you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give accounts that they may do it with joy and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you, pray for us for we are assured that we have a good conscience in all things, desiring to like honestly. 
Hooker eccl. pol. l. 5. para. 1. Nullum ego consilium melius arbitror, quam si exemplo tuo fratrem docere studeas, qu● oporteat, quae non oporteat fieri, provocans cum ad meliora, & consulens ci, non verbo, neque lingua, sed opere & veritate. Bern. de adu. domini. serm. 3.1. Peter: 2.6.8. Esay. 28.16 & 8.14.  Now since it is no particular conceit but a matter of sound consequence that all duties are by so much the better performed, by how much the men are more religious from whose abilities the same proceed, Godliness being the chiefest top and wellspring of all true virtues, even as God is of all good things, how is it possible that these Popes and church of Rome should hold and keep Christ's regency here on earth, to command and appoint laws and statutes to all Christians, and Christian churches; and be as it were, a communality free from all error, at least of doctrine, claiming from a text of scripture which requireth not only a not failing in faith, but a strengthening of their brethren that shall slide: when they themselves in the mean while shall be a company faithless, irreligious and unjust, yea a loathsome distressed number divorced from all piety, religion, and godliness. Is this the stone that S. Peter meant, when he said, recording the words of the Prophet Esay, Behold I put in Zion a chief corner stone, elect and precious, & he that believeth therein shall not be ashamed. A stone to stumble at, and rock of offence, even to them that stumble at the word being desobedient, as Bellarmine implieth where he saith, 
Bellar. in pref. in lib. de Rom. pont. fo. 10. 11.  quanquam haec verbs in Christum praecipue convenire non ignoramus, cadem tamen ●on inept in Christi vicarium quadrare censemus, although we are not ignorant that those words are principally meant of Christ, 
About the year 1058. In Fasc. temp. Benedict was Pope 9 months and after expulsed and thrown out. john 10. he that entereth not by the door is a thief & a robber. Gregory 7. Benno in vita eius. If nothing be in the Chalice but the blood of Christ, how could poison be mingled with it? Geneb. Chro. l. 4. fol. 887. A schism 29. years. For the full truth of the history of Henry 4. Emperor & Gregory 7. Pope read the dialogues of my Lord Winton. p. 3. f. 430. etc. The counsels accused him of all those vices that Cardinal Benno did.  yet we do not think amiss when we say that they do belong also to Christ's vicar the Pope. A horrible blasphemy, if ever there were any. But I will leave this and turn to their succession again. Leo. 9 being the last I mentioned, I am come unto the year 1058. about which time I find an other troublesome account Victor 2. Stephan 10, or 9 Benedict. 9 or 10. and Nicholas 2. Touching which Benedict, Genebrard confesseth that by some he is not reakoned for any Pope, yet doth he retain him: Wernerus saith, he gate the Popedom by force, and after 9 months gave it over.  in his catalogue hath him not. Platina delivereth touching this Benedict that by the mean of one Hildebrand (who afterward came to be Pope,) he was expulsed, because he entered not by the door (as the Gospel speaketh) but by force, & bribery, so much also doth Onuphrius confess, who would not have him reakoned, yet doth Platina first, and Genebrard after, put him into the number. The table which you have omitteth him. By this time there had been 14. schisms, in the Church of Rome. Within a few years after followed Gregory, 7. and Victor. 3. The former of which two is accused by Cardinal Benno, one of the same Church and time with him, to be an heretic, a necromoncer, a seditious person, and an adulterer. The later of them was poisoned in the Chalice, by means of the Emperor Henry 4. as saith Platina & Genebrard. Genebrard speaketh of a schism in Rome about the year 1080. which lasted 29. years, and happened thus. Rodulph the duke of Suevia being slain, who was chosen Emperor by certain princes of Germany at the persuasion of the Pope; Henry the Emperor in a counsel holden at Brixia by the bishops of Italy, Lombardy and Germany purged himself of those matters which the Pope laid against him, & laid them to his holiness charge and brought in Gilbert Archbishop of Ravenna to be Pope who was called Clemens 3. who sat 17. years or as some reckon 21. and yet is now clean left out. And here again doth Genebrard deplore the miserable estate of the Church of Rome then. After this, about the year 1130. 
A great schism which lasted 7 years was taken up by S. Bernard. a●. 1138. Geneb. l. 4. fo. 918. Fasc. temp. The Cardinals got the sole election of the Pope into their hands anno. 1144. Geneb. ibid. f. 932. an. 1159. Alexander 3. pontifex contra quem sedebant. Victor 1. Calixtus 2. Pascalis 3. What faction had the Emperor. when for 1000 years after Christ, the bishop of Rome could not be chosen without the Prince's consent. The Gibellines, were of the family of the Columes & the Gelph● were of the family of the Vrsines. Frederick. 2. The Empire was void by means of his deposition 28. years. Geneb. Chro. l. 4. fol. 967. & 974.  There was one Anacletus 2. otherwise called Peter who by certain Cardinals was chosen Pope in a schism against Innocentius 2, and obtained the place 7. years, after his death Victor 4. was created by Cardinals of his own faction, who when he had sat certain months gave it over to Innocentius by the persuasion of S. Bernard, in compounding of which schism he laboured seven years. Then followed Celestinus 2. he was the first created Pope without any voice or allowance of the people, according as the law of Jnnocentius had ordained, by which law the people was wholly excluded from any assembly which concerned the Popes, & the election of them was altogether in the Cardinals, and by little & little the chief of the clergy were also debatred, and the choice was fitted to the college of Cardinals. Little more than 16. years after Genebrard telleth us of an other great schism which lasted 20. years between one Octavianus who was called Victor. 4. against Alexander 3. which fell (saith he) by means of a division amongst the Cardinals who were of the emperors faction. Here hath Genebrard cast in a word, but it is a word or untruth, for he told us a little before that the Election was wholly brought into the Cardinal's hands even where they desired it. And Victor being dead Calixtus 3. continued the schism and sat almost 6. years, and then after the death of Calixtus, Paschalis 3. called before johannes was by certain Cardinals chosen Pope, but at length he was commanded by Frederick the Emperor to renounce the seat, and so the schism ended, after he had sat seven years, by this it rather appeareth that the Emperor pacified the schism, than that he animated it. In these times, were the factions of the Gibellines, and Gelphes in Italy brandishing their sword, the Gibellines taking part with the Emperor Frederick, (who was thrice excommunicated by Gregory 9) & the Gelphes with the Popes. They wasted that country the space of 260. years. They began under Alexander 3. in the year 1160. & so continued until anno 1420. This dealing on the Pope's side, may rather beseem S. Paul's sword then S. Peter's keys; I have now no memorable thing to speak of until I come to the rule of Boniface 8. 
Boniface. 8. a●. 1294. Intravit ut vulper, regnavit utleo, mortuus est canis. Geneb. l 4 f. 1000 Fascicul. temp. fol. 83. De Rom. pont l. 2. c. 1. john 22. held an error. Geneb. l. 4. fol. 1045. an. dom. 1378. It was ended under Martin 5. about the year 1417.  He called himself Lord of the whole world aswell in temporal things as in spiritual. He instituted the year of Grace or jubilee, from 100 years to an 100 and caused the first to begin in the year 1300. This is he of whom it is said He entered like a fox, he reigned like a lion, he died like a degge. A while after followed 7. Popes in order Clemens 5. john 21. or 22. or as Genebrard saith 23. Benedict 12, Clemens 6. Innocentius 6. Vrbanus 5. & Gregory 11. which seven were all none residence and never came at Rome, but abode in France, as saith Bellarmine. This john here mentioned (whether the 21. 22. or 23.) held an absolute and gross error which is, That the souls of the blessed see not God until the last day. A while after these began the hottest & most grievous schism that ever the Church of Rome endured, it continued as some of them write 50. years, as some 40. as some 30. and as some above all these 52. In so much that learned & quiet men could not tell to which side to lean. It held with great slander to the Clergy, and hurt of souls, in respect of heresies & other errors, which then began to bud, because there was no discipline in the church against such. And therefore during the times of Vrbarius 6. (who was next to Gregory 11.) and Bonifacius the 9 Innocentius, 7. Gregory 12. Benedict. 13. Alexander 5. john 23. (or after some 22. or 24.) and Martin 5. no man can tell who was the lawful and undoubted Pope as saith Wernerus. 
In Fasc. temp. fol. 86. a. The Precedent of the counsel was thrown out Geneb. l. 4. fol. 1059.  To appease the confusion of which time, the council of Constance was gathered in Germany (John the 23. being precedent at the beginning: whereat was present the Emperor Segismundus:) against the schism of the three Popes that then were, john 23. sat at Benonia, Gregory the 12, at Ariminum; and Benedict. 13. in Spain; 
Then had christ never a vicar at that time. Lib. de Rom. Pont. l. 4 c. 14. Counsel of Constance. Camp. ratio 4. de concilijs. The counsel undid, what the Emperor confirmed. Bellar. de con. & ecces. l. 1. c. 5. 6. 7. Why doth Bellarmine give us such a distinction of counsels which none of his fellows ever did, but because he ever hath one devise which they never thought of Ter. in Phor. act. 2. scen. 2. non te horum pudet, at si talentum rem reliquisset dece●… primus esses memoriter progeniem vestram usque ab avo atque●tar● preferen●.  which three were quite thrown out, and Martin. 5. elected the undoubted Pope. john, was accused in that counsel, as denying the life everlasting and the resurrection of the flesh. It is answered, he was not the lawful & true Pope because there were 3. at that time, whose factions had all great favourites, and learned advouchers. The counsel pronounced of him that he was a sink of sins, a devil incarnate. Bellarmine confesseth there were 53. articles proved against him, and that he was of so lewd a life, as though he had believed there should be no judgement hereafter. But see the mischief; This council of Constance that thus condemned and threw out the Pope, condemned also john hus (a good Christian) for an heretic. In that, they extol & receive the counsel; in renouncing the Pope they do not: hus had the emperors safe conduct to come and go freely to the counsel; but the bishops nothing regarding the emperors warrant overthrew the deed and put him to death, who put himself into their hands, Caesar obsignavit, Christianus orbis resignanit, maior Caesare. The Emperor signed the warrant, (saith Campion) but the Counsel disannulled it; who is greater than the Emperor. To save the credit of this counsel for dealing against hus and the Pope too, Bellarmine hath devised a quadruple partition of the allowing or disallowing of counsels by them. 1. he mentioneth general Counsels which he alloweth. then general counsels which he disalloweth. 3. he hath sun counsels, which are partly to be allowed, & partly to be disallowed. of which last sort of the counsel of Constance with him. For (saith he) touching the first sessions where they did enact that a general counsel should be above the Pope, it is to be disallowed: But in respect of the last sessions, & those things which Pope Martin 5. aloud, it is received by all catholics? But what saith the Poet, Vide, avaritia quid facit? see what covetousness can do: no▪ Vide, impudentia quiafacit, see what impudence can do. Are they not a shaned of this, now that they i'll their own Pops & their own counsels. Let us now see how the form of that Church stood after Martin 5. to whom succeeded Eugenius 4. against whom was chosen by the Counsel of Bazil one Foelix 5. called before Anadaeus Duke of Savoy, 
The counsel of Basill deposed Pope Eugenius.  which Felix after he had satin 9 years, did freely give it over again. Then there was a new schism began, the cause was whether the Pope were above a general counsel; 
Fasc. temp. fol. 89. Conscientia. Conscience. Solum entia sponsan Christi guberna●e videmus. Sand. de visib. monar. l. 7. fol. 516. Eccles. hie●ar. l. 6. c. 2. fo. 402.  or a counsel above the Pope. These times were so miserable touching their Popes and Church that of CONSCIENS which before that time was somewhat, the two first syllables were abated and only ENS stocks and blocks left to govern the spouse of Christ, which is his church. This counsel of Bazil is reakoned by Bellarmine amongst those which are partly allowed, and partly disallowed: And yet Sanders absolutely condemneth it as unlawful for offering to depose Eugenius, and therefore (saith he) it gave occasion of a great schism. Albertus' Pighius with one breath concludeth that both those counsels of Constance and Basill concludeth both against order and nature, against the cle●re light of the Gospel and against all antiquity, 
In opusc. Caiet. de author pap. & conc. c. 8. in princ.  and against the Catholic church. Caietane is much busied also with the credit of those two counsels, the one confirming the decrees of the other, he feareth to call that of Constance a general or Ecumenical counsel because it subjecteth the Pope to a council, and so opened a gap which should have been shut. 
Defenc. Trid. Conc. l. 2. fol. 428. 429.  Andradius is resolute, that the counsel was general and may be so reakoned, and interpreteth it, not as if they had decreed simply that the Pope should be subjecteth to a council in general, 
The shepherd renteth & teareth the flock. Now they praise those 2. counsels. unto us. Hard. cont. jewel twice in the 2. artic. for the communion in on kind.  but only when they rend and tear Church by dissension, and making of parts to get the popedom as then they did, then for a general council to be stickler amongst them is not amiss. The testimony of these men before-prized, what shall we say to those, who do obtrude both these Counsels of Constance and Bazil unto us not only in matters of fact, touching the condemning of john Husse and Jerome of prague, but also in matters of doctrine & faith, & in no small matters nether, but for proof of their mass, and the denying of the Laity, the use of the cup in the Lord's supper, 
Alien for the Mass de euch. sacraf. l. 2. fol. 558. & l: 1. c. 21. fol. 343, Canus loc. theol. lib. 12. fol. 416. Sand. de visib. monar. l. 8. c. 10. For the Church of Rome's credit. Andrad Orth. explic. l. 7. fol. 615. Horace epist. l. 1. ad Fuscum. Arist. Vrbis amatorem Fuscum salvere jubemus juris ama tores▪ hac in re scilicet una multum dissimiles ad caetera penè gemelli. The residue down to our time. Alexander. 6. father unto Caesar Borgia Duke of Valence. L. 6. c. 23. L. 3. &. 6. Geneb. chron. l. 4. fol. 1097. Bellica gloria quam pontificia clarior.  & that without any manner of scruple or doubt of the authority and credit of them (whereof their former fellows do dispute) but as if their decrees, were the perfect & sound oracles of Gods universal church, agreeing with the sacred and holy scripture. They are in this like to those friends in Horace who though they studied all one thing, yet they did choose a divers kind of life. And so the Poet biddeth the lovers of the Country life, to salut the lovers of the city life, and though in that they were much unlike; yet in other things they were even twins. So must Andradius, Harding, Allen, Canus, shake hands with Pighius, Sanders, and Caietane, Bellarmine crying aim, and fully consenting with neither. But to go forward from Eugenius 4. last mentioned, there are none memorable until we come to Alexander 6. unto whom these succeeded; Pius 3. julius 2. Leo 10. Adrianus 6. Clemens 7. Paulus 3. julius 3. Marcellus 2. Paulus 4. Pius 4. Pius 5. Gregory 13. Sextus 5. Vrbanus 7. Gregory 14. Innocentius 9 And Clemens 8. now 2. years since dead. For Alexander 6. I find no words answerable to his wickednesses; an Orator may hold a scroll in his hand and not speak, being astonished to think what an husband the spouse of Christ had all the while he lived, vincit officium lingua sceleris magnitudo saith Lactantius, the weight of the mischief kept the tongue silent. He excelled in all kind of wickedness & mischief; he had many bastards, one he made Duke of Valence, who was called Caesar Borgia, whom he intended to have made Lord of all Italy. Read of him and his villainies in their own Italian history of Guictiardin●. His son & himself died of the same poisoned wine, which was prepared for certain Cardinals, such a serpent held the seat of Peter 10. years, till his own poison killed him. julius 2. was a notable warrior, he moved war against the Lords of Bonony, Perusium, and the land about, against the Venetians, Duke of Ferarra, the state of Genua, and the French king, and therefore as his own parasite saith of him, He was more honourable in warlike prowess, than in bishoplike practice. For the rest that follow from julius 2. to Clemens 8. the times are yet too young for us to know any memorable act of theirs, they who come after us, shall peradventure, have their dealings also brought to light. Thus much at last I would have you to remember, 
Read the answer unto a seditious Bull sent into England by Pyus 5. anno dom. 1569: by john jewel late bishop of Salisbury, in the 12 year of her majesties reign. Regnum Angliae proscripfit, praedaeque exposuit, Geneb. chron. l. 4 fol. 5. Vrbanus 1169. God let Queen Elizabeth see 7. of her enemies Popes of Rome alive & dead viz. Pius 5. Gregory 13. Sixtus. 7. Gregory 14. Innocentius 9 Clemens 8.  That Pius the fift, and Gregory the thirteenth, two of the last recited Popes did mightily bend themselves against Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory, & against the whole nobility and commons of the Realm by excommunicating of her person, and absolving of her subjects from their oath and obedience, and exposed the realm and state to strangers as a pray, as much as in them lay. But the great God lehova, who her Majesty did always serve in sincerity and truth gave her health, peace, and life, to see the decay not only of them two, but of alitter of rowre more, whose ends she saw, and the seventh in being when God called her highness to her blessed sleep. Thus Tuberius have I run over many histories in brief to give you a taste both how the succession and chair of Rome hath stood, as also a touch of the faith, life, honesty and manners of the men in the Chare, for these 1600. years; yet you must not think that I have said the hundred part, which might be by some others followed touching the enlarging of every thing whereof I have discoursed: And touching the former part of our conference which was concerning some points of religion, do but view them again, and consider their manner of handling them, by many falsehoods and sleights, weakness in arguments, & dissension one amongst an other, and there is no question, but you will give judgement against them, and settle your persuasion with us: because they themselves have set it down for a ruled case, that wheresoever there is any craft, sleight, shift, obliquity, or in any one point a manifest lie, there cannot be the simplicity of truth; And that there is such with them let him that will not believe me first view their books, & then confute. I pray God that you may make such use of my labour herein as I wish and I know the truth of it doth deserve.  Tuberius 
I thank you much for your pains, but more for your so well wishing unto me. God I hope will incline my heart to the apprehension of the truth of your discourse herein. And so far you well.   

The names of the Bishops or Popes of Rome for these 1600. years according to the usual account.  


S. Peter.  
Linus.  
Cletus.  
Clemens.  
Anacletus.  
Evaristus.  
Alexander.  
Sixtus.  
Telesphorus.  
Higinus.  
Pius.  
Anicetus.  
Soter.  
Eleutherius.  
Victor.  
Zepherinus.  
Calixtus.  
Vrbanus.  
Pontianus.  
Anterus.  
Fabianus.  
Cornelius.  
Lucius.  
Stephanus.  
Sixtus. 2.  
Dionysius.  
Felix.  
Eutichianus.  
Caius.  
Marcellinus.   the first 300. years. 

Marcellus.  
Eusebius.  
Melchiades.  
Silvester.  
Marcus.  
julius.  
Liberius.  
Felix. 2.  
Damasus.  
Siricius.  
Anastasius.  
Innocentius.  
Sozomus.  
Bonifacius.  
Celestinus.  
Sixtus. ●.  
Leo.  
Hillarius.  
Simplicius.  
Felix. 3.  
Gelacius.  
Anastatius. 2.  
Symmachus.  
Hormisda.  
johannes.  
Felix. 4.  
Bonifacius. 2.  
johannes. 2.  
Agapetus.  
Silverius.  
Vigilius.  
Pelagius.  
johannes. 3.  
Benedictus.  
Pelagius, 2.  
Gregorius.   the next 300. years. 

Sabinianus.  
Bonifacius, 3.  
Bonifacius, 4.  
Deus dedit.  
Bonifacius, 5.  
Honorius.  
Severinus.  
johannes, 4.  
Theodorus.  
Martinus.  
Eugenius.  
Vitalianus.  
Adeodatus.  
Domnus.  
Agatho.  
Leo, 2.  
Benedictus, 2.  
johannes, 5.  
Cuno.  
Sergius.  
johannes 6.  
johannes, 7.  
Sisinnius.  
Constantinus.  
Gregory, 2.  
Gregorius, 3.  
Zacharias.  
Stephanus, 2.  
Stephanus, 3:  
Paulus.  
Stephanus, 4.  
Adrianus.  
Leo, 3.  
Stephanus, 5.  
Pascalis.  
Eugenius, 2.  
Valentinus.  
Gregorius, 4.  
Sergius, 2.  
Leo, 4.  
Benedictus, 3.  
Nicholaus.   in the year 858. 

Adrianus, 2.  
joannes, 8.  
Martinus, 2.  
Adrianus, 3.  
Stephanus, 6.  
Formosus.  
Bonifacius, 6.  
Stephanus, 7.  
Romanus.  
Theodorus 2.  
joannes 9  
Benedictus 4.  
Leo 5.  
Christophorus  
Sergius 3.  
Anastasius 3.  
Lando.  
joannes 10.  
Leo 6.  
Stephanus 8.  
joannes 9  
Leo 7.  
Stephanus. 9  
Martinus 3.  
Agapetus 2.  
joannes 12.  
Leo 8.  
joannes 13.  
Domnus 2.  
Benedictus 5.  
Banifacius 7.  
Benedictus 6.  
joannes 14.  
joannes 15.  
joannes 16.  
Gregory 5.  
Sylvester 2.  
joannes 17.   now are we come to the 1000 year. 

joannes 18.  
Sergius 4.  
Bonedictus 7.  
joannes 19  
Benedictus 8.  
Gregorius 6.  
Clemens 2.  
Damasus 2.  
Leo 9  
Victor 2.  
Stephanus 10.  
Nicolaus 2.  
Alexander 2.  
Gregorius. 7.  
Victor, 3.  
Vrbanus, 2.  
Paschalis, 2.  
Gelasius, 2.  
Calixtus, 2.  
Honorius, 2.  
Innocentius, 2.  
Celestinus, 2.  
Lucius, 2.  
Eugenius, 3.  
Anastasius, 4.  
Adrianus, 4.  
Alexander, 3.  
Lucius, 3.  
Vibanus, 3.  
Gregorius, 8.  
Clemens, 3.  
Celestinus, 3.  
Innocentius, 3.  
Honorius, 3.  
Gregorius, 9  
Celestinus, 4.  
Innocentius, 4.  
Alexander, 4.  
Clemens, 4.  
Gregory, 10.  
Innocentius, 5.  
Adrianus, 5.  
joannes, 20.  
Nicolaus, 3.  
Martinus, 4.  
Honorius, 4.  
Nicolaus, 4.  
Celestinus.  
Bonifacius, 8.  
Benedictus, 9  
Clemens, 5.  
joannes, 22.  
Benedictus, 10.  
Clemens, 6.  
Inno●entius, 6.  
Vrbanus. 5.  
Gregorius, 11.  
Vrbanus, 6.  
Bonifacius, 9  
Innocentius, 7.  
Gregorius, 12.  
Alexander, 5.  
joannes, 23.  
Martinus, 5.  
Eugenius, 4.  
Nicholaus, 5.  
Calixtus, 3.  
Pius, 2.  
Paulus, 2.  
Sixtus, 4.  
Innocentius, ●.  
Alexander, 6.   here we are come well near to the 1500. year. 

Pius, 3.  
julius, 2.  
Leo, 10.  
Adrianus, 6.  
Clemens, 7.  
Paulus, 3.  
julius, 3.  
Marcellus, ●.  
Paulus, 4.  
Pius, 4.  
Pius, 5.  
Gregory, 13.  
Sixtus, 5.  
Vrbanus, 7.  
Gregory, 14.  
Innocentius, 9  
Clemens. 8.    
FINIS.