THE TRUE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRISTIAN SUBJECTION AND unchristian REBELLION: WHEREIN THE PRINCE'S LAWFUL power to command for truth, and indeprivable right to bear the sword are defended against the Pope's censures and the jesuits sophisms uttered in their APOLOGY and DEFENCE OF ENGLISH CATHOLICS: With a demonstration that the things reformed in the Church of England by the Laws of this Realm are truly Catholic, notwithstanding the vain show made to the contrary in their late Rhemish Testament: by THOMAS BILSON Warden of Winchester. Perused and allowed by public authority.  Matth. 22. 
Yield to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are Gods.  August. contra epist. Permen. Lib. 1. Cap. 7. 
These men inobedient and impious in either, neither yield Christian love to God, nor human fear to Princes.  
AT OXFORD, Printed by joseph Barnes Printer to the University, MDXXCV.   

TO THE MOST EXCELLENT, VIRTUOUS AND NOBLE PRINCESS, ELIZABETH BY THE GRACE OF GOD QUEEN OF ENGland, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc.  
MOST RENOWNED AND Virtuous Princess: I am in hope, it shall seem no presumption, to offer these my rude labours to the sight & view of your Majesty: The cause is Christ's, as being the defence of his will and ordinance, who hath mercifully placed and mightily preserved your Highness in your father's throne: and expecteth, as it were in recompense, that the power which he hath given you, and honour which he hath heaped on you, should be employed to protect his truth, and safeguard his Church within your Realm. Which your religious and gracious disposition so wisely considereth and so carefully putteth in execution, that not only with good liking you bear the title to be defender of the Christian faith, but with many dangers and some envy you stoop to the very burden of harbouring the afflicted, and helping the distressed by all convenient and godly means: not refusing with Princely courage and constancy to endure the displeasures and abide the disfavours of such as seek to restore or uphold the decayed and accursed kingdom of Antichrist. A thing rare in so high a state, but a great blessing from God our Saviour, to be both protector of his persecuted servants, and partaker of his sons reproaches: which perhaps worldly minds do warily shun: but your Christian wisdom well perceiveth to be the assured sign of God's favour, and to have his undoubted promise of an immortal and far more glorious Crown, than this, which he hath already possessed you with.  
This good & long experience of your majesties most willing inclination and affection to plant piety and relieve innocency, might embolden me, if there were no farther cause, to press to your Highness for the Patronage of so good a purpose: but as the case now standeth, besides this general inducement, I have a special ●nforcement to lead me to this onset. The whole discourse doth so directly and namely treat of your majesties Sceptre, Sword, and Crown, that neither I might ask protection of any other but of your royal person, nor such demurs be published without your highness leave.  
So is it, most gracious Sovereign, that certain your subjects borne, forsaking your happy government and their native Country, upon doubt of Religion as they pretend, have seated themselves in two Societies or Colleges, which they call Seminaries, founded and furnished at the Pope's charges beyond the Seas, the one at Rome, the other at Rheims: 
Apol. chap. 3.  with purpose thither to draw the best wits out of England, as well from both universities as from other Grammar schools, there to train them to their fancies, and faction, and thence to direct them back into this Realm, for the reconciling of poor souls, as they say, to the Catholic Church: or in truer terms, for the perverting of simple and ignorant persons from the duty which they own to God and your Highness.  
This attempt being throughly looked into by the Lords and others of your majesties most wise and worthy Counsel, was thought, as in deed it is, very dangerous and pernicious to your Realm, that the capital enuier of your state, disturber of your peace, and pursuer of your person should allure and abuse so great a number of your subjects with a show of liberality: and have them in such bondage, by the Rules of their Society, that they must obey the will of their SUPERIOR, (the Pope's Agent among them) none otherwise than they would the voice of Christ from heaven: 
Campian in his 2 article.  (for so themselves profess:) and thereupon by your highness authority, proclamation was given out, that none should departed the Realm without licence: and a time prefixed for those that were abroad, to return home, upon some pains there specified, & farther threats if your Highness were thereunto provoked.  
The Guiders of these ungodly Societies in steed of obeying your highness edict, fell to defend their own act in departing this Land and resorting to Rome: as also the Pope's intent in erecting those Seminaries, and appoincting a number of them to be sent into England to reduce the Realm to the Romish obedience, which they call the faith of their fathers. And because they were to lay the fault of their unlawful departure & long absence, either on themselves, which they would not, or on the state from which they were estranged, they (declaring their founder by their fruits) spared not in a slanderous pamphlet of theirs entitled, An Apology and t●●e declaration of the institution and 〈◊〉 of the two English Colleges, to charge your Christian, mild, and advised regiment with no less crimes than heresy, tyranny and blasphemy: as the only causes why they departed and absented themselves so long from their natural country: ag●ising none of your Ecclesiastical Laws to be orderly or duly made (but calling them strange and unnatural dealings, 
fol. ●7  violent disorders, 
* fol. 38  which to all posterity must needs breed shame & rebuke, repugnant to the laws of God, the church & nature) and most of all spurning at the act and oath which abolished the Pope's usurped power out of this Realm, and declared your Highness to be the SUPREME bearer of the sword, and establisher of public Laws within your Dominions (a power confirmed to Princes by God, and therefore not to be infringed or claimed by Priests or Popes.) And to make their matter more saleable in the ears of the simple they used all their Rhemish art and eloquence to deface and traduce that right of your authority and band of our obedience with cavilling Sophisms & flourishing terms: as if that SOVEREIGNTY used by your Highness were a thing improbable, unreasonable, unnatural, impossible: 
fol. 10  and the O THE yielded by us 
* fol. 12  intolerable, repugnant to God, the Church, your majesties honour, and all men's consciences. Of such wasteful words, and mighty brags that book is full, having otherwise for matter and proof nothing in it, that is worth the reading, much less the answering: as being rather a Rhetorical declamation of an ungracious wit, than a substantial confirmation of their acts and attempts against God and the Magistrate.  
But, as it seemed, they trusted rather to their practices, which have been of late very rife with the Church of Rome: than to their proofs, of which they be utterly destitute: and therefore they dispatched into your highness Realm under the conduction of one more presumptuous than learned, (as his writing and disputing, whiles he lived, declared) a whole swarm of Boie-priestes disguised and provided at all assays with secret instructions how to deal with all sorts of men and matters, and with commission from Rome to confess and absolve such as they should win with any pretence or policy to mislike the state and affect novelty, and to take assurance of them by vow, oath, or other means, that they should be ever after adherent and obedient to the Church of Rome and to the faith thereof: which there made the ruder and unwiser sort believe was christian and Catholic.  
Religion only founded in their mouths, and the faith of their Fathers: and yet that poison they carried covertly in their hearts, and cunningly in their books, that your Majesties deceived and beguiled Subjects by the very sequence of their Romish faith and absolution were tied to obey the Pope depriving your highness of the sword and sceptre: & bond to assist him, or whom he should send to take the same by force of arms out of your highness hands.  
I know, most noble Sovereign, they stoutly denied this, and earnestly protested in open audience, that they had no such meaning, but for their parts did account your Majesty their lawful and true Princess, and taught all others so to do (having first obtained, like wily Friars, a dispensation at Rome, that to avoid the present danger, they and all other their obsequents might serve and honour your Highness for a time until the bull of Pius the fifth might safely be executed): 
The dispensation of Campian & Parsons.  and it may be the common sort of such as they perverted, were not acquainted with these heinous mysteries: but yet this was the full resolution of them all, which I last reported, as well appeared by their examinations: and this very conclusion stood in their written books as a ruled case, that they must rather lose their lives than shrink from this groundwork that the Pope may deprive your Highness of your Sceptre and Throne: and the reason is added, because, say they, it is a point of faith, 
In their cases of conscience: the 55. Arti.  and requireth confession of the mouth, though death ensue.  
This dangerous, if not devilish Doctrine was not printed nor published to the sight of all your Subjects, until the time that some of the chief procurers and kindlers of this flame, for these and other enterprises of like condition and quality were by the just course of your highness Laws adjudged to death. After whose execution the almes-men of Antichrist saw no remedy, but they must either leave their brethren as rightly condemned for hatching rebellion under a show of Religion, and be in danger to dissolve the plot which they had laid to bring this Land to the Pope's subjection, (the true end and intent of their Seminaries and full repayment of all his charges) or else with all their cunning undertake the quarrel of their unholie father: and plead the cause of their unlucky brethren. Having no better choice, they resolved, as ventures must, that have a desperate case in hand, to try what success they might get by facing and shifting in such sort as the simple should hardly discern them. To that end have they put forth A Defence of English Catholics: Wherein according to their wont vain, many things are stately and stoutly avouched, but nothing attempted or intended to be proved, save only the Pope's power to deprive Princes: which with all furniture of wit and words they labour to infer: not shaming to say, that Subjects bearing arms against their natural Princes upon the Popes warrant, do an holy, just and honourable service: 
The Defence of Catholics the 5. chap.  and that this hath been the faith of this Land ever since it was converted unto Christ.  
Against this canker, consuming the very soul and conscience where it taketh hold, I thought it not amiss, 
In the third part of this book.  to oppose the Sovereign salve of God's eternal will and commandment, and to let it appear to your Grace's people, that Princes are placed by God, and so not to be displaced by men: and subjects threatened damnation by Gods own mouth if they resist, from which no Pope's dispensation shall save them: and therefore the jesuits Doctrine in that point to be as wicked, as their proofs be weak: having neither Scripture, Council, nor Father, for a thousand years that ever allowed, mentioned or imagined any power in Popes to depose Princes.  
I have thereto added a confirmation of the right which the Laws of this Land do attribute unto your Highness, 
In the second part.  and an explication of that oath, which the jesuits so much stumble at: laying my foundation in the sacred testimonies of the holy Ghost, and pursuing the same in the continual practice of Christ's church for eight hundredth years & upward, (so long as there was either godliness in Bishops to regard their duties, or courage in Princes to call for their own) and justifying every part thereof severally and sufficiently by divine and human both authorities and examples.  
The Jesuits absurdities and allegations pretended against your majesties interest to bear the sword over all persons and in all causes, without dependence or reference to any earthly tribunal or superior, I have likewise particularly refelled, and proved them both impertinent to their purpose, and nothing obstant to that Supreme power of the sword which is claimed and used by your Majesty: but their objections to be mere cavils & mistake of a matter which they do not or will not understand: as also their flying this Realm, and running to Rome I have examined, 
In the first part.  and not only found them repugnant to the ancient laws of the Conqueror & other your noble progenitors, but also showed great difference between the Catholic Father's writing and sometimes going to the Bishop of Rome, as to their fellow servant and a dutiful subject to the same state that they were: & our English Italians giving him an Antichristian power to turn & wind the whole church at his will, and dispose kingdoms and displace Princes, if they be not obedient and suppliant to his Censures.  
lastly because the temper and colour of all their wicked sayings & doings is the catholic faith & the catholic service, 
In the fourth part.  I have entered a special discourse, that the reformation of the church in this Realm made by your majesties power & laws is wholly & truly catholic: such as the Scriptures do precisely command & the ancient fathers expressly witness was the faith and use of Christ's church for many hundrethes.  
These things most (religious & worthy Princess) I have done sincerely, that the doctrine & precepts of our Saviour might take place before the devices & pleasures of men: familiarly, that the meaner sort of your subjects which are most obnoxious to this infection might perceive the way to recover their former health: & temperately, that the enemy should not think himself rather illuded then answered. Which if it please your most excellent Majesty to like & allow that it may pass to the hands of your people, I trust in Christ that such as have any fear of God before their ●yes, and care of life to come will hold themselves satisfied, and the rest be better advised before they run headlong into that extreme perdition of body & soul, and horrible downfall of disobedience, and infidelity to God, and their Prince.  
The king of kings and Lord of Lords bless and preserve your Majesty, and as he hath begun a good and glorious work in you, and in this Realm by you: so continue the same by lightening you with his holy Spirit, and defending you with his mighty arm as he hath done from the day, that he chose you to be the Leader and Guider of his People: that you may long keep them in truth and peace by the assistance of his grace, to the praise of his glory, increase of the Godly, and grief of his and your enemies. Even so Lord jesus.  
Your majesties most humble and dutiful subject, THOMAS BILSON.   

THE GENERAL CONTENTS of every part.  
The first part 

Examineth all the proofs and places of the jesuits Apology, their forsaking the Realm and running to Rome, what aid the Fathers sought at Rome: and how the Bishop thereof in all ages hath been resisted: the intent of his Seminaries: and virtues of his Clergy.   The second part 

proveth the Prince's supreme power to command for truth within her Realm: and the Pope to have been a dutiful subject to the Roman Emperors Ecclesiastical Laws for eight hundred years and upward: answereth the jesuits authorities and absurdities heaped against the Prince's regiment: searcheth the safest way for the Prince's direction in matters of religion, and concludeth the Pope in doubts of doctrine to be no sufficient nor superior judge.   The third part 

Refelleth the jesuits reasons and authorities for the Pope's depriving of Princes, & the bearing of arms by subjects against their Sovereigns upon his censures: declareth the tyrannies and injuries of Antichrist seeking to exalt himself above kings & Princes: & convinceth that no deposition was offered by the Pope for a thousand years after Christ, and none agnised by any Christian Prince until this present day.   The fourth part 

showeth the reformation of this Realm to be warranted by the word of God and the ancient faith of Christ's Church, and the Jesuits for all their cracks to be nothing less than Catholics.     

To the Christian Reader.  
IT is some time since, good Christian Reader, that lighting on the jesuits Apology, I received the same with purpose to refute it, if the matter so imported. Perusing it over, I found it curiously penned with picked terms, and beautified with plausible and popular persuasions & reasons: but as for substance or learning, or weight of proof, I saw nothing in it that should occupy a mean Scholar the space of two days. Laying that book therefore aside I determined at mine own choice and liberty to handle the matters there most impugned, I mean the oath and the Prince's supremacy, in such sort as men of mean capacity, abused by their secret whisperings and open railings might plainly perceive, both the Prince's power to command for truth to be lawful and good, and the jesuits cavils impugning the same to be vain and childish.  
As I was in this resolution, & saw no cause, for that I should refute no direct adversary, to make more haste than both health, which was not great: & business, which I cannot want, would suffer me: there happened an injury to be offered to the inheritance of the College where I am, by a false title derived from before the foundation of the house, and so strengthened on every side with ancient deeds and evidence, that the forgery was hard to be discerned and harder to be convinced but by infinite searching in the muniments of many churches and Bishoprics as well as in our own, and re-examining sundry large and laborious commissions which they had taken out before my time, to testify the keeping and justify the delivering of those suspected deeds and ligiers. To the de●ecting and impugning of this, no person was or would be used (I speak for the pains and not for the skill) but myself, the cause was so huge, the comparing of the circumstances and contrarieties both of deeds and witnesses so tedious: the proof so perplexed and intricate: and the danger so nearly touched the whole state of the house: I was forced for two years to lay all studies aside and addict myself wholly first to the deprehending, and then to the pursuing of this falsehood.  
No sooner had I breathed from this unwonted travel, and betaken myself to my former purpose, but my hap was to light on the Jesuits Defence of English Catholics, not having the Author's name, but in order of writing and phrase of speech resembling right D. Allen the maker of their Apology: Looking earnestly into the contents thereof, I perceived the penman to have such confidence in his tongue that he doubted not but to overrule the world with words, & his pretenced policies. So far he wadeth in other men's causes and common wealths: So boldly he pronounceth what himself pleaseth of Popes and princes, and of their titles, Counsels, Laws and actions, neither alloweth he any man to be religious or catholic but such as himself liketh: and everywhere he showeth a special care to smooth and struck his holy Father's endeavours and censures, acts and judgements, wars and wickedness with terms of the greatest devotion and reverence: subjecting all things under his feet, investing him with both swords, and suffering no man, king nor Cesar to have assurance of honour or life longer than he kneeleth down and adoreth the image of the beast. In this majestical course & surrly conceit he goeth on, thinking he can captivate kingdoms with the volubility and intemperauncy of his tongue; which is so swift to furnish a lie, that he disdaineth the baseness & plainness of truth.  
The sauciness and eagerness of that Defence, I was then, and am yet persuaded to overskip: as having learned that prince's affairs and actions are above my vocation, and wholly without my profession: neither do I think it lawful for private men rashly to speak, or possible for them uprightly to judge of Princes doings, unless they be fully acquainted with the secrets and circumstances of the things, which Princes use not to commit to many, nor to any but those that are of their counsel. I therefore then did & now do determine to leave this peremptory prater, whosoever he be, to his own vain: knowing that besides open rights and titles, secret preventions are often used between Realms, and sometimes revenges, which Magistrates by lawful means may procure. Only the Pope's power to deprive Princes, which with all his skill, learning and eloquence he seeketh to prove and persuade to the people of this Realm, (as the chiefest Bulwark of their Defence, that were condemned, he saith for religion, we say for treason, and in deed the very ground of all their actions) I thought needful to examine; and to let the simple see, on what a sandy slime they have built as well their consciences as their Colleges, and in how wretched and unrighteous a quarrel they have hazarded their lives in this world, and their souls in the next, to enlarge the power and make up the purse of their Rhemish founder.  
Taking that therefore in hand I have word by word refelled the fifth chapter of their Defence which purposely treateth of this matter: and inserted so much of the fourth as tended to this end, the rest being a voluntary pang of their unbridled eloquencc: as also I have ripped up the shameful attempts and tumults of Popes these last five hundred years, (for before that time Antichrist neither was, nor durst be so bold) presuming to displace & depose their Lord & Master, the Roman Emperor, & incountering him & other Princes with treasons, poisons, battles, bloodsheds, perjuries, & treacheries, such as Christendom never before tasted of, & ever since rued. Where, I have not only opened the facts & noted the meekness of their martial spirits, but have unfolded the causes & quarrels for which those Princes were thus pursued with such excommunications and deprivations from Rome; showing as I go, the Italian stories in favour of their countryman and foreman the Pope, to be exceeding partial.  
The like order I would have followed in their Apology, but that, as I first protested, I found nothing in it worthy to be refuted, unless I should have banded their idle and empty terms back again to them with others of the same making, and so brought the cause of Christ and truth of Religion to a warfare of words: which I neither aught, nor would. If any man think me no indifferent judge of their pains, it may please him to cast his eye on the second sheet, and he shall find all the proofs and places of their Apology answered in three leans: and of those few and weak quotations to have made a conquest in open writing had been ink and paper ill employed. I would therefore not take that course, which seemed to me neither needful nor profitable: but to benefit the poor deceived subjects of this Realm and bring the Jesuits cause to the touchstone in deed, I have chosen the principal intentes of their Apology, on which their whole foundation standeth; and after mine own course debated them more exactly and largely than the confutation of their Apology would have suffered me.  

The chiefest matters of the Apology.  For where they pretend they departed for lack of the Catholic Sacrifice, Sacraments and Service, which want in this Realm; 
Cap. 1.  and because they were forced by oath to confess an unnatural and impossible power in the Prince to be supreme Governor of all persons and causes as well ecclesiastical as temporal: 
Cap. 4.  and in their absence they resort for relief to none but to him that is the head of their catholic communion, 
Cap. 2.  the chief Pastor and Bishop of their souls in earth, and the vicar general of Christ, to whose predecessors all the famous Fathers called for aid, comfort and counsel in their like distresses: and train up such as come unto them in obedience to the church's Laws, 
Cap. 5.  apostolic Traditions both written and unwritten, and to the precepts of Ancients & Superiors, who have the promised spirit of truth: and are sent back again into this Land to execute spiritual offices, and to absolve in foro conscientiae the penitent people from their sins, of what sort soever, schism and heresy not excepted: 
Cap. 6.  who seethe not that these assertions being the several branches of their Apology, depend either on religion, that is in strife betwixt us: or on the Prince's power, which they impugn: or on the Pope's claim to be head of the church, which we deny? And therefore the proof or disproof of their particular actions, must be fet and derived from those chief and capital springs.  
The consideration whereof first induced me to neglect the roving discourses, and vaunting flourishes of their Apology no less void of truth than of proof, and to betake myself to a stricter and director kind of examining the most material points on which the rest did hang: as first their running to Rome, & siding themselves with the Pope as Christ's Vicar general against their Prince, for which they have no precedent in the primative Church. The next is the prince's power to command for truth, and right to bear the sword within her own Realm over all persons for things and causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal, without any subjection or relation to the Pope's tribunal, which I prove is agreeable to the Laws of God and practice of Christ's church: and therefore the oath importing the same to be good and godly. Thirdly the Pope's censuring and depriving princes of their crowns, I show to be nothing else but a wicked & unchristian pride & contumely not long since devised by Antichrist to frustrate the word and ordinance of almighty God, and to make himself great: and so of force the subjects, which be partakers with him in that heinous conspiracy, by persuading, assisting, executing, or defending the same in word or deed against their princes, to be traitors and not martyrs, if they die for that quarrel: Lastly the public reformation of divine Sacraments and Service made by her Majesty, I declare to be Christian and Catholic: and the parts of popery repealed and abolished by the laws of this Realm, to be repugnant, (I speak for the substance of them, and not for certain indifferent ceremonies in them) to the sacred scriptures and ancient fathers.  
Other incident and adjacent matters I have handled, and those not a few, as the general and special contents before and after will better insinuate: but these four be the points that bear the burden both of their first Apology for their Seminaries, and last Defence of English Catholics. By these shall we soon discern the truth or falsehood of their pretences & clamours against the Prince's Laws and such as are authorized by her highness: & therefore from the sober & sad discussing hereof, if they get them, as they have done to outrageous and tragical exclamations, we must leave them as men wilfully diverting from the right way, & crying as loud as they can for life, to drown the voices of such as would recall them.  
If they look that all the parts of their Defence should have been answered in like sort as the fifth chapter is, that labour I say for a man of my calling would have been as fruitless, as it is needles: the proofs that are not here discussed, may safely be despised, the rest of their rolling rhetorik, a divine neither need regard, nor should repeat. As much as is enforcing, & to their purpose, is here comprised: their politic observations, as they be for the most part falls & passing slanderous: so to their defence are they idle & altogether superfluous; and argue rather minds loaden with malice, and tongues freighted with poison against the present state even for very temporal and civil affairs: than any religious or dutiful respect of authority and submission to the Magistrate. But such is the doctrine and education of their Romish seminaries: they fell first to flattering, and because that took no place, in a rage they be now run to lewd and open slandering. An example whereof, to him that hath the book, and may read it, appeareth, as through the the whole, so in few lines pag. 177. more spiteful words than which the rankest caterpillar in Rome could not have uttered against the state and kingdom where we live: not touching the persecution which they suffer, but objecting in plain words to the whole body of her majesties most honourable & most christian Counsel, ignominious practices, & plaguy injustice: 
The 8 chapter of their Defence, page 177.  yea even piracies, proditions, spi●ries, & soul arts to afflict and cousin the world round about us, with many such disloyal, unnatural, untrue and unhonest both surmises and reproaches, whereof that farthel is full.  
This is one of the reasons why I neither might nor would at large refel their jesuitical Defence of English Catholics, as they term it: in deed an artificial invective defacing and slandering the public Government of this realm to the uttermost of their powers. The other is for that the sum and effect of those chapters which I have omitted, and might not without offence to the state be published, are wholly reduced to those principal questions which I have handled.  

The sum of the Defence.  In their first, second, and fourth chapters their chief scopes are these, that 
a 1 cap.  Many Priests & catholic in England have been condemned & executed for mere matter of religion: that 
b 2 cap.  Campian & the rest of the Priests condemned & executed upon pretence of treason, were never yet guilty of any such crimes: but 
c 4 cap.  behaved themselves very discreetly, and nothing seditiously in their answers to the questions of the Bull of Pius Quintus. In these the wise Reader soon perceiveth the whole contention toucheth the Pope's jurisdiction and claim denied him by the Laws of this Realm, and his power to deprive the Prince of her crown and sceptre, which was the sole respect the Bull of Pius Quintus had. The justifying then of these two foundations with clear and pregnant proofs had been requisite for the Jesuits, if they had purposed to manifest the innocency of their brethren: where now by their rhetorical vagaries inucighing at the parts and circumstances of their indictments, convictions and executions, they storm at the course, which the judges observed, but say nothing to the crime wherewith the guilty were burdened.  
The Pope's power to deprive Princes, they will say, they have fully proved: and so their brethren in truth and equity to be cleared. If that were so, they said somewhat: but as I have showed they profferre it often, they never prove it. And therefore on the contrary part, as I need not strengthen the public judgements of this Realm with the particular reports, behaviours, hopes and enterprises of the Jesuits having their trial in Courts of Record and places of usual and open justice: neither is that incident to my calling or requisite in these cases: so for the main and general ground of the crime there fastened on them, and after punished in them; which was, that to aid, assist, persuade or defend the Pope's Bull depriving the Prince of her crown and throne, to encourage her Subjects or enemies on that pretence to rebellion or invasion, was high and heinous treason, the truth, I say of this illation, is evident by the third part of this my book, where that point of their Defence is refuted.  
So for the rest, which would needs venture their lives in the like quarrel: I mean for investing the Pope with the prince's sword: the Jesuits should have brought sound and sufficient proof that the Pope by God's law hath a Sovereign and supreme power over this Realm, to make Laws, to appoint penalties, to dispose the goods, lands, and bodies of Clerks and others, for such causes and crimes as they count spiritual. For this is the power which the Pope lately usurped in this Realm; and from which he is now rightly and orderly repelled by the Laws of the same. It is no treason with us to make him chief Pastor of your souls, nor to give him an Episcopal or Apostolical authority over the whole Church, though that also be a wicked and frantic Heresy: but to give him an external dominion, and coercive jurisdiction over this Realm above and against the Prince, which the Apostles of Christ neither had, nor could have without apparent injury to the Magistrate: this is it the Execution of justice doth duly respect, and this is far from any matter of faith or religion. Right to command, and power to compel belong properly to the sword by the Law of God: which they can not attribute to the Pope, but they must make him a Superior Magistrate to the prince in guiding and prescribing the use of the sword, and consequently the prince to hold her sword and sceptre at his pleasure: and if she refuse, to be straightway displaced.  
This wily conveyance to tie Princes sword fast to the Pope's side, and to spoil them of their Crowns, if they do not execute his rage, is the chiefest plot that Jesuits have at this instant to resettle the kingdom of Antichrist, for which they have not so much as the paring of any Scripture or Council, or Father in the Church of Christ for a thousand years: and yet in our days it must be a mere matter of Religion: and the forefront of their brethren's defence. But no marvel if they, which make open rebellion a point of their faith, so soon consent to have the Pope's presumption holden, as the surest key of their Religion.  
To their third chapter, that they have great cause to complain of injust persecution, intolerable severity and cruelty towards Catholics in England: and we no reason to do the like for the justice (as thy call it) done on us in Queen Maries and other Prince's days, I need not reply. To this conceit of the Jesuits, that they may consume whom they will with fire and faggotte, and no man must stop them of their passage, or hinder their pastimes without injustice and cruelty: what should I say, but that I thin●e the Scribe was scant waking, whiles he was penning this drowsy Divinity? What learning, I will not ask what wit, was in this, to make such definitive resolutions that no Prince may amerce or imprison their adherentes without intolerable severity and cruelty? forsooth, they might hang and burn old and young, men and women, for doubting of their decretals, and all this with praise, though it never pleased any good man in the Catholic Church that Heretics should be put to death for only religion as S. Augustine very earnestly avoucheth?  
Their sixth chapter is a marvelous profound Rhetorication, that it is much to the benefit and stability of Common wealths and specially of kings Sceptres, 
See pa. 19 cap. 6.  that the differences betwixt them and their people for Religion or any other cause for which them may seem to deserve deprivation, may rather be decided, by (the Pope as the jesuits would have it, and so they shall be on the surest side) than by Popular mutiny and fantasy of private men as (we) desire and practise, or else they belly us, which is no wonder in such Seminists. To these trifling and tedious discourses of men trusting wholly to their tongues, and seeking with dainty speech and couched terms to hoodwinck Princes eyes, and delight subjects ears, that all the world may dance in a string, after the pope and his nurseries, what other answer should we give, then, that, if there were not a God to be served and honoured, who hath committed the sword to Princes, and will exact at their hands the well using of the same for the public maintenance of his will and worship, surely Princes should do more safely to follow that advise of the jesuits. For their holy father will never leave practising by all the means he possibly may to subvert their states, and shorten their lives, except they receive his keys and buss his shoes.  
The wars of Ireland and dangers of England, which this roaming man so much babbleth of, as matters of State, I refer to such as be Commonwealth men, 
The defence cap. 7. fol. 140.  I will not pass the bounds of my profession; the Pope may continue his old worm-eaten claim to the Sovereignty of Ireland, which these loving subjects plead in open writing against the Crown of England: and God no doubt hath means enough to visit our sins, unless it please him to be merciful and gracious to this Realm; but as we from the bottom of our hearts, submit ourselves to his holy will, and wisdom, as well to taste of his chastisement, whereof all his children are partakers, as to enjoy his blessings: so let these profane Rovers and Vaunters understand, that the arm of God is long enough to reach even them and their holy father at Rome, and to take from him his desired usurpation of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, France and Spain, etc. though he shuffle never so shamefully to keep them in his obeisance.  
For the matters handled, this may suffice: for the manner, I have not many things, good Christian Reader, to warn thee of. By form of Dialogues I thought best to lay open the whole before thine eyes, as well for avoiding of tedious repetitions, as for adding of perspicuity, to the points, which I would have known to the simpler sort, as far as the nature and weight of the things themselves permit. And being to refute no certain text, I was constrained to take this course, that I might in the adversaries person object not only what they had said, if it were worth the hearing, but I am sure what they could say, that the matter might be more manifest. If any think I favour myself in opposing: 
I catch not after cavils nor use to seek for novelties, as having to do with carping & quick eyed adversaries,  besides that in every part I bring the very choice of their strongest and latest proofs, as in the first and second part, their Apology: in the third, their Defence of Catholics: in the fourth, their Rhemish Testament: whether I spare to press and pursue the same to the uttermost, let the Christian Reader in God's name be my judge. It may be the adversary would have often replied in hotter and larger manner: but my intent was to discuss the things, and not to hold on a brabble in words: and of that which to any purpose might be said I have omitted nothing.  
And yet sometimes though seeldom where the place so forceth, I stick a little at a letter, and show how great a change it maketh in the sense, which is soon miss in the print: 
Part. 4. pag. 583. Part. 1. pag. 53. Chrysost. epi. 1. ad Innocen.  As where in Saint Augustine they print Esset, I think it should be Esse: And so likewise in chrysostom, (whose Greek exemplar I then had not when I first mistrusted the Latin) the word is printed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Suffer thyself to be entreated to write. Which the verbs precedent & consequent import should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Suffer yourselves to be entreated to write, & so the other part of the sentence doth plainly convince where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and grant us to enjoy your letters still, & your love, and all other things as before. for is easily overseen: and yet in the matter the difference is much, though not so much that it should either help them, or hurt us: as they perhaps will imagine. In these and such like corrections of words or prints I leave the learned reader to his judgement when he considereth the sentence: and yet I see no reason why the adversary should build himself on such suspected places.  
In the fourth part, I have examined the chief and public actions of the Rhomish Church, which are now reform by the laws of this Realm: and not only refuted them as uncatholic, but confirmed the Sacraments and Service of the Church of England to be consonant to the sacred Scriptures and Catholic Fathers. In handling the which, where their Rhemish Testament offered any show of proof, I have particularly refelled their authorities: where they failed, I was constrained to make the jesuite supply of his own the best objections that they have. Other things named in the beginning of my fourth part, because the volume increased, and they were not so material parts of the Church Service as the former, I have reserved to be handled by themselves in a several treaty.  
Of quotations and translations I had special care in my copy, that they should be direct and true, howsoever the Composers have now and then displaced the one, and in the other not distinguished my additions, which I sometimes interserted to illustrate the rest, with an other letter and two enclosures in my copy: and this caveat I am forced to give thee gentle Reader, that whatsoever in alleging is enclosed with two half Moons () though it be the same letter with the rest, yet it is no part of that authority which I cite, but my adjection to show the force of the place I produced, because I could not stand beating on every word, without extreme loss of time and labour.  
The Lord tread down Satan under our feet, that the honour may be his, and the comfort ours, and abolish the strength of wickedness till his coming.   
THE TRUE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRISTIAN SUBJECTION AND unchristian REBELLION.  

THE FIRST PART EXAMINETH ALL THE PROOFS AND places of the jesuits Apology, their forsaking the Realm and running to Rome, what aid the Fathers sought at Rome: and how the Bishop thereof in all ages hath been resisted: the intent of his Seminaries: and virtues of his Clergy.  THEOPHILUS the Christian. PHILANDER the jesuite. THEOPH. 
It is so long since I saw you, Philander, that I had almost forgotten you: I thought I should remember your face, but this apparel made me doubt of you.  Philand. 
Even he, Theophilus: and though you have descried me, where I would not be known, yet I trust for old acquaintance you mean me no harm.  Theo. 
If you be as far from doing evil, as I am from wishing you evil, I dare warrant you for any hurt you shall have: but what meaneth this strange attire? are you weary of a studients life, 
The Jesuits disguised.  that you fall to ruffling in your latter days?  Phil. 
Not choice, Theophilus, but fear driveth me to this: I take small pride in going thus disguised.  Theo. 
What need you fear if you be faultless? true men hide not their heads.  Phi. 
Not where truth may take place, but where falsehood over beareth all, it is time for true men to hide their heads except they will lose them.  Theo. 
Is your case so desperate, that you stand in danger of losing your head?  Phil. 
Not my deserts, but the rigour of your laws give me just cause to fear that which so many of our side have felt.  Theo. 
Your friends never felt the least part of that they did to others, neither have they cause to complain but of too much ease.  Phil. 
You have spoiled them of their goods, cast them in prisons among thieves, 
They complain of cruelty.  hanged them as traitors: call you this ease? what could they feel worse? what could you do more?  Theo. 
Whom mean you? the Northern rebels, or Irish conspirators, that were thus hardly dealt with?  Phi. 
As though you knew not, whom I meant. Their heads and quarters pitched in rows on your gates and bridges are to this day witnesses of their constancy, and momiments of your cruelty.  Theo. 
Though I can guess, you only ean tell whom you mean. Belike the jesuits that lately suffered for Treason.  Phi. 
Treason was objected to them for a colour to make them odious to the people, but in deed religion was the very cause why they were condemned: for would they have recanted their faith, they should never have been brought to the bar.  Theo. 
It may be Pardon was offered them, so they would recant their Traitorous assertion, that Popes at their pleasures may depose Princes, and discharge their subjects from all obedience, which Christian mildness in seeking their amendment, and showing them so much favour, doth not quite them from the lewdness of their enterprise. The Prince's mercy is no proof of their innocency. But in sadness Philander are you since your departure become a jesuite, that you take their part so freshly?  Phi. 
The question you ask me, is very dangerous, considering the straightness of your laws: Yet promise me that you will not bewray me, and I will be plain with you, what I am. I love not to dissemble, much less to deny my vocation.  Theo. 
Promise me likewise, that you will attempt nothing against your duty to God and your Sovereign, and I will do the best I can for your safety. Without this condition I may not yield to your petition.  Phi. 
I require no more: but will you perform that?  Theo. 
None so deceitful, as those that be most mistrustful. Having our former acquaintance for a warrant, and my promise now made you for your better security, why fear you?  Phi. 
Blame me not if I be somewhat curious in disclosing myself: 
They be curious to disclose themselves.  life is sweet, and that now must I put wholly into your hands, which is no small adventure.  Theo. 
Were your life in my hands, as it is not, you should well perceive we delight not in blood: Howbeit you cast greater peril than you need. The laws of this land do not touch you so near for entering the new found order of jesuits, neither for infecting the simple with the leaven of your doctrine, but only for making devotion a cloak for sedition. Leave your undermining the Prince's right & state by these secret and subtle means, & I see no danger of death that is toward you.  Phi. 
If I be taken with any practice against the Prince, 
They pretend obedience.  I refuse no kind of torment: only from preaching & publishing the Catholic faith I neither can, nor will be drawn.  Theo. 
Well proffered if it be well performed. In deed true Christians ever endured, never displaced Princes, no, not when they were tyrants & heretics: for God is not served with resisting the sword, which himself hath ordained to cherish the good, & chasten the bad, but with dutiful obedience to Magistrates when their laws agree with his: & in case their wills be dissonant from his, them is he served with meekness, & readiness to bear, and abide that, which earthly powers shall inflict. And this was the cause why the Church of Christ always rejoiced in the blood of her Martyrs, patiently suffering the cruel rage both of Pagans and Arrians, and never favoured any tumult of rebels, assembling themselves to withstand authority.  Phi. 
Tell us that we know not, this we never doubted of.  Theo. 
Then if your late Jesuits were sent hither as pioneers to make ready the way for the Pope's bull, that should disherit the Prince, and give her crown to an other, what say you, were they justly condemned for Treason, or no?  Phi. 
You shall never be able to prove them sent to that end.  Theo. 
I do not as yet say they were, but what if they were, do you think them Martyrs or Traitors?  Phi. 
I am sure they were not. For I myself came in the same message with them, and know what charge was given both to them and to me, that in no wise we should meddle with matters of state.  Theo. 
I thought all this while by the counterfeiting of your apparel, and earnest defending of Jesuits, that you were of that crew.  Phi. 
You urge me so far, that I can not conceal it. The truth is, I am of their society, and have so been ever since my last going beyond the Seas: and am now sent back with others to labour the conversion of this Realm, and to reconcile men to the Catholic faith, and apostolic Sea, for the saving of their souls.  Theo. 
I am the more sorry for it, if sorrow would help: your lighting on them was unhappy: your joining with them is ungodly.  Phi. 
You do the men great wrong to carry that hard opinion of them without cause: for my part I protest I never met with a more religious, virtuous, and learned company, than the Jesuits are.  Theo. 
You take light occasions to set forth your own praises, as if it were a point of perfection to commend yourselves. 
They commend themselves.   Phi. 
Though we strive to excel others in learning and virtue, which we lawfully may, yet brag we not of it.  Theo. 
You need not. The maker of your Apology doth it for you: whose fingers ytched till he came to the comparing, and advancing of himself and his fellows, in this insolent manner. 
Apolog. cap. 5.  Our wits, saith he, be of God in as plentiful measure as theirs: our foundation in all kind of faculties, requisite for the study of divinity, is as deeply laid as theirs: our diligence rather more than theirs: our time both of age and study more complete than theirs commonly can be: our order, method, & course of divinity much more profitable than theirs: we have more disputations, lessons, conferences, examinations, repetitions, instructions, catechizings, resolutions of cases, both of conscience and controversy, methods and manners to proceed to the conversion of the deceived, and such like exercises in our two Colleges than are in their two Universities containing near hand 30. goodly Colleges. As for the Masters & professors of our Colleges, specially the Roman readers, we may be bold to say, They be in all kind, the most choice and cunning men of Christendom, for virtue, learning, etc. Now for that part of education which pertaineth to Christian life & manners, our chief endeavour is in both the Colleges to breed in our scholars devotion, etc. Which is done by divers spiritual exercises, as daily examinations of their consciences, often communicating or receiving the. B. Sacrament, much praying, continual hearing and meditation of holy things.  Phi. 
Can you in all this charge him with a lie?  Theo. 
Whether it be true or false that he saith, we neither care, nor come to discuss. The comparison of wits, ages and exercises would rather beseem boys in the school, than divines in the Church: this vaunting of virtue, learning, often communicating, much praying, continual meditation of holy things is fit for Pharisees, unfit for Christians. Better is, 
Sententiarum ex August. decerptarum 118.  saith Austen, an humble confession in doing evil, than a proud vaunt in doing well.  Phi. 
To speak truth is no vaunt.  Theo. 
To speak truth in the commendation of yourselves, is the greatest pride you can show. 
prover. 27.  Let an other man praise thee, saith Solomon, and not thine own mouth. But this is the just reward of your error, that you take notable pains to please yourselves with an inward persuasion of your own worthiness, & to be reverenced of others for the deepness of your learning & holiness of your lives: which desire of glory so possesseth your heads, that when other heralds fail you, you stick not, openly to the whole world, to blaze your own virtues.  Phi. 
We never spoke but forced, & that in the necessary defence of ourselves.  Theo. 
Who forced Campion to write back to Rome not only what admiration, but what veneration (a word fit for Saints than friars) himself, and his band of Jesuits had gotten in England, by their singular learning and holiness. The Priests, 
Camp. in Epist. ad praepositum ordinis general.  saith he, of our society, they excelling in knowledge and sanctity, have raised so great an opinion of our order, that the veneration, which the Catholics yield us, I think not good to be spoken but fearfully. The framer of your Apology what occasion had he to brave both Universities, in such sort as he doth, as well with the scholastical, as spiritual exercises of your two Colleges, but only that he would have the Jesuits wax famous for the greatness of their skill, and pureness of their lives, that the chiefest praise might redound to himself, 
The Jesuits answer this proclamation with vaunting of their private orders & exercises.  and others the Masters and Governors of those two Colleges?  Phi. 
We were charged in open proclamation, that we lived contrary to the laws of God and the Realm.  Theo. 
And doth your daily disputing, or much praying discharge you from that?  Phi. 
It showeth our domestical conversation to be honest and orderly.  Theo. 
That is nothing to this purpose. The Prince's Edict did not mean your private disputations or devotions, of which you crack, but objected unto you, that you trained up your scholars in false and erroneous doctrine, and used them to lewd and ungodly purposes, as to withdraw the people from their obedience to God and the Magistrate.  Phi. 
Let your Edict mean what it will, our Apology cleareth us from all that was untruly surmised against us, and I am right glad you have seen the book: for there shall you find us sufficiently proved to be both good subjects and good Catholics, notwithstanding your often and earnest invectives to the contrary.  Theo. 
If facing and cracking will do the deed, the conquest is yours: Your defender hath freighted his book with so many solemn protestations, pathetical exclamations, and confident asseverations: but to the wiser sort, that are led with evident truth, not with eloquent speech, unless you make some better demonstration of your integrity to God and your Prince, than I yet see, you be like to go neither for good subjects, nor for good Catholics.  Phi. 
Can you wish for a better than our Apology?  Theo. 
I never met with a worse. 
No one thing proved in all their Apol.   Phi. 
What doth it lack?  Theo. 
Not words, they be copious & curious enough: but I never saw fewer or weaker proofs.  Phi. 
What one point is there left unproved?  Theo. 
Nay, what one thing have you justly proved?  Phi. 
Come to the parts. The first chapter giveth the reasons of our leaving this land, and living beyond the seas, what say you to those? be they not evident? be they not sufficient?  Theo. 
Repeat them yourself, lest I chance to miss them. 

Apolog. cap. 1. Sect. 8.  
The causes why they fled the Realm.    Phi. 
The universal Lack of the Sovereign sacrifice and Sacraments catholicly ministered, without which the soul of man dieth as the body doth without corporal food: this constraint to the contrary services, whereby men perish everlastingly: this intolerable oath repugnant to God, the Church, her majesties honour, and all men's consciences: and the daily dangers, disgraces, vexations, fears, imprisonments, empoverishments, despites, which they must suffer: and the railings and blasphemies against God's Sacraments, Saints, Ministers, and all holies, which they are forced to hear in our Country are the only causes why so many of us are departed out of our natural Country, and do absent ourselves so long from that place, where we had our being, birth, and bringing up. These they be, what fault find you with them?  Theo. 
The self same that I find with the rest of your Apology: You say what you list, and never offer to prove that you say: your bare word is your best argument, and other authority than your own, you produce not.  Phi. 
The matter is so manifest, that it needeth no proof.  Theo. 
That presumption is so foolish, that it needeth no refuter.  Phi. 
If you doubt or deny them, we be ready to prove them.  Theo. 
That must you first do, before we refel them. Yet lest you should glory too much of your painted sheath, the reply to your first chapter may shortly be this.  
The sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross for the sins of the world we believe with all our hearts, 
Our sacrifice.  and reverence with all our might: accounting the same to be perfect without wanting, eternal without renewing, and this is our Sovereign sacrifice. The lords table, which himself ordained to be the memorial of his death and passion we keep and continue in that manner and form that he first prescribed, and this may be called, and is a sacrifice, both in respect of the thanks there given to God for the redemption of man, and the bloodshedding of our Saviour expressed and resembled in that mystery. More than this no Catholic father ever taught, and less than this our Churches do not receive.  
Touching the Sacraments, 
Our Sacraments.  I mean baptism and the Supper, if Christ and his Apostles did minister them catholicly, we can not fail, but do the same: we serve not a jot from their example: the Scriptures will not lie, let them be judges. Show but one word, element, or action added, omitted, or altered in either of them, and we grant your Apology to be sound and good, which otherwise we see to be replenished with many spiteful slanders, and shameful errors. But if the Catholicism, which you stand on, were not known to them, as in truth it was not, the lack of some ceremonies, which be matters indifferent, and set your abuses aside, may be kept, or left without hurting the faith or offending the godly, can be no just cause for you to fly the realm, and forsake the Prince.  
The divine service here established you may lewdly despise, 
Our divine service.  you shall hardly disprove: the Psalms, that we sing, be David's: the books that we read, be Canonical: the prayers that we make, be consonant to the rule & proportion of faith & true godliness: & quitting them for our own parts to the present possessioners & incombents, or to whom soever God shall permit.  Theo. 
You fled the Realm not forced to that extremity, but moved with a private dislike of the Prince's regiment: 
An answer like their Apology.  and therefore if the lack of your Country were not eased by many supplies, both abroad as you grant, and from home, as we know, you may thank yourselves: you were the first authors and wilful contrivers of your own woe. You want no commodities, nor courtesies in the common wealths, where you live: yet such is your Niceness, that you can not bear the ordinary difficulties, and accidents that follow strangers in every place, without sorrowful bewailing before God, and often lamenting one to another the hard state of your long banishment. Your daily prayers have their daily purposes, your continual sighs and tears show the secret grief, you conceive to see your counsels disclosed, and attempts defeated: which rather enforceth the sharpness of your humour, than the goodness of your cause. That you be willing to come home we well believe, howbeit that proveth not your departure lawful, nor your return peaceable. The Wolf would fain be with the sheep, and the Lion is glad to be with his prey: Yet this is no token of their friendly meaning. To prevent all suspicion of evil, you deeply protest, that you void your thoughts of honour and preferment, relinquishing those to the present incumbents, and addressing yourselves to serve the poor souls to their salvation. The strife betwixt us is not for bishoprics and benefices, but for Christ's glory, and the Prince's safety, whom God hath appointed both your and our Sovereign: and therefore your renouncing of titles and dignities before hand, savoureth of your accustomed vanity, and nothing concerneth the matter. Salvation of souls is well pretended, but ill performed. Your bores of oil, your glasses of holy water, your farthels of other consecrated trifles, wherewith you have freighted this Realm, are slender helps to save souls: nay rather, your reconciling of those, that receive you, to the Sea of Rome: your training them to neglect of the scriptures, and reverence of your fancies: your leading them from the Church of God, and communion of their brethren, to your barbarous and Idolatrous Mass: your withdrawing them from their obedience to the Princes wholesome and Christian laws, is their utter destruction and your assured condemnation. Yet to prove yourselves loving worms, you wish to be admitted to your Country, in what state soever, were it in penance and poverty never so great: even so the snake being frozen lieth quiet and still, waxing once warm he useth not only to stir, but also to sting. Your sugared words can not sweeten the bitterness of your actions. God hath blessed her Majesty with greater respect of religion, than to suffer the veneme of your doctrine to poison her people: and with better intelligence of your drifts, than to harbour a rout of Jesuits, the very forerunners and factors of her open and professed enemy. The Pageants of your holy father and founder, were so lately tried, and are so justly feared, that her highness neither with her safety may, neither of her wisdom will permit you to begin a new revel. Her grave and worthy Counsel perceive that a small leak sinketh a strong vessel, and the least spark kindleth a mighty flame.  Phi. 
Call you this answering? 
The proofs & places of their whole apollo. answered in six leaves.  You say what you list without warrant or witness.  Theo. 
And what did you when you sent us over whole chapters, yea the most part of your Apology, bringing no better nor other reason nor proof than your simple word, which is, God knoweth, a single proof?  Phi. 
You will hardly speak well of our doings or writings.  Theo. 
Let your book be seen. If I lie, reprove me.  
Your first chapter hath in all five authorities, 

The 1. chapter of the Apolog.  
Socrat. eccl. 〈◊〉 lib. 2. ca 18 & lib. 4. ca 12.16. Niceph lib. 11. ca 49.50. Amb. lib. 5. de Bas. traden. Cyp. epist. 5. Niceph. lib. 9 chap. 23. Sect. 8.   and not one of them toucheth any matter in question. The three first show, that certain Arrian Emperors suffered true and false religion in one City, a proper precedent for Christian Princes: the two next prove, that godly men assembled in private houses, when they could not in Churches for fear of persecution. We never said otherwise.  
Your second chapter hath five other places besides the first book of Bede, which we doubt not of. Three declaring that the Romans twelve hundred years ago were devout and charitable; 

The second Chapter of the Apology.  
Hiero. Epist. 16. Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 22. Hiero. praef. lib. 2. in Epist. ad Gal. August. de utilit. cred. Cap. 17. Cypri Epi. 55.  
See folio 222.   which is nothing to our days, or your purpose: the other two you safely enforce to help the Sea of Rome, and yet were they so meant, they conclude but coldly for you.  
Your third chapter allegeth S. Austen twice, marry not against us, but at rovers to make up your reckoning: and once S. Hierom, warning a gentlewoman of Rome, to prefer the faith of Innocentius and Anastasius, which at that time he knew to be sound and sincere, before certain poisoned plants then freshly springing in Rome. This advise we refuse not, and at this day we seek to recall your holy father from his new found heresy and tyranny to the right imitation of their faith and humility, 

The third Chapter of the apollo.  
Hiero. Epist. 8. ad Demetriadem.   that were godly, learned and ancient bishops in that Sea before him.  
On your fourth and fift chapters, which are the chief strength and force of your Apology, you bestow some more cost, but not much, or at lest not much to the matter in question.  
Your fourth chapter even at first entrance you fill the page with eleven texts of scriptures, 

The fourth Chap. of the Apolog.  
Luc. 22.10. Mat. 16.28.18. joh. 14.16. Esa. 59 Deut. 17. Mala. 2. Act. 15. 1. Cor. 14. & 1. Tim. 2. 1. Pet. 2. Esa. 60.   declaring what promises & assistance from God the true preachers and ministers of his word have: then allege you S. Paul prohibiting women to teach or speak in the Church, and S. Peter, calling Princes human creatures: these be things that we neither doubt of, nor strive for. This done you draw near the skirmish, and arming yourselves with three scriptures and seven fathers, you think to vanquish and overrun the Prince's power in causes ecclesiastical: but soft Sirs, you mistake your weapons, their force is not great.  
The nation and kingdom, saith God to Zion, that will not serve thee shall perish. The kingdom, he saith not the king: but grant it were directly spoken of kings: 
August. contra Cresco. lib. 3. ca 51.  what service that is which God requireth of kings, if you do not know, S. Austen will tell you. In this, saith he, Kings serve God, if their kingdoms they command that which is good and forbidden that which is evil, not in temporal affairs only, but in matters of religion also. And again, Ye Kings serve Christ, in making laws for Christ. 
Agust. Epi. 48.  So that the commanding their people to reverence the word and obey the will of God, and the making of straight laws to keep men in the faith and Church of Christ, that is I say the service, which Princes own to God and his Zion, and which you deny lawful for them to meddle with.  

Acts. 20. & Hebr. 23.  By the two next places of S. Paul you prone that Pastors & Bishops be rulers of the Church. That word Rulers you catch hold of, as if the words in S. Paul did not also signify feeders and leaders, which be the two signs and duties of good shepherds: and yet we never denied but the messengers and disposers of God's mysteries by preaching the word, administering the sacraments, and well using the keys, have their internal and spiritual regiment over the souls and consciences as well of Princes, as others: which is the true meaning of the place that you bring out of Nazianzene. 
Nazian. ora. 15.   

* Epist. ad solit. vit. degentes.  Athanasius, 
* Suidas in Leon. Lib. imperf. ad Constantium.  Osius, Leontius, Hilary and 
* Epist. 33. ad for.  Ambrose, sharply reprove Constantius, & Valentinian, for taking upon them to change the faith, & abolish the godhead of Christ: & plainly told those Princes they were no judges of faith, nor arbiters of doctrine; which was true, which false: neither might they so much as interpose their judgement or authority, whiles such cases were debated. That very lesson have we from the beginning taught with our lips, & sealed with our blood, more steadfastly than you. We never gave prince, nor Pope, right to control the truth, or reverse the word, which God hath established in his Church: and the constant avouching thereof against earthly States & powers, hath cost us, as you can not choose but know, many thousand men's lives: Yet this is no let, 
1. john. 4. Mat. 7.  but Princes, as well as other private persons, may try spirits, and beware false Prophets. And this, I trust, you dare not impugn, that Princes may do that for Christ which you defend they must do for Antichrist: grant us that, we require no more.  
chrysostom is the last of the seven. Christ, saith he, when he willed Peter to feed his sheep, 
Lib. 2. de Sacer.  committed the charge of (them) to Peter, & Peter's successors. Meaning by Peter's successors not only the bishops of Rome, but himself and all other Bishops, 
Ibidem.  as appeareth by his own words in the same place. This was Christ's purpose at that time (when he said feed my sheep) to teach Peter, and the rest of us, how well he loved his Church, that therefore we also should take the charge and care of the same Church with all our hearts. 
Ambro. de dignitat. sacerdo●ali, Cap. 2.  Ambrose extendeth the words of Christ in like manner to all Bishops & preachers. It was thrice repeated by the Lord, feed my sheep. Which sheep, & which flock not only Peter received then in charge, but he with us, and we all with him received them in cure. 
August. de agone Christi, Cap. 30.  And so doth Austen, When it is said to Peter, it is said to all: Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.  
That women may not undertake this charge to feed Christ's sheep, it was needless to cite chrysostom, S. Paul said it before in other words, and we be far from any such folly. These be the main and mighty proofs wherewith you thought to shake the Prince's seat, which conclude utterly nothing against that we defend, nor against that her Majesty claimeth or useth.  
The rest of your authorities, which be six, touch not us at all, nor any thing in question betwixt you and us: 
Epist. 57 a● Damas.  save the last, where S. Hierom writeth to Damasus, He that gathereth not with thee, scattereth. Which words we grant were very true, when S. Hierom spoke them, for that Damasus rightly professed the Christian faith, which the Bishop of Rome now doth not: and by gathering with him, is meant no subjection to him, but a fellowship with him in teaching the same truth, and keeping the band of peace, which is common to all Christians.  
Your fift chapter, 
The 5. Chap. of the Apolog.  which should clear you from false doctrine, and prove you to be good Catholics, hath in all but one Section of twenty six lines to that purpose: the rest is a desperate discourse of your own, full of your bold assertions & vain presumptions, without scripture, or father, that helpeth you, or hindereth us. 
Enchiri. 110. & haeresi. 53. Contra Vigilantium. Lib. 6. contra julianum. In 10. Cap. ad Hebreos. Lib. 7. ind. 2. Epist. 109. & 53. Lib. 1. de paenit. Cap. 2.  For prayer for the dead, you allege S. Augustine; for honouring of Kelikes and Pilgrimage, S Hierom; for vocation of Saints, worshipping the cross, and memories of Martyrs, S. Cyril; for the sacrifice of the Mass, Saint chrysostom; for the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, the Lateran Council for Images, the second Council of Nice, Gregory to Serenus, and Damascene: for the power of Priesthood to remit sins, S. Ambrose. A weak foundation to bear so great a frame.  
Cyril, chrysostom, and Ambrose in the places which you quote, teach nothing less than those errors and abuses which you maintain. The second Council of Nice was very near 800, the Lateran Council above a thousand years after Christ, both too young to make any doctrine Catholic. Gregory liketh that stories should be painted in the Church, but adoration of them he detesteth, which yet that wicked Council of Nice, did after establish. Damascene, you may take back again: his credit is so small, that we need not answer him.  
S. Hierom is hot against Vigilantius, and so hot, that Erasmus is feign to say, 
Argumentum Epistolae adversus Vigilantium.  Conuiciis debacchatur Hieronimus: Hierom raileth without measure: Yet the most honour that he gave to the bodies or ashes of Martyrs, by whom God after their deaths wrought great miracles, was to be fairly wrapped, and honestly kept in their Chapels: The tending of tapers, and setting up of wax candles before them, he denieth to be used in the Church: in other places if any such thing were, 
Hierom adversus Vigilant.  he imputeth it to the unskilfulness and simplicity of some Lay men and devout women, that had zeal, but not according to knowledge. What is this for your defence? You make new Relics, you set forth unshamefast Legends, and devise false miracles to deceive the people: you give them Pardons for many thousand thousand years: you promise them help in all their needs, and effect in all their desires: you make a very mart of the graces and gifts of God, to cause men to run from place to place, from Saint to Saint, from shrine to shrine, to increase your offerings: which wickedness if S. Hierom had seen in his time, he would have taunted you a little better than ever he did Vigilantius.  

August. de cura pro mortuis gerenda, ca 1.  In the prayers which were made to God at his Altar, we grant with S. Austin, The commendation of the dead, by the custom of the Universal Church, had a special place, but your prayer for souls in Purgatory was never Catholic. And where you send us to S. Austin's Enchiridion ca 110. for that kind of prayer, look again to the words, and you shall find there no certain doctrine, but a doubtful division, consisting of three parts, and not one of them proving your Purgatory. 
Augu. Enchir. ca 110.  When the sacrifices of the Altar, or any other alms are offered for all, that were baptised before they died: for such as are very good, they be, saith he, thanksgivings (to God:) for those that be not altogether ill, they be propitiations (that is procuring of mercy:) for such as be very bad, though they be no helpers to the dead, they be some comforts to the living: and whom they profit, they profit them thus far, either to purchase them full remission, or at least, more tolerable damnation. The first part of this division, that sacrifices for the dead, are thanksgivings to God, is a point that now you can not hear of: the last, that they comfort the living, but help not the dead, by no means you will admit: the middle is it, that you stand on, and that is nothing but this, whom they profit, they procure either full remission, or at lest a more tolerable damnation. Where S. Austen doth not affirm which of the twain they shall procure, but useth a disjunctive, and of the twain rather inclineth to the later, as the likelier, by correcting himself in this wise, they shall have remission, or at lest a more tolerable damnation. And for your better assurance that S. Austen, on whom you rely, never taught your Purgatory for a matter of Catholic faith, we send you back to the same father, 
Augu. Enchir. ca 69.  and the same book, the 69. chapter, where he saith, It is not incredible, that there is some such thing after this life: and whether it be so, it may be a question, and it may be either found out, or lie hid, that some of the faithful obtain salvation by a Purgatory fire so much the sooner, or later, by how much the more, or less they loved the transitory goods of this life. If it may lie hid, then is it no ground of Christian faith which must be fully believed of all men, neither could the prayers of the Church depend upon the doubtful opinion of Purgatory, 
August. de ciui●at. Dei, lib. 21. ●a. 27.  which by S. Austin's own judgement, is superfluous to be discussed, and most dangerous to be resolved.  
The rest of your places in this chapter, amounting to the number often, do you little good, and us less harm: we receive them without exception or distinction. The words of Maximinus the Arrian you wittingly pervert to make them like ours: wherein you discover your malice, and touch not our doctrine: for Arius, as you may read in that disputation, 
Disputat. Athanas. contra Arium Laodic. habita.  which Athanasius had with him, upbraided the fathers for using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not found in all the books of the new or old testament: whereas the Church of Christ always professed to believe nothing, but what was plainly written in the sacred scriptures. The self same cavil Maximinus urged S. Augustine with. 
August. contra Maximinum Arrian. Epist. lib. 10.  Hae verò voces, quae extra scripturam sunt, nullo casu a nobis suscipiuntur: These words (and not as you translate, these sayings) which are not in the scripture, by no means we receive. This objection we grant was both foolish and heretical, and if we urge you with any such, spare us not. We strive with you not for names & words, but for points and Principles of faith, and those we say must be proved by the scriptures. 
Rom. 10.  S. Paul said so before us, Faith is by hearing, & hearing out of the word of God. Maugre your traditions and unwritten verities, this is a Christian and Catholic position, which all the fathers confirm with one consent, as shall be showed in place convenient. In the mean time we say with basil, that I trow was no Arrian, 
Basil. sermo. de fide.  Manifestus: est a fide lapsus, & crimen maximae superbiae, vel a scripto recedere, vel non scriptum admittere: It is a manifest fall from faith, and a sin that argueth infinite pride, either to leave that which is written, or admit that which is not written.  
Your sixth chapter handleth no matter of religion, 

The 6. Chapter of the Apology.  
Iren. lib. 4. ca 32. Cyp. epist. 63.  
Chry. homil. 17. in Epi. ad Heb. Amb. in Psal. 38. Conc. Nic. ca 14. Hier. epist. 1. ad Heliod. Leo. ep. 81. ca 2.  
Amb. li. 5. ep. 33. Cyp. ep. 5. Au. de ciu. Dei, li. 22. ca 8. lib. 10. conf. ca 12.13. Euseb. in vita Const. li. 4. ca 45.  
Chry. de sacerd. Amb. in 1. Tim. 4. Greg. li 2. ep. 9.93. lib. 7. ep. 63. lib. 77. ep. 57 ad 3. interrog. Aug.   as being purposely made to excuse you from Treason: and hath nothing in it any way material, save only that upon the name of masspriest, you fall into a great rage, and will needs prove, the Apostles themselves, & the ancient fathers of all ages were mass priests. And that you do full clerkly. For wheresoever you find the word oblation or sacrifice in any father, you presently put him in the Deck for a masspriest. I marvel you be not ashamed, professing so deep knowledge, to send us over such vain trifles. The very children in England do know the lords supper is a sacrifice of thanksgiving, & a memorial of Christ's oblation on the cross, daily renewing his death in a mystery, which is the true meaning of the twelve places that here you bring, and of twelve hundred more, that might be brought to the like effect: but this is nothing to the sacrifice of your mass, where you profess that Christ is covered with accidents of bread and wine, and offered really with your hands to God his father for the remission of your sins: show but one father for this kind of sacrifice, and we will agnise not only these whom you name, but also Melchisedec and Malachi for mass-priests.  
Searching five hundred four score and thirteen years after Christ with all diligence, you find the word Missa twice: once in Ambrose, and once in Leo: and in a bravery you demand of us, Were they mass-priests, that said those masses? But what if the word Missa did then not signify the Mass, but a dismissing of the Catechists before, and of the faithful after the Lord's supper: where is your great and glorious triumph become? Look to the fourth Counsel of Carthage, the 84. Canon: 
Concil. Cartha. ginensis 4. Canon. 84.  Let the Bishop forbidden no man to enter the Church, and hear the word of God, neither jew, Gentile, nor heretic, usque ad missam Catechumenorum: that is, till the Catechists be sent away: not, until the Catechists mass. For they which were not yet baptised, could not be present at the ministration of the Lords supper, & therefore Missa doth signify the dismissing of them: as the manner was in the primitive Church to send away, first the Catechists, next the Repentants, and last of all to give the faithful leave to departed when the communion was ended: 

I●e, missa est. Go your way, depart.  
S●mo. 237. de tempore sub nomine August.  
Ambros. Lib. 5. Epist. 33.   which three dimissions were sometime called in the plural number, Missae, & missarum solemnia. The like phrase is elsewhere to be found in the works of S. Austen: Post sermonem fit missa Catechumenis: After the sermon the Catechists are willed to departed: and Ambrose in the same epistle which you quote, Post lectiones atque tractatum, dimissis Catechumenis: After the reading and expounding of the scriptures, the Catechists being demised: Where these words, that you stick on, follow: Ego mansi in munere, missam facere caepi: I went forward, and sent the rest away: that might not be partakers of the mysteries. 
Missam facere, not, dicere.  And that missam facere is not to say mass, as you dream, but to give leave to departed, the very Latin tongue would lead you if you were not more than froward: 

Mass, and yet no mass-priests.  
Inter August. Epist. 31.34.35. Grego. Lib. 1. Epist. 72.86. Lib. 3. Epist. 30. Lib. 5. Epist. 6. Lib. 7. Epist. 53.126.   and so may you find the word missa in Leo, Gregory and others, and yet they no mass-priests.  
To maintain your beads, Agnusdets, and other consecrated creatures: you note where S. Austen and Paulinus as familiar friends, sent each other cakes, and where Gregory gave some monuments of Peter, Paul, and others to Princes & Bishops, for presents. This is not answerable to your enterprise: you bring us certain toys hallowed, as you say, with the Pope's blessing: and where you deliver them, you take promises, vows and oaths, that such persons shall keep communion, and yield subjection to the Bishop of Rome: which is nothing else but the slocking of her majesties people from her, and the devoting of them, their bodies, goods, and forces to serve the Pope's turn.  
That power to forgive sins must be holden in Capite of the Pope, you produce Cyprian, who saith no such thing in that place, which you cite, but only calleth the Church of Rome a principal Church, 
Cyprian. Epistola 55. Leo Epist. 89.  whence unity among priests, (in former ages) did spring: and Leo, whose private affection in advancing his Sea, doth carry light credit in the judgement of wise men, & is far from a Catholic consent in the judgement of all men: yet if he mean as Cyprian and Austen do, 
Cyprian. de unitate Eccles. August. in joh. tract. 50. Idem in joh. tracta. 124.  when they say: Exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut ecclesia una monstretur: The beginning (of this power) came from one (which was Peter) to declare the Church to be one: Et Petrus quando claves accepit, ecclesiam sanctam (& universam) significavit: ecclesia ergo, quae fundatur in Christo, claves ab eoregni caelorum accepit in Petro: Peter when he received the keys signified the holy (and Universal) Church: for the Church which is built upon Christ, received of him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Peter. If this be his meaning, as it may well be, we refuse him not: and then, ab ipso, quasi quodam capite, must be, from him the first that had it. For caput is either the chief, or the first: otherwise that the Apostles held their function, and power, under, and of Peter, in capite, is a false and erroneous sense, flatly resisted by S. Paul, 
Gal. 2.  affirming, that they which seemed to be somewhat, (as james, Peter, and john,) bestowed nothing on him: and refuted by our Saviour himself, where he saith: 
john. 20.  As my father sent me, so I (not Peter) send you. The rest of your authorities, be they scriptures or fathers, impeach not us, nor our doctrine, but are such as we may well admit, without any doubt or scruple.  
Your seventh and last Chapter hath neither text nor title, 
The 7. Chap. of the apollo.  that is any way prejudicial to us. We grant your allegations, & deny your applications. Martyrs be glorious witnesses of God's truth, & their death is precious in his sight: but flatter not yourselves, you be no Martyrs. You bend yourselves against God, and his anointed, in a wicked and desperate quarrel, & receive your deserts for preparing the subjects of this Realm by colour of religion to take her Majesty for no Queen, when the Pope shall say the word; and to be ready to refuse their allegiance, and join with any stranger that will invade the land.  
This is the whole furniture of your Apology: 
Not one place more in all the Apology touching us than here is answered.  to my knowledge I have not omitted one place that maketh any thing for you. The rest is a farthel of phrases, shadowed with fair pretences and plausible persuasions, fit to prevail with worldly minds, that never tasted the truth: which if we should seek to repel with like manner and order of writing, we should but waste paper, and weary the reader: and therefore if you list to discuss the Principal intents of your Apology, more exactly than hitherto you have, I will join this issue with you, that, notwithstanding all you have said, or can say, you be neither good subjects, nor Catholics: If not, I will refer the judgement of your proofs to the learned, and leave you to God.  Phi. 
We know our cause to be so good, that we need not shrink from any trial.  Theo. 
Then take what help you can of your Apology to defend yourselves, and as we pass through your chapters, object you that which you think strongest. Your vaunts and vanities I will not answer, but only such things as be most material.  Phi. 
Content with that.  Theo. 
And as occasion is offered I will show, that you neither obey God, nor your Prince.  Phi. 
Do what you can, we fear you not.  Theo. 
If you think any thing worth your pains, in your first chapter, you were best begin.  Phi. 
Have we not good cause to find ourselves aggrieved, 
Apolog. Cap. ●. Sect. 2.  that so many strange nations having their Churches with freedom to serve God after their manner in our Country, only Catholics (which in our father's days had all, & for whom and by whom all Churches and Christianity arose) can by no intercession of foreign Potentates, nor no sighs nor sorrows of innumerable most loyal subjects, obtain one place in the whole land to serve their Lord God after the rites of all other good Christian Princes, Priests, and people of the world?  Theo. 
If you mean that strangers have leave to profess divers religions in this Realm, 
Strangers have not divers religions in this Realm.  you wittingly slander us against your own conscience: for in England the people both strange and liege, worship God the father in spirit & truth, according to the Gospel of his son, agreeing together in the substance of one faith, and the right order of Christ's sacraments: only strangers are suffered in their Churches to use that tongue, which they best understand, as S. Paul appointeth: 
1. Cor. 14.  and to retain such ceremonies of their own, as be neither against faith, nor adverse to good manners: and therefore by S. Austin's judgement go for INDIFFERENT, 
Epist. 118.  and may be borne in Christian unity without offence or confusion. But if this be your meaning, that where strangers have freedom to serve God, after the same manner that we do, you should also be licensed to bring in your Mass, notwithstanding it be quite repugnant to the service of God, which this land receiveth. Your consequent is more than absurd: because their faith and religion agreeth with ours, yours is clean contrary.  
Next you sorrow to see no mediation of friends, no threats of foes, no tumults at home, no despites abroad, able to withdraw the Prince's hart from liking and loving the truth: but the godly rejoice to see so perfect a mirror of faith and devotion in a Christian Queen, that she rather chooseth to suffer your wrongs and abide your reproaches with patience, than to step one foot from that Lord which hath graciously blessed, and mightily preserved her person, Sceptre, and people from the jaws of his, and her enemies.  Phil. 

Apol. chap. 1. sect. 2.  And where no jew, no Turk, no Pagan, can by the law of God, nature or nations, he forced from the manner, and persuasion of his own Sect and service to any other which by promise or profession he or his progenitors never received: only we (that neither in our own persons, nor in our forefathers, ever gave consent to any other faith or worship of God, but have in precise terms by protestation and promise bound ourselves in Baptism to the religion, faith, and service Catholic alone) are against divine and human Laws, and against the Protestants own doctrine in other nations, not only bereaved of our Christian dew in this behalf, but are forced by manifold coactions to these rites which we never knew nor gave our consent unto.  Theo. 

Papists may be forced to truth.  Few men without your cunning, could huddle so many, so manifest untruths in one sentence. No jew, no Turk, say you, may be forced from his religion. If that were so, what maketh it for your defence, which challenge both the names and rooms of Christian men, and are in respect thereof, for just cause, required to perform that in deed, which you pretend in word, and by moderate correction driven to keep the Christian faith, which in Baptism you professed. For heretics of all sects and sorts may be compelled to follow truth, though infidels might not: and so your inference faileth when you say, no law forceth Jews or Pagans from their persuasion, therefore not Christians: nay rather, if we grant jews and Turks excusable for these two reasons, lack of knowledge, and want of promise: certainly Papists being neither void of the first, nor free from the last, may, yea must, be compelled of Christian magistrates, for dread of punishment, tempered with good instruction, to forsake their heresies and forbear their idolatries, wherewith Christ is dishonoured, and his truth defaced.  

Forcing to religion without former promise.  As the joints of your argument be lose, so be the parts untrue. For king Darius seeing Daniel strangely delivered from the Lion's den made this decree, that all people, nations, and languages in the world should reverence and fear the God of Daniel. 
Daniel. 6.  Likewise the king of Niniveth at the first denouncing of God's wrath by jonas immediately with the consent of his Counsel caused this proclamation to be made through the City, 
jonas 3.  that man and beast should put on sackcloth, and cry mightily to God, and every man turn from his evil way. Lo, Sir, two kings precisely commanding their subjects, (and therefore ready to punish the refusers) without delay to worship a strange and unknown God, (albeit the true God) whom neither they, nor their forefathers made promise to serve; and yet I think, you will not say they broke the Law of God, nature, or nations in so doing. S. Austen will assure you, that the King of Niniveh did God good service by compelling the whole City to please God. 
Episto. 50.  A third instance for this matter is the calling of Paul; first as a jew, 
Acts. 9  and so within the limits of your assertion: then strooken with blindness, & amazed with terror from heaven; and therefore compelled to Christianity by corporal violence, that touched Paul nearer, than impoverishments or imprisonments, wherewith you find yourselves grieved. Behold (saith that learned father) in Paul, 
August. Epistola 50.  Christ first compelling, afterward teaching; first striking, then comforting; and he that entered into the Gospel, constrained with bodily punishment, laboured more than all those, that were called only by mouth.  
I might refel your idle flourish by the later examples of Polonia, 
Munster. Cosmogra, lib. 4. fol. 894.902. Idem lib. 3. fol. 719.743.  Russia, Lithuania, forced at the commandment of their rulers to forsake their ancient Idols, and receive baptism: By the long and sharp wars, which divers good Princes maintained of purpose to compel the Saxons and Vandals to the faith: By the sore vexations and afflictions of the jews in every Christian common wealth: All which, both old and new, first & last, serve to convince that Pagans & jews have been forced by rigour of laws, and other means, to yield to the truth, without any former promise, or farther knowledge, which you stiffly deny: but as I said this is not our question. You are no jews, no Pagans, but in show Catholics, in deed heretics: you were baptised, you challenge an interest in the Church & Sacraments: by reason of this your first promise, and next your outward profession of Christ's name, you stand in duty bound, and of right may be compelled to serve God, not as your own fancies persuade you, nor as the Church of Rome leadeth you; but according to the prescript of his word, and that tenor of faith, which the Prophets and Apostles did teach.  Phi. 
We bond ourselves in precise terms by protestation in Baptism to the religion, 
Apolog. Cap. 1. sect. 2.  faith, and service Catholic alone: other faith and worship of God we never consented unto, neither in our own persons, nor in our forefathers.  Theo. 
This is your common charm wherewith you bewitch many simple souls, bearing them in hand, that in Baptism they vowed to profess your Italian religion: which God knoweth is nothing so. For in whose name were you baptised, Philander? In Pius the fift, or Gregory the thirteenth? I think you were not, I know you should not; 
1. Cor. 1.  no not in Peter's, or Paul's, but in Christ's alone. Then stand you bound by baptism to yield faith and obedience to no person or place, but only to Christ the first author, and ordainer of this sacrament.  
Preach ye the Gospel, 
Mark. 16.  saith Christ, He that believeth and is baptised shallbe saved. 
All men bound by Baptism unto truth.  What else must you preach, what else must they believe, that will be baptised, but the Gospel? ergo the preacher and the believer, that is the baptiser and the baptised are bound precisely to the Gospel. 
Gal. 3.  All ye, saith Paul, that are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, and are the sons of God by faith in Christ jesus [having] one Lord, 
Ephes. 4.  one faith, one Baptism. Perceive you not, that in baptism, which no Protestation of yours can frustrate, the believers do put on Christ their Lord, not his pretended vicar; and are made the sons of God, not the vassals of Rome, by faith, which dependeth neither on man nor Angel, but directly belongeth to God and his word? 
1. Peter. 1. Acts. 8. Rom. 10.  If thou believe with all thine heart, saith Philip to the converted Eimuch, thou mayest be [baptised.] Now faith cometh of hearing, and (that) hearing of the word of God, as Paul witnesseth. So that when you were Christened you made promise to believe nothing save the word of God, whereby faith is engendered and nourished.  

john. 10.  My sheep hear my voice, saith our saviour, a stranger they follow not, but flee from him. And in baptism you received no man's mark but his, & for that cause stand bound to regard no man's voice but his alone. Doubt you this? Then view the Commission that Christ sent you to baptise with. 
Mat. 28.  Go teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the father, & the son, and the holy ghost, teaching them to observe all the things, which I have commanded you. This text needeth no gloze. Baptism bindeth no man to the Bishop or Church of Rome, but to the will & precepts of Christ. Therefore prove your religion & service, (which you stoutly, but falsely term Catholic) to be commanded by Christ, or else women & children, 
No man bound to popery by Baptism.  be they never so silly, will collect by the manifest words of our saviour, that their promise in baptism doth straightly bind them from believing your errors, & admitting your masses, until you show good and effectual warrant out of the word of God, that you do, what Christ did, and teach, what he taught; 
Mat. 23. john. 10. Ephe. 4. James. 4. Esa. 55.  without adding or altering any jot. For this is the duty that baptism requireth of us; to believe no teacher but one, which is Christ; to follow no stranger, to regard & obey no Lord, or lawmaker in the Church, but only the son, whom the father appointed to be Master, leader, and ruler of the Gentiles.  
And as for your odious outcry, since the laws of this Realm force you to nothing, but what is directly commanded in the scriptures (as by discussing your Apology shall appear) & you vowed, when you were Christened, to believe & obey the will of God revealed in his word: let the world judge, whether your Sovereign offer you wrong, in seeking with mild and gentle correction to reform your frowardness; or you rather forgetting your promise to God, and duty to your Prince, take the way to forsake the Christian faith, & withstand authority.  Phi. 

Apolog. Cap. 1. sect. 2. Athanas. ad solitariam vitam agentes. Hilar. ad Constantium Augustum.  It is against your own doctrine in other nations that any should be forced to religion.  Theo. 
When you note the places and name the men, I will answer you more directly, than I can at this present to so general an objection. Howbeit with what face can you reprove the sober and moderate proceed of his Realm, which revenge the smallest contempt of your idle ceremonies with unsufferable torments? for shame rebuke not that in others which in yourselves is most rife. But grant some well disposed persons happily warned you, that true religion useth to persuade, not to compel: that God did rather teach than exact the knowledge of himself, 
How some have misliked forcing to religion.  and winning credit to his precepts by the strangeness of his heavenvly wonders, despised the will that is forced to confess him: Their purpose was to move your clergy to delight rather in teaching than in tormenting their brethren. 
Grego. Episto. lib. 2. Cap. 91.  They thought it a strange and new kind of preaching (for bishops) to drive men to believe with whipping, as Bonner did: or else they detested your violent and furious manner of compulsion, which neither took pains to persuade, nor allowed men time to learn those things which you forced them to believe. They knew, that if such as wander astray, should be terrified, & not instructed, it might be counted a wicked overruling. 
August. Epist. 48.  Or last of all, if they spoke resolutely without limitation, they were nuzz with overmuch pity, which also beguiled S. Austen at the first, in the self same point, until he took better advisement. 
August ibidem.  I was once so minded, saith he, that I thought no man ought to be forced to Christian unity, but that we should deal by persuading, strive by disputing, conquer by reasoning, lest they proved dissembling Catholics, whom we knew professed heretics.  
Our doctrine which you say, 
What we teach of forcing to religion.  maketh so much for you, is this: that your Prelates should not make it their occupation to persecute to death all sorts, ages and sexes, which refuse your school tricks, or reject the dregs of your Clementines and Decretals; but rather with mildness & patience seek to recover such as you think lost: yet in Princes who bear the sword, and are Gods Lieutenants not only to procure peace between men, but also by laws to maintain religion towards God, we neither did nor do dispraise moderate correction when need so requireth: only we would have such as stray from truth, 

August epist. 127.  
Idem contra Cresconium lib. 3. Cap. 50.  
Idem contra literas Petilia. lib. 2. cap. 86. Chry. in Matth. homil. 47. Codicis. lib. 1. tit. 5. de haereticis & Manicheis.  
Idem leg. Arriani. August. de haeresibus, haere. 46.  
Saint Austen defendeth the same.  
August. Epist. 48.  
Idem Epist. 50. The Donatists would have none compelled to faith.   corrected, not murdered. For it never pleased any good men in the Catholic Church that heretics should be put to death, as Austen affirmeth. Many laws were made to punish them, but no Prince's law commanded them to be slain. Yea the Lord doth not forbid to scatter the covents of heretics, to stop their mouths, to bar them freedom of speech: but to murder and kill them, that he forbiddeth saith chrysostom. And therefore your tyrannous & barbarous havoc of old, young; men, women; learned, unlearned; we detest with heart, and dissuade with tongue, wishing all Princes to follow the steps of Gratian, Theodosius, Arcadius, Honorius, & other Christian Emperors, who with convenient sharpness of positive laws amerced, banished, & diversly punished heretics, yet none received judgement of death, except only the Manichees, whose monstrous blasphemies in agnising the devil for a god, & beastly defiling the sacred Eucharist deserved no less.  
Such manifold coactions decreed by virtuous Princes, when the Donatists railed at for life, the learned & catholic father S. Austen earnestly defended to be lawful, & highly commended in sundry places. Thinkest thou (saith he to Vincentius) no man ought to be forced to righteousness, when as thou readest that the master said to his servants: Compel all that you find to come in: and also that Paul was forced to receive & embrace the truth by the great and violent compulsion of Christ, except thou judge goods & lands dearer to men than their eyes? Where is now (saith he to Bonifacius) that, which these [Donatists] harp at so much? it is free for a man to believe or not to believe▪ what violence did Christ use? whom did he compel? behold Paul (for an example:) Let them mark in him, Christ first compelling, & afterward teaching; first striking, & then comforting. Let them not mislike that they be forced, but examine whereto they be forced. 
Ibidem.  And citing that part of the second Psalm, Be wise ye kings, understand ye that judge the earth, serve the Lord in fear: how do (saith he) kings serve the Lord in fear, but when they forbidden and punish with a religious severity those things which are done against the commandments of God: as Ezekiah did serve him, by destroying the groves and temples built against the precepts of God: as josiah did in like manner: as the king of Niniveh did, forcing the whole City to please God: as Nabuchodonosor did, restraining all his subjects from blaspheming God, with a dreadful law.  
Gaudentius reason, that the peace of Christ invited such as were willing, but forced no man unwilling, 
Idem contra 2. Gaudentij Episto. Lib. 2. cap. 17.  the same father refuteth in this wise: Where you think that none must be forced to truth against their wills, you be deceived, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God, which maketh those willing [at last] which were unwilling [at first.] Did the Ninivites repent against their wills, because they did it at the compulsion of their king? What needed the king's express commandment, that all men should humbly submit themselves to God, but that there were some amongst them which neither would have regarded nor believed God's message, had they not been terrified by the king's edict? This Princely power and authority giveth many men occasion to be saved, which though they were violently brought to the feast of the great householder, yet being once compelled to come in, they find there good cause to rejoice that they did enter [against their wills.] When Petilian objected that no man must be forced by laws to do well or to believe, S. Austen replieth: 
Idem contra literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. 83.  To faith in deed may no man unwilling be forced, but yet by God's justice, or rather mercy. The breath of faith is chastened with the rod of affliction. Because the best things are freely chosen with good liking, must not therefore ill deeds be punished by sincere Laws? You be not forced to do well by these laws that are made against you, but forbidden to do evil. Preposterous were discipline to revenge your ill living: but when you first contemn the doctrine that teacheth you to live well. And even they which make laws to bridle your headynes, are they not those, which bear the sword, as Paul speaketh not without cause, being God's ministers and executors of wrath on him that doth ill?  
Who list to be farther satisfied, that Christian Princes may compel their subjects to the true worship of God prescribed in his word, and punish the refusers, let him read at large the places above cited, or shortly consider that the spirit of God commendeth king josiah, 
2. Cor. 34. josiah commended for compelling Israel to serve God.  for making all jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to the covenant, which he renewed with God and COMPELLING ALICE THAT WERE FOUND IN ISRAEL TO SERVE THE LORD THEIR GOD. So that you might have well spared your wanton complaint to God, and kept in your Crocodiles tears. Your Sovereign doth nothing against you, but what is agreeable to Gods and man's law, consonant to the doctrine of our Churhes, & much easier than that which yourselves practised on others: neither is this our question, what rites you consented unto, but what faith Christ delivered his Church in the writings of his Apostles and Evangelists: for to that every man which is baptized may be lawfully forced by the Prince's authority, let him and his forefathers assent to what they list, except you can prove that baptism serveth no longer for a sacrament of Christian religion, but goeth now for a Romish recognizance.  Phi. 
Our grief of heart is much increased, 
Apolog. cap. 1. sect. 3.  either when we look into other States and Countries, as Germania, Suitzerland, Suecia, Boemia, and the like, where though there have been great alterations in religion these late years, yet lightly none be forced so, but if they can not have the exercise of their profession in one torritorie, Canton, town, Church or Parish, yet they may have it near them in an other, as also in all the Provinces and Kingdoms subject either to the Persians or the Turk at this day. The old Christians be permitted to use freely their devotions: or when we look back to the like distresses of Catholics in old time when certain Emperors were chief fautors of Arianism and other Sects, who yet were often induced of their natural benignity to yield certain Churches or at least Oratories in Churchyards and other places adjoining, 

Socrat. li. 2. ca 18. & li. 4. ca 12.16. Niceph. li. 11. ca 49.50. Lib. 5. de Basil. trad..  
Two religions in one Realm.   for the Catholic service in their dominions. So did Constantius the Arian Emperor & Valens grant to S. Athanasius and his followers in Alexandria: which Valens God plagued afterward, because he would not suffer the same at Antioch. Valentinian also the younger proffered the like to S. Ambrose in Milan.  Theo. 
Are you well in your wits to lament the lack of that in this Realm, which God in plain words detesteth, and with sore plagues revengeth? Have you forgotten how sharply king Achab and the commons of Israel were reproved of Elias for that error? He did not say, why permit you not those that will to the Lord, 
1. King. 18.  those that list, to Baal; but how long halt you between two sides or opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him [forsaking all other,] if Baal be (God) get you after him. 
Psal. 18. Esa. 48. Deut. 10.  Since than it is confessed on both parts, yours and ours, that there can be no God save the Lord, and he never meant to surrender any piece of his glory, but is so jealous of it, that he will be served, and only served with all our heart, mind and strength: these things I say being out of question, I reckon it can not stand with a Prince's duty to reverse this heavenly decree (thou SHALT WORSHIP THE LORD THY GOD, 
Matth. 4.  AND HIM ONLY SHALT thou SERVE) with establishing two religions in one Realm: the first authorised by Christ & bequeathed in his testament to the Church: the next invented of Antichrist and flatly repugnant to the prophetical and Apostolical scriptures. For if God be truth, 
Psal. 31. & john 14. john 8.  they which presume to worship him with lies (as in contrary faith must needs come to pass) serve now not God, but the devil, a liar himself and the father of lies: whose service no Christian Prince may so much as tolerate.  
What are (saith Vincentius) strange Gods but strange errors, 

Vincentius Lirinens. adversus haereses.  
Heresy is an inward idolatry.   which the scriptures so call figuratively, for that heretics reverence their opinions no less than the Gentiles their Gods? By the which we learn that the first precept forbidding more Gods than one barreth all other services of the same God, save that which himself hath appointed for himself. 
August. de vera religione Cap. 38.  It is the vilest & basest kind of idolatry, when men worship their own fancies, observing that for a religion which their deceived and swelling minds imagine. Then may not Princes wink at corrupt & vicious religion, which is an inward & ghostly worship of Idols, 
Matt. 6.  seeing no man, & therefore no Prince, can serve two masters: & the service that Princes yield Christ, in respect of their royal vocation, consisteth in making laws for Christ, which if they do likewise for Antichrist, it can not be salved, but that they serve God and Mammon, or rather cease to be the servants of Christ in that they renounce their master by serving his adversary. Now what account God will exact for his name blasphemed, his son refused, his sacraments profaned, his word exiled: and what answer must be made for the ruin of faith, harvest of sin, murder of souls consequent always to the public freedom of heresies, I leave to be fully considered and wisely prevented by Christian Magistrates, who must think that silence provoketh, & sufferance boldeneth their subjects to forsake God and his Church, even as in civil affairs the slacking of justice doth maintain disorder.  

Apolog. Cap. 1. sect. 7.  So that in this point your defender betrayeth his unsettled humour, which admonisheth her Majesty that she must answer (to God) not only for things done by her commandment and knowledge, but for whatsoever is done unjustly by her name or authority, though she never knew thereof: And yet here find great fault, that her Highness (respecting her duty to God and account that she must make) denieth to bear the burden of your wicked abuses and poisoned errors: which no prince can avoid, that permitteth your Masses and licenseth your rites, because the seeing and suffering your impieties is a plain consent and in manner an open communion with your unfruitful works of darkness.  

We may not imitate examples, except they be good.  To cover the shamefulness of your demand you produce certain kingdoms and Countries affected in religion otherwise than you, nevertheless content to suffer your service within their dominions. If it were so, what infer you thence? that we safely may do the like? Your consequent is nothing worth: their doings can be no discharge for us: we may not imitate the vices, but the virtues of good men. First prove they do well, then urge their example. Your sovereign perceiving by God's law, what every Prince ought to do, regardeth not what other Princes please to do: deserving thereby the more thanks with God, and praise with men, for that in guiding her people she rather embraceth Christian piety, than irreligious policy.  

No news to see divers religions in divers states.  But in deed you do the Germans and Heluetians wrong, to quote their names for tolerating two religions. The reformed Churches and States there be so far from admitting the full Dose of your heresies, that by no means they can digest one dram of your ceremonies: the rest I think persisting in ignorance, retain your faith in the same fashion they were wont. Amongst whom because many Dukes, Landgraves, Marquesses, Counties, yea Bishops, Barons, Abbots and Gentlemen have regal jurisdiction within their precincts, it is no news to see many laws under many Lords, and in divers regiments divers religions. As for the kings of Suetia, Bohemia, Polonia, (not able to reduce their Countries to the profession of one faith) neither we may reprove them, as negligent, nor you can allege them as indifferent: since not their own fault but other men's force keepeth than from attempting any redress by their princely power, which the nobles restrain and Commons receive with this proviso, that their accustomed freedom of conscience be no way prohibited or interrupted.  
Howbeit this kind of dealing in my judgement is very captious. When you should exemplify two religions under one Magistrate, you tell us of several rulers bend to maintain their several faiths: in steed of showing some that be willing to join falsehood with truth, you repeat such as can not avoid that confusion. We looked for Princes which at lest had been Christians, you make your supply with infidels and heretics. To pass the looseness of your first allegations, what meaneth the lewdness of your latter examples? Is your cunning so small or purpose so vile, that you bring Pagans and Arians to countenance your intention? What folly, what madness was it for you to think that a Prince furnished with so rare gifts of wisdom, learning and virtue, would serve from the steps of the famous and worthy kings of judah to be sorted with Saracens: 
Saracens & Arians unfit examples for Christians. Psal. 16. David's zeal.  and repeal the laws of religious and ancient Emperors, to take part with the chiefest upholders of Arianisme? For if God himself had not decided the case, but examples of men might bear some sway, King David was so far from suffering the worship of any strange God within his Realm that he protesteth, Their offerings of blood will I not offer, neither make mention of their names with my lips. When would he think you confirm their honour and service with his royal authority that thus disdained them common humanity? The good kings of judah were favoured and blessed of God for walking in the ways of David their father, and purging the land from all sacrifices and ceremonies not prescribed by Moses Law: contrariwise Solomon was rejected, for admitting other Gods to be served within his dominions besides the God of Israel, 
salomon's doubling with God.  though this toleration were granted in respect of his own wives that were strangers, and jeroboams politic devise to worship the same God in Dan and Bethel after a new manner turned to the destruction of himself and his posterity.  
Which fearful effects of God wrath made Constantine to decree, 

Christian Princes could suffer no heresy to be publicly professed.  
Eusebi. de vita Constant. lib. 3. Cap. 63.  
Socrat. lib. 5. Cap. 2.  
Codicis 1. tit. 5. lege omnes.   that all temples of heretics should be without any denial overthrown: & in no place public or private, from that day forward should their assemblies be suffered. jovianus refused to govern those which were not found in faith. I saith he, that am a Christian, can not become your Emperor that are the disciples of julian: a renegade from Christ: Gratian at his first entry finding all places full of Arians & the laws of Valens his uncle making for them, fearing some general tumult if he should presently distress so many, gave leave, that every Religion might have Churches & Oratories with freedom & immunity. But being once selted, & joined with Theodosius, he commanded that all heresies should keep silence for ever, as interdicted by Gods and man's law: that none should any longer presume to teach or learn profane doctrine. The same prohibition did Arcadius and Honorius continue with great severity: 
Ibidem leg. Cuncti.  Let all heretics understand that all places must be taken from them as well Churches & other open places of resort, as private houses: in all which let them be debarred from service both by night and by day: the (Lord) deputy to be fined an hundred pounds, if (he) permit any such thing in sight or in secret. Theodosius the younger, & Valentinian his cousin comprising in a long beadrole sundry sorts of heretics, 
Ibidem leg. Ariani.  appoint that nowhere within the Roman Empire their assemblies or prayers be suffered: & that all laws made to prohibit their meetings should be revived, & stand good everlastingly. These we take to be meeter Precedents for Christian Princes than Turks, Persians, and Arians, not worthy to be named in the Church of God, much less to be followed.  

No more would the Arians. Four stories wrested by the jes.  But imagine the credit of your Arian Emperors were less than it is, why should you pervert their actions? why deprave you four stories in six lines? Constantius & Valens were not induced, as you pretend, of their natural benignity, to yield Athanasius a Church in Alexandria: they were compelled much against their wills, of necessity to suffer that, which of courtesy they would never have consented unto. For Constans the West Emperor denounced open hostility to Constantius his brother if Athanasius were not restored. 
Socr. lib. 2. Cap. 18.  He, saith Socrates, driven to this extremity, was advised by the Bishops of his own faction, 
Socra. li. 4. cap. 16.  rather to grant Athanasius the regiment of a Church than to feel the smart of civil wars: and Valens knowing that an infinite number in Egypt and Alexandria favoured Athanasius, and fearing least a sedition kindled in those parts (the people being vehement and fierce by nature) might endanger his state, ceased from molesting him and his followers. These things expressed in your Author you purposely skip, urging the facts & dissembling the causes.  


Niceph. li. 11. cap. 49.  
Idem lib. 11. cap. 50.   With like boldness you falsify the reason, why Valens was afterward punished. It is true that he did tear the supplication of Terentius his Captain, requesting one church for the catholics at Antioch. It is also true that his army was overthrown, & himself terribly consumed in fire by the Goths: but that he was therefore plagued because he would not suffer two faiths to be planted in Antioch, that is your own surmise. Nicephorus hath no such circumstance. Neither did Valentinian proffer the like to S. Ambrose. 

Lib. epistolarum 5. oratione contra Auxentium.  
S. Ambrose chooseth rather to yield his life, than one of his Churches to the Arrian service.   You wrist the story from his right course to serve your purpose: but he required Ambrose to deliver up a church in Milan, to the which he with other Arians would resort. To this Ambrose made answer: If I be forced [from my Church] I can not resist, I will never consent to yield my right. Naboth defended his vine with his blood, shall I betray the Church of Christ? [Valentinian] shall rather take from me my life than my faith. And for aught that I see, the constant refusal of this grave, learned & godly Bishop withstanding to death the toleration of two religions in one City, doth prejudice your assertion more than the demand of a rash young Arian can further it.  
If you tell us, that your Catholic service may be suffered in this Realm, notwithstanding both Gods and man's laws banish heretical assemblies, than you recant the permission of two contrary faiths in one Realm, and resume the case which lieth in question betwixt us; fond supposing yourselves to be right Catholics, and those that mislike you, to be condemned heretics; which is still denied by us, and of your part never yet proved. Athanasius and Ambrose were Catholics in deed, 
Athanasius & Ambrose were Catholics: and therefore Papists be not.  but not acquainted with your worshipping of Images, your adoring the Sacrament, your praying in a strange tongue, your changing the Lords supper into private Masses: the rest of your impieties they never heard, they never taught: & therefore till you can make good proof that your faith and religion agreeth with theirs, they standing by your own confession for catholics, you must of consequent, as differing from them in many substantial points of doctrine, be reputed for heretics.  Phi. 
Which only grace of our Prince if we might have obtained, 
Apol. Cap. 1. Sect. 4.  no pleasure, profit, or preferment that the world beside yieldeth in any part of Christendom should have kept us out of our dearly beloved country so long, for whose salvation, and so much liberty of conscience as is mentioned, we have often wished diverse of our persons in perpetual prison, for pledge and warrant of the peaceable and loyal demenor of our brethren the Catholics, and for security of the state, whereof her wise Counsellors have always in such cases greatest regard. But neither this durst our Catholic brethren demand in their manifold fears, doubts and disgraces at home, nor we in such suspicion and misconstruction of all our actions, could ever with hope attempt it abroad. And, alas, much less than the grant of public places for exercise of our ancient religion, would have given us infinite contentment of the Catholics within, and have called home most of them abroad, when both sorts would have counted it a singular grace, during the distress of these days, to have had by permission, pardon connivence, their soul rights (without which men perish doubtless everlastingly in their private houses and chambers, yea in prisons, in the closest and least offensive manner in the world: as the Apostles and Confessors did often in the primitive Church, 
Cyprian. Epist. 5. Niceph. lib. 9 cap. 23.  and S. Cyprian testifieth that some did in his time, and S. Anastasius himself did with the catholics in Antioch.) From all which, being by rigour of penal statutes, diligent inquiry of temporal Officers, watchfulness of ministers, spies, and promoters, continually restrained, and by them often chased from their houses, spoiled of their goods, disgraced and discouraged in all their affairs, many thousands, yea the far greater part of her majesties subjects languish away in sorrow and sadness irremediable.  Theo. 
You departed this Country neither expecting her majesties leave, nor regarding her laws, 
The wise demands of the Jesuits.  and would you now be fet home with a triumph injurious to God, infamous to the Land, dangerous to the Prince? No man asketh of his equal any thing but that which is honest and safe for the granter: only the Jesuits step forth confidently, to demand at their Sovereign's hands, no less than the manifest breach of God's law, joined with the subversion of her royal estate. For how displeasant is it to God, that light should be matched with darkness, and Christ yoked with Antichrist? And how pernicious it is for her majesties quiet and happy continuance, to suffer him, that hath already cursed her person, removed her crown, discharged her subjects, invaded her dominions (whose seedmen, and sworn legates ye be) to steal from her the people's hearts under a cloud of Catholic religion and feigned devotion, the most honourable and wise Sages of this Realm so well conceive, that I guess you shall have much to do, with all your colourable pretences and eloquent flourishes to shadow the clearness of their long and grounded experience.  
To salve this sore, we shall have you foorthcomming for warrant that your brethren shall use loyal and peaceable behaviour. Were this contention for earthly, not heavenly things; and did it concern not Christ's glory, but her grace's indemnity; what a toy this is, for a few shifting Friars to think themselves meet pledges for a Prince's security? 
A few Friars think themselves sufficient hostages for a Prince.  Submission to God and your Prince would better become you, than this malapert kind of prescribing, on what conditions you will return, what hostages you will give, what laws you will agnise: which covenants whether you rudely purpose them, or mannerly wish them, no Magistrate will receive, lest your burning hearts, and unquiet heads slide from misliking to murmuring, and so to resisting.  
But your brethren are so bashful at home, that they never durst demand any such thing, & you so fearful abroad, that you could not attept it with hope: yet are you so bold that you scatter this invective which chargeth the state with many vile and uncivil outrages, and your associates of the North were so brainsick, that putting themselves in arms against their liege Lady, 
The bashfulness of Papists.  they required by solemn proclamation forsooth, not only safeconduct for your Mass, but also the releasing of prisoners, vanishing of preachers, reversing of laws & displacing of counsellors.  Phi. 
If the grant of public places for our service seem much we will content ourselves with chambers & prisons.  Theo. 
The privatnes of the place, when the fact is ill, neither acquitteth the doer from wickedness, neither excuseth the permitter from negligence. 
Private permission of error, unlawful as well as public.  No corner is so secret, no prison so close, but your impiety there suffered doth offend God, infect others, & confirm your own frowardness. If your religion be good, why should it lack Churches? if it be nought, why should it have chambers? A christian Prince may not pardon or wink at your falsehood. S. Paul hath put in a caveat against that sleight of permitting, which in truth is consenting. 
Rom. 1.  Elie reproved his sons, yet was he sharply punished of God for his indulgence, 
1. Sam. 2.  which is all one with your connivence. S. john saith, 
john. Epist. 2.  he that lodgeth, or biddeth an heretic God speed, is partaker of his evil works. Then how can the Magistrate bear with your sacrilegious profaning the lords supper, or licence the rest of your blasphemies, & hope to be free from your plagues? When Valentinian the younger was requested to wink at the renewing of an altar for the Pagans' in Rome, S. Ambrose dissuadeth him in these words: All men serve you that be Princes, 

Ambros. lib. 5. Epist. 30.  
God alloweth no connivence   & you serve that mighty God. He that serveth this God, must bring no dissimulation, no connivence, but faithful zeal & devotion: he must give no kind of consent to the worship of Idols, & other profane ceremonies. For God will not be deceived, which searcheth all things, even the secrets of [our] hearts. This earnest desire to serve God in her Princely vocation without any shrinking or wavering, hath been so long planted, & is so well settled in her majesties devout mind, that no possible means ever could, as you presently find; ever shall, as we trust in God's mercy, quench in her Highness that religious affection.  Phi. 
This the Apostles & confessors did often in the primitive Church, & S. Cyprian testifieth that some did in his time, & S. Athanasius himself did with the Catholics in Antioch.  Theo. 
What did they? 
The Apostle had private places, but not private Masses.  merchandise private Masses, or feed men with demie Communions? Did they mock the simple with prayers not understood, or weary them with empty gestures? They did no such thing, but Priest & people joined together to celebrate the Lords supper, tasting all of one bread which was broken, of one cup which was blessed: & offered thanks to God with one consent of hart & voice, for the flesh of Christ that was wounded, & blood that was shed for the remission of their sins. This was done in prisons, whiles persecution lasted in chambers, if necessity forced, & in those churches which the Christians frequented.  
Strain Cyprians words at your pleasure, yet will they never be drawn to make for your vanities. He warneth the people not to flock to the prisons in heaps lest their resort be noted of Infidels, & by that means all access denied: he rather adviseth them, that a Priest & a Deacon by course, should visit the Confessors. To what end you shall find at large in a letter of his to Cornelius. Let us not leave them naked & unarmed, whom we provoke & incite to the skirmish, but defend them with the munition of the body & blood of Christ: 
Cypr. lib. 1. Epist. 2.  our Eucharist having that virtue to safeguard the receivers. How do we prepare them to take the cup of Martyrdom, except we first admit them in the church, as communicants, to drink of the Lords cup? 
The cup of the Lords table than thought needful for Martyrs, which the jes. now bar the people from Niceph. lib. 9 cap. 23. 1. Corinth. 10. Matt. 26. 1. Cor. 11.  He that concludeth both kinds to be needful for such as were ready to spend their lives in the profession of Christ's name, doubtless never meant to procure them a private Mass, that should keep them from receiving of either.  
Athanasius refusing Leontius the Bishop of Antioch for heresy, did communicate in private houses with such as favoured Eustathius. It skilleth not where, but what he did: our Saviour appointed neither time, nor place, to be respected in his supper, but the word & elements: charging us to do what he did, which is to break & give, that all may be partakers of one bread; to divide the cup, that all may drink thereof. Do that which he commanded to be done, who first ordained this mystery. Do that which S. Paul received of the Lord, & delivered to the Church of Corinth: do that I say which the primitive Church of Christ always did, and as for places we will not greatly strive.  
The rigour of penal statutes, searches of temporal officers, & watchfulness of (poor) ministers, doth marvelously trouble your spirits. I will not requite you with the flames you kindled in England to burn your brethren to dust; with that holy house which your Friars have planted in Spain, resembling the tortures of Nero's garden; 
The Popish mercy.  with the Massacres of Province, Piedmont, and Paris. Let pass with silence the cruel executions of your inordinate rages: God give you grace to repent your murders past, and soften your unmerciful hearts in time to come: you were brought up in lambs lease belike, that you startle thus at the fatherly chastisement, wherewith this Realm seeketh your amendment, and sucketh not your blood. Compare the penalties, which you fret at, with the laws of former Emperors, and you shall see that her majesties gracious inclination to show you favour above your deserts hath eased the burden, and tempered the sharpness of their ancient edicts, which restrained such as forbore to communicate with the Church of Christ, 

The ancient penalties of heresy and schism.  
Codic. lib. 1. tit. 5. § Manicheos. Ibidem § cuncti. August.   from buying, selling, disposing, bequething goods or lands by will or otherwise, yea from receiving any legacies, or enjoying their father's inheritance, the place (where schismatical service was said) chapel or house to be forfeited, and the Bishop and Clergyman to pay ten pound weight in gold, or to be banished.  
S. Austen, when it was expected by reason of the goodness of his nature, that he should mediate for some part of these penalties to be released, gave this quick & stout answer: 
Aug. Epist. 48.  Yea marry, what else, I should gainsay this constitution, that you lose not the things which you call yours, & you without fear spoil Christ of all his: 
S. Austen allowed & commended those penalties.  that the Roman laws should permit you to make your last wills, and you with cavilling reverse that which God bequeathed our fathers: that in buying and selling your contracts might be good, and you share that among you which Christ bought, when he was sold: that you might freely give what you list, and what the God of Gods hath bestowed on his own children from East to West should be void: that you should not be banished from the place where your body's rest, and you drive Christ from the kingdom (purchased) with his blood to reach from sea to sea. Nay, nay, let Princes [on God's name] serve Christ in making laws for Christ.  
You need not complain of rigour so long as our penal statutes be far more favourable than these laws, 
Our penalties far gentler than those.  which the Christian Emperors established, and the Catholic fathers commended. Acquaint the world with the persecution that you suffer in England, and your untrue reports shall soon be convinced. The greatest brunt your friends did bear till this last revolt, which you procured (if they joined therewithal no traitorous intent) was imprisonment, where no man was denied the freedom of his goods, the comfort of his wife, the succour of his friends: the basest among them never knew, what dungeon, stocks, or Irons meant: yet say you, They were chased from their houses, spoiled of their goods, and handled I know not with what extremity.  Phi. 

Apol. Cap. 1. Sect. 5.  Neither be such men miserable only by so long lack of things necessary to salvation, but much more that they be enforced to things which assuredly procure damnation. In which case very lamentable it is to think upon all the distressed consciences that throughout the Realm repine with inconsonable sighs and groans against their receiving, hearing and using of the pretended Sacraments, Service, Sermons and other actions, whereunto they be involuntarilie and against their will drawn, and especially for the oath of the Queen's sovereignty in spiritual regiment, a thing improbable, unreasonable, unnatural, impossible: and yet the form thereof so conceived in statute, and so tendered, that the takers must swear upon the Evangelists (howsoever they think in deed) that they acknowledge even in their conscience that, which never learned man of any sort or sect did ever think to be true, and which they know every Catholic man to condemn in heart, and which the chief makers of the same, by exempting themselves from it by a special proviso, have judged either damnable or very dangerous. Which oath therefore to exact of most Officers in the Commonwealth of every one that is preferred in the Universities, or otherwise almost throughout the Realm, and namely of all such as they suspect think it untrue, is nothing else but wittingly to drive men to pitiful torment of mind, remorse and utter desperation. Which thing if her Majesty did know, she would never of her natural clemency, for a title & claim that never king (much less Queen) Christian nor Heathen, Catholic nor Heretic, in her own dominions or in all the world beside before our age, did challenge or accept, suffer her poor subjects to be so inwardly and deeply afflicted in their souls, etc.  Theo. 
I confess the lack of things necessary to salvation maketh men very miserable: but you should have showed what those things are which this Realm wanteth: your mouth is no measure what is requisite for the saving of our souls, and your reader I dare say, looked for some graver authority. Receive with meekness the word that is graffed [amongst you] saith james: it is able to save your souls. 
James. 1.  So long as we refuse no part of the Gospel, which is the power of God for the salvation of every believer, all other wants we nothing esteem. 
Rom. 1.  S. Paul doth acertaine us, 
2. Tim. 3.  that the Scriptures are able to [direct and] instruct to salvation by faith in Christ jesus. Less we believe not, more we need not; dream you what you list of damnation or salvation, the comfort of Scriptures shall nourish our hope. 
Rom. 15.   
It grieveth you sore to think on the distressed consciences of such as be drawn against their wills to frequent our Sacraments and Service. Begin you now to mislike that any man's conscience should be forced? Then why did you, why yet at this day do you force numbers with extreme violence to recant & forswear the perswasiou of their faith? 
The Jesuits would force, but not be forced to religion.  what reason can you bring that you may compel others, and none must compel you? Where got you that exemption? Or if compulsion be lawful for both sides alike, why grate you so much at our small and easy penalties, when yourselves be justly charged with many cruel and unchristian tragedies? Your inquisiting, your burning, your murdering of thousands without any respect of innocent or ignorant is in deed very lamentable: this kind of compelling, which her Highness useth, neither can your friends deny to be charitable, nor yourself gainsay to be semblable to that coaction, which the Scriptures commend in josiah, which the most virtuous Emperors followed in the primitive Church, and which S. Austen upon deep de●●ating the case, found allowed by God himself, as the chiefest point of that service, which he requireth of Christian Princes.  
Our Sacraments, Service and Sermons are, you say, pretended: we say, reform by the constat of Christ's will and testament: farther defence till you name the faults shall be needless; Lightly said without proof may be lightly contemned without answer.  
The Prince's interest to Persons and causes ecclesiastical sticketh in your stomachs, as a thing improbable, unreasonable, unnatural, impossible, which never king, much less Queen, Christian or Heathen, Catholic or Heretic in this land or in all the world beside before our age, did challenge or accept. If great vaunts were sound proofs, the victory were yours. You have words and cracks at will, they cost you nothing: as for the matter in question, when we are come to your fourth chapter, 
Examining the oath respected to the fourth chapped.  where you seem to show the ground of these speeches, it shall then appear, notwithstanding your tempest of terms here, and trifling cavelles there, that the power of Princes to command for truth, and to make laws for Christ, standeth not only with probability, possibility, reason and nature, but also with evident utility, necessity, religion and equity, confirmed expressly by the Scriptures, and plainly warranted by the laws, actions and examples of the most famous and renowned Princes that ever were: keep your courage for that combat, the time is not long.  Phi. 
I am content to respect you till then: yet this I will add by the way; the contents of that oath for the Prince's supremacy, never learned man of any sort or sect did think to be ever true. 
Many learned men of their side as well as ours have both taken, and defended the oath.   Theo. 
No? what did the Bishops and Preachers of England for these fifty years, which liked and accepted this oath for good and godly? Not a learned man among them, say you: then happy be those Seminaries of yours, that of ignorant boys, starting hence but last day, can so soon bring forth learned and grave Divines. What say you then to some of your own sect, I mean Tonstall in his Epistle to Cardinal Poole, and Gardener in his Oration of true obedience? Did not either of them take this or the like oath, and willingly defend the same?  Phi. 
They changed their minds in Queen Mary's time.  Theo. 
They did so, but their latter inconstancy doth not abolish the truth of their former confession. Well if this whole Realm be void of learning (such is your modesty) come to strangers. Was there ever any learned of our side, that impugned your errors? I trust you will not reject them as unlearned, left men begin to doubt not of your learning, but of your right wits. Grant them to be learned, and I will prove their judgements to go with ours in this question.  
You require me to show their words. Iwis that were no great mastery. Read Molineus against your holy Father's abuses, Peter Martyr upon the 19 chapter of judges, Symlerus his preface before Boetius, Cassianus, Gelasius, etc. 
Other nations both by words and deeds have allowed and showed that power of the Prince, which the oath proposeth.  And tell me what difference betwixt us and them. But I choose rather to produce the Common wealths, where these learned men and infinite more did, and do live: for beholding their deeds, what need we their words? Their actions will testify their opinions. Scotland, Flaunders, Denmark, Suetia, Polonia, Bohemia, the free Cities and States of Germany, Suytzerland, and other nations, which have displaced your impieties, and received the Gospel: made they this change by the Pope's permission and assent of his Bishops, or else by the Magistrate's aid and assistance? The first of these twain you dare not avouch; for God knoweth it went much against your wills: then must you confess the second, and so those learned Preachers and writers which either at first persuaded and encouraged, or at this day commend and allow the Princes and Magistrates of those kingdoms and Countries, for removing Antichrist with all his trinckettes out of their dominions, and embracing the truth of Christ by public authority, yea for reforming their Churches and setting an order in causes Ecclesiastical as far forth in every point, as her Highness hath done in this Land: all these learned and worthy Divines, I say, consent with us in this, that the Magistrate may lawfully settle matters of Religion, maugre your Romish Idol, and punish error and iniquity by the temporal sword as well in Bishops and Priests as in others: which is the very sum and effect of this oath that you by no means can away with.  Phi. 
The chief makers of it themselves have judged it either damnable or very dangerous.  Theo. 
This no doubt is a vehement accusation, if it can be proved; if it be rashly surmised, then is it as pestilent a slander. Go to, what reason leadeth you to charge the Nobles of this Land in this sort?  Phi. 
The Barons exempted themselves from taking this oath by a special proviso.  Theo. 
What if they did not exempt themselves, but her Majesty for the confidence she reposed in her Nobles, 
The Nobles of this Realm shamefully slandered by the jesuits.  and for a difference between them and the Commons, would not have their oaths, but accepted their honours as sufficient pledges of their fidelity, will you wrest her Grace's good opinion of them to their utter and open diffamation? Or what if some Barons of this Realm scant fully resolved in that point (which then was no wonder) made means to be respited for a season till they might be farther instructed, which could not be granted to particular persons by name without infamy to themselves and injury to the rest; and for that cause, lest any should be pointed at, or disinherited more than others, this general exemption were devised as most indifferent; who but a wrangling jesuite would infer that the chief doers in heart condemned their own law?  
You demand, how my supposals can be proved. That needeth not, your ●ile and infamous report is sufficiently confuted, if I bring other & better occasions, that were but possible. For where many good reasons of this exemption may be produced, why do you spitefully presume the worst: and that upon a blind suspicion, without any proof? Why do you rashly conjecture their secret thoughts, which you by no means could know? why boldly pronounce you that of Christian and godly States, which no sober man will suspect in Turks and Infidels? to wit, that they met in Parliament to make wicked and bloody laws against their own consciences? And what if I could not resolve you whence this exemption first sprang, (such matters of counsel pertaining little to your vocation and mine) yet due respect to their places, which we should not despise: good trial of their wisdoms, which we can not deny: common charity to their persons, which we may not purposely diffame; withhold me Philander, and should have restrained you from this lewd and insolent reproaching the consciences of so many noble men & worthy Counsellors, except you could show some just and inevitable proof, which you can not, having for your unhonest surmise no surer ground than this, that the Statute doth not compel Barons or any temporal person above that degree to take this oath, but exempteth them from the penalties of this Act, provided for others of meaner calling and less credit with her Majesty.  Phi. 
To exact this oath of most Officers in the Commonwealth, and of every one that is preferred in the Universities is nothing else but wittingly to drive men to pitiful torment of mind, remorse, and utter desperation. 

The oath exacted of Officers and proceeders.  
The law barreth Papists from preferments and offices, until they demonstrate their obedience by oath. Is that to drive them to desperation?  
The jesuits buzzing in corners doth trouble their consciences, and not the oath.    Theo. 
Why so good Sir? Is this consequent, that he which keepeth your men from degrees and offices driveth them to desperation? Gape your friends so mightily for honour and lucre, that rather than they will lack earthly preferments they can not choose but venture their souls? No law forceth them to seek for offices and dignities, but only debarreth them from such, until they renounce that usurped authority, which your holy Father claimeth to command, correct and depose Princes at his beck. If any be tormented in mind for abjuring that unjust title, which the Pope pretendeth; blame not the Laws of this Realm, which you can not disprove; blame the covetous and ambitious humour of those, that for worldly respects would rush headlong against the persuasion of their hearts; blame your odious and erroneous whispering in their ears, which hath troubled and altered their conceits, that were calmed and settled in quietness. Such temporizing hypocrites, if any such be so vexed in mind, as you tell us (which I scantly believe: for ambition and gain breed in them rather delight than remorse) yet were they not thereto driven by the Magistrate, who proposed this law with condition, and left them to the choice; but their greediness first baited them, next your secret buzzing in corners disordered their unconstant affections, and now perhaps foolish fantasy doth afflict them, without reason of their parts, or occasion of ours.  Phi. 
But to compel namely all such as you suspect to think it untrue, that is wilfully to force men to desperation.  Theo. 
The time was when you and your fellows cared little for driving others to desperation. The strange torments you devised and practised on thousands, to compel them from the confession of their faith without any regard of their consciences, can witness the same: marry now the sword is out of your hands, you grow so tender and delicate that neither religion nor obedience may be forced on you, for fear lest you fall to desperation. You can shift for yourselves, I perceive, what ever betid your neighbours: 
The Magistrates may compel two things that be lawful, though desperation do ensue.  but in sadness Philander where learned you this divinity, that subjects may not be compelled against their wills, if they list to pretend conscience, lest they despair? Shall the peevish opinion of such as be froward and ignorant, or to speak with favour, the private persuasion of such as be weak, s●●ppe Magistrates from yielding that service which God requireth of them? May Princes displease God, to please men? or break the least of his precepts, to content never so great a multitude? No doubt they may not. For rulers in making their laws must depend on the will of God revealed in his word, 
A thief may be hanged, though he would pretend desperation.  not on other men's consciences. Idolaters, heretics, and schismatics lack not an inward and strong persuasion of their sects, yet dare you not deny, but Christian Princes ought to force their subjects from idolatry, dissension, and heresy.  
The Scriptures commend josiah, for compelling the people to serve God: 
2. Chronic. 34. Luc. 14.  the servant is charged to compel the guests that were loath to come: God hath ordained the sword (which never entreateth or persuadeth, but only commandeth and compelleth) to punish falsehood and assist truth. Now men that be willing need no forcing, ergo Princess may compel their subjects, that is constrain them against their wills to keep the faith and communion of Christ's Church, notwithstanding they pretend, or in deed have never so resolute and strong an opinion to the contrary.  
The Donatists, rather than they would be forced from their fancies, slew themselves, 

August. epist. 50. & 204.  
The Donatists were not spared though they offered themselves violence.   yet this did nothing fray the Church of God from compelling them by the rigour of Prince's laws, without any respect to their wilful desperation. We grant he that woundeth a weak conscience sinneth against Christ; marry to be grieved with that which is good, is no weakness but wickedness; and he that tendereth or regardeth a wicked conscience, by your leave, is a favourer and confirmer of his evil works. To such saith Paul, I gave no place, no not an hour: 
1. Corinth. 8. Galat. 2. Galat. 1.  for if I should [so] please men, I were not the servant of Christ. We may not for things indifferent trouble the weak minds of our brethren, yet this rule bindeth no Magistrate to remit the punishment of error and infidelity, because God hath charged them to suffer no kind of evil unrevenged, (and this is the greatest) whose voice they must hear, whose will they must obey, though they were sure thereby to scandalise never so many both aliens & subjects.  Phi. 
woe to that man by whom offences come.  Theo. 
True Sir, but an offence fond taken, 
Luc. 17.  not justly given, entangleth no man besides the taker. Blessed is he (saith Christ) that is not offended at me. Where cursed is he that taketh an offence, 
Luc. 7.  the giver is blessed for ever. We preach Christ crucified a stumbling block to the jews, and woe to me (saith Paul) if I preach not the Gospel, 
1. Cor. 1. 1. Cor. 9 2. Cor. 2.  yet doth it bring the wicked to their destruction, and is the savour of death unto death in them that perish. Then as the minister must dispense the word of truth, be therewith offended and grieved who list: 
Offence taken not justly given hurteth no man but the taker.  so the Magistrate may draw the sword of justice to compel and punish such as be blindly led, or maliciously bend to resist sound doctrine; without any respect what afterward befalleth such overthwart creatures. If upon compulsion, desperation ensue; woe not to the compeller, using those means which God hath appointed, and discharging that duty, which God hath commanded; but woe rather, and double woe to the despayrer, who first framed his conscience to forsake truth and believe lies; and now receiving the just reward of his error hath his heart hardened, that when good discipline, which healeth others, is applied as a wholesome medicine to recover him, it causeth or showeth him to be past cure, without any sinister action, or ill intention of the Magistrate.  
Thus much for the making, and exacting of that oath. The contents whereof shall be fully discussed when we come to the place which I named. We stand too long I fear about these foolish and impertinent quarrels. I will pass to your second Chapter as finding nothing left in your first, but an action of unkindness against such as call you Fugitives: which name you well deserve, though you be loath to bear.  Phi. 
That is but your saying, which we little regard.  Theo. 
Much less need we regard your slanderous and false reports published of purpose to deface this Realm: they be but your sayings, which no good man esteemeth.  Phi. 
You fall now to words.  Theo. 
What else have you done, since we began? We be now come to the shutting up of your first Chapter; review the same: what one line, what one letter have you proved, that hurteth us, or helpeth you?  Phi. 
You were not here to look for many Scriptures or Fathers: we give you the reasons of our departure, which be matters of fact, and admit no proofs.  Theo. 
If you can not prove them, we need not disprove them; and so let us end with this, and proceed to the next.  Phi. 
You answer not half that which we have objected.  Theo. 
You object much & prove little: which forceth me to neglect the most part of that you have objected. For when you heap up idle words, that are but wind; and reign over your adversaries with Lordlike vaunts, which are better despised than answered; why should I follow your vain humour, or bring the cause of Christ to a mere brabble or words, as your Apology doth?  Phi. 
Say your pleasure.  Theo. 
Your first Chapter we have seen: what doth your second contain?  Phi. 

Their running to Rome.  The causes of our repairing sometime to the City and Court of Rome.  Theo. 
If this be all, I will never open my mouth for the matter. Your private actions and secret purposes we can not see, we need not search. Therein you may pretend what you please, without any truth, and we believe what we list without any wrong.  Phi. 
In faith and truth they were none other, but to make humble s●te for the establishment, 
Apolog. chap. 2. Se● 6.  and perpetual foundation of the College or Seminary which his Holiness had long before instituted in place of the hospital of our nation there: this was one thing. Another was, that the Governors of that College in Rome above, and of this other now resident in Rheims beneath might give and take mutual direction for correspondence in regiment, discipline and education most agreeable to our Country men's natures, and for prevention of all disorders that youth and companies of Scholars namely in banishment are subject unto.  Theo. 
It may be this you did, but did you nothing else?  Phi. 
It was strongly surmised we know, that our going to Rome was to procure some matter against the Prince, but God is our witness it was no part of our meaning.  Theo. 
That intelligence was given by such as were daily conversant with you, and those articles of confederacy between the Pope, and others to invade this Realm were rife in your Seminaries there, and closely sent to your friends here; but whether interprised & followed by common consent amongst you, or only devised & scattered by some of you, to strike a fear in the people's hearts to make them the readier for your persuasions, we can not exactly say: this we be sure, such practices in subjects be lewd & seditious.  Phi. 
If that information were true.  Theo. 
What reasons have you to prove it false?  Phi. 
Enough: The second chapter of our Apology doth refel it at large.  Theo. 
You refel it in deed, as your manner is; that is, you say that you will without any further proof or pains. Certain young fellows, 
Apolog chap. ●. sect. 1.  say you, Fugitives from their Masters, deprehended in diverse cosinages, counterfeiting of letters, & plain thefts have of malice, hope of impunity and lucre traitorously slandered you. Thus as if you sat supreme judges over all the world, you bring nothing to quite yourselves and confute your adversaries, but only the breath of your own mouths.  Phi. 
We give you an oath for our discharge: 

A Jesuits oath is no great assurance: they have such cunning to make oaths, & power to dispense with oaths.  
Apolog. Cap. 2. Sect. 2.   will you not believe us, when we swear?  Theo. 
If we do it, is more of our good meaning than your well deserving; you dispense so fast with the breach of oaths.  Phi. 
You misreport us, we do not so.  Theo. 
That shall appear in place convenient. I will not now digress from the matter. An oath, you say, we have to purge all suspicion: Let us hear it.  Phi. 
The principal of the voyage doth protest, that he neither joined with rebel nor traitor, nor any other against the Queen or Realm, or traitorously sought or practised to irritate any Prince or potentate to hostility against the same. Further invocating upon his soul that he neither knew, saw nor heard during his abode in the court of Rome, of any such writings, as are mentioned in the proclamation of july, containing certain articles of confederation of the Pope, king of Spain & other Princes for the invasion of the Realm.  Theo. 
We hear you swear, but mean you plainly?  Phi. 
Why doubt you that?  Theo. 
You teach others, 
Inter quaestiones ad tribunal indicis pertinentes, quaest. 2. quomodo respondendum in tribunali haereticorum.  when they be called before such as you count heretics; sophisticè jurare, & sophisticè, respondere, sophistically to swear, & sophistically to answer, that is to mock the Magistrate with a captious & cunning oath or answer. And therefore unless you give us a preciser & stricter oath than this, we trust you not. You did not traitorously seek or practise to irritate any Prince or Potentate to hostility against the Queen or Realm: What needed this addition, you sought it not traitorously? Your meaning may be, you sought it, but lawfully.  Phi. 
What fraud you suspect, where we mean simply?.  Theo. 
Then for the better explication of ourselves, 
They make it no treason to invade the Land, if the Pope so command upon pretence of heresy and schism.  do you think it treason for an English man to join with the Pope or any other appointed by him to invade the Land for the restoring of Religion, and execution of the sentence, which Pius the fift pronounced against her Majesty?  Phi. 
That sentence is extravagant.  Theo. 
Not so. For if you count it no treason, as we can prove the most part of you do not, to obey the Pope deposing the Queen, then in your own conceits may you safely swear, you did not these things traitorously, though touching the facts it were certain you did them.  Phi. 
What a compass you fet to entrap us?  Theo. 
What evasions you get to delude us? but how doth this clear the rest of your side?  Phi. 
We be most assured that no English Catholic would or could be the author thereof.  Theo. 
It is much to be sure what every man of your faction would or could do: you must be gods and not men, if you can do that.  Phi. 
We know they would not.  Theo. 
Leave this folly, you can not search the secrets of other men's hearts, nor account for their deeds: in a matter so impossible; the more vehement, the more impudent.  Phi. 

Apolog. chap. 2. sect. 2.  It verily may be thought (and so is it certain, that some of the principal ministers of the forenamed Princes have answered being demanded thereof) that the Protestants having exercised skill and audacity in such practices and counterpractises (of which France, Flaunders, Scotland and other countries have had so lamentable experience) did contrive them to alter her majesties accustomed benignity and mercy towards the Catholics.  Theo. 
It is great pity that Papists be no practisers. Ask England, Scotland, Flaunders, France, Spain, Italy, Scicile, Germany, what practices they have found, I say not in your temporal men, but in the Priests, Prelates and Pillours of your Church. 
Popes for these 600. years have been nothing else but practisers.  Righter Machevels than the Popes themselves Christendom hath not bred: marry this indeed you were always better with poisons and Treasons, than with papers and pamflets: and yet you spared neither Scriptures, Counsels, nor Fathers; but corrupted and interlaced them to serve your turns.  
As for the procurers and setters of this late confederacy to assault the Realm, if you know not who they were, Charles Paget and others with you can tell; or if they would dissemble, Throckmorton hath told. There shall you see, whether this were a mere devise and sleight of ours, or a lewd intent and practice of yours. These be the chief points of your second Chapter: the rest is lippe-labour and no way concerneth your cause.  Phi. 
Yes: we prove it lawful for men in our case to fly to the Bishop of Rome, for relief either of body or soul.  Theo. 
We be sure you will say it with boldness enough, but will you prove it?  Phi. 
We will prove it.  Theo. 
How?  Phi. 


Apolog. Cap. 2. Sect. 5.  
Hiero. Epist. 16  
A fond flourish for their going to Rome.   Whither should we rather fly than to the head, or as Saint Hierom speaketh (to the most secure part of our Catholic communion) to the rock of refuge in doubtful days and doctrines, to the chief Pastor and Bishop of our souls in earth, to the Vicar general of Christ, out of the compass of whose fold and family no banishment can bring us: to him that by office and unction had received the grace of love, pity and compassion: to him that counteth no Christian nor domestical of faith a stranger: 
This is no flattery.  to him whose City and Seat is the native home of all true believers, and the pattern of all Bishoply hospitality and benignity.  Theo. 
Whither now Masters, are you well advised?  Phi. 
Why not?  Theo. 
You presume that to be most true, which is most in question betwixt us; and as if your unshamefast flatteries were sound and substantial verities, you conclude without proving the precedents, or respecting the consequent. For first, what witness bring you, that the Pope is as you say, the head, the rock of refuge in doubtful days & doctrines, the chief Pastor and Bishop of your souls in earth, the Vicar general of Christ: or that his seat is the native home of all true believers, and the whole Church his fold and family? What ancient Father or Council ever liked, or suffered these proud and false titles? Why prove you not that which you speak? Or why speak you that which you can not prove? In so weighty matters do you think it enough to say the word, and by and by we must hush?  Phi. 
We have elsewhere brought you so many demonstrations for these things, that now we take them to be clear.  Theo. 
Omit these vaunts, we ask for proofs: and till you bring them, by your own rule we need frame you no farther answer.  Phi. 
Make you merry with that advantage, but yet Saint Hierom is not so shifted.  Theo. 
His name you set in the forefront to lead on the rabble of your unsavoury speeches, but the words of Saint Hierom do little relieve you. For let it be that Athanasius and after him Peter Bishops of Alexandria, 
Hiero. ad Princip. epitaphium marcel.  declining the persecution of the Arian heresy, fled to Rome as to the safest port of their communion; because Rome was then free from the tumults of Arians, so long as Constans lived, 

Rome was then safe from Arians whiles Constans lived, but not after when the Bishop of Rome was banished by the Arians.  
Apol. Cap. 2. Sect. 5.  
Bede lib. 1. hist. Ang.  
The pretences of their running to Rome   and ready to receive such as suffered affliction, for the truth of Christ, which is all that Saint Hierom saith: what infer you thence? that Rome is now the like? This illation cometh twelve hundred years too short of your antecedent, and no way dependeth upon S. hierom's words; unless you think that Rome now, because she beareth the same name, must also challenge the same virtues, and praises, which Rome so long since both had and deserved; which were very ridiculous. But is this all you will add before you grow to your main conclusion?  Phi. 
The greatest part is yet behind. For as I began, whither should we rather fly than to him, whose Predecessors gave us our first faith in the time of the Britanes, restored it after in the days of the English, recovered us from Paganism, from Arianism, from Pelagianism, from Zwinglianisme: often received, harboured, and relieved, diverse blessed Bishops and Priests of our nation, as well in the times of their prosperity, as persecution; and who have received again of all our Princes, Prelates and People, all dutiful and correspondent honours and good Offices for so many hundred years together, when they and their dominions flourished in much glory and felicity, and were dreadful to God's enemies, the Churches and their own: among whom her majesties Father for his worthy writings and doings against the Lutherans received the glorious and eternal title of Defender of the faith, to him of whose Predecessors all the famous Fathers called for aid, comfort and counsel in their like distresses, Cyprian of Cornelius and Stephanus, Athanasius of julius and Marcus, Chrysostom and Augustine of Innocentius, basil of Tiberius, Felix and other Bishops of Italy: Hierom and Milecius of Damasus, Theodorete of Leo the great, and all the rest of otherholy Popes, as time and necessity required: 
Lib. 4. cap. 22. Eccle hist.  to him whose Seat (as Eusebius reporteth of Saint Denys of Corinth) did always send relief to all the Christians persecuted, and condemned to metals, and refreshed all the faithful coming unto it as the Parent the children: to him who as he canonically succeed all these in Seat, doctrine and dignity, so is inferior to none, far passeth many, and resembleth most Saint Gregory the great our Apostle in all charity, hospitality, zeal, and tenderness of heart and affection toward the desolate, namely our nation: for the spiritual calamity whereof the writer of this hath seen him weep full heartily, and hath heard him say, the goods of that holy Seat, whereof he had the dispensation, were for the poor afflicted domesticals of faith. Finally, whither could we with more hope have recourse, than to him, by whose bounteous goodness so many patriarchs, Bishops, learned, Gentlemen and Christians of all sorts, English, Scottish, Irish, Almans, Hungarians, Syrians, Armenians, Cyprians, and all other under the Turk, or any way for Christ's sake oppressed or impoverished have been and shall be relieved.  Theo. 
A long process to little purpose. Grant that diverse good men in times past have sent and gone to Rome for counsel and comfort in cases of distress, which is all in effect which you can or do say: what conclude you now?  Phi. 
That we may do the like.  Theo. 
The like you may, but not the contrary.  Phi. 
We follow precisely their steps.  Theo. 
That we deny. Well, 
The Jesuits go to Rome, but not as the Fathers did.  you may go to Rome as they did, and so your journey not differ from theirs in the pains, which you take; nor the place, which you see; but you neither carry with you the same minds, that they did; neither doth your holy Father content himself with those means, which his predecessors used. For the ancient Bishops of Rome were dutiful and obedient Subjects to the Christian Emperors, and dealt by petition and supplication in most humble wise for their afflicted brethren: they never offered arms, nor encouraged Rebel against the superior Powers, no not when Constantius the Arian banished Liberius the Bishop of Rome for dissenting from his opinion; nor when julius the Apostata renounced the faith, and openly fell to Gentilism: but ever submitted themselves to the same Laws and pains that other godly Bishops did, when the Prince took part with error. And for this cause the traveling then to Rome, whiles the Bishop there embraced the truth, obeyed the State, & assisted their brethren by good and lawful means, could no way be displeasant to God, injurious to Princes, nor dangerous to commonwealths: In our days it is far otherwise. The Pope now taketh upon him to depose Kings, to invade Realms, to authorize rebellion, yea to curse all that yield any subjection, or duty to those Magistrates that withstand their fantasies: Which vile and intolerable presumption of the late Bishops of Rome, neither Cyprian, nor Athanasius, nor chrysostom, nor Augustine, nor basil, nor Hierom, nor Theodorete in their times ever found or feared. And therefore both you must alter the lewd persuasions of your hearts, and your holy Father must leave his wholly practices to pull Princes out of their thrones by stirring sedition and invading their Dominions, before your flocking to Rome can be warranted by these examples.  Phi. 
I marvel you still object that, which wre by oath have purged. You know we have sworn that in going to Rome we had no such intent.  Theo. 
Your oath, if it be true, cleareth one man for one voyage; but which of you doth, or can swear for all other times and persons? Howbeit in this place we do not urge you with your intentes nor attempts against her Majesty, we only weigh the strength of your argument, that you may sly to Rome, as well as some learned and ancient Fathers have done. This collection of yours is not good: 
They may not go to Rome in these days though the Fathers did, when the Bishop of Rome behaved himself as a dutiful subject to the Emperor.  because the bishop of Rome now claimeth full power to deprive Princes of their Crowns, and discharge their Subjects from all obedience, contrary to the word of God, and examples of Christ's Church; which in those days, whiles these Fathers, whom you mention, lived, the Bishops of Rome neither did or durst presume.  Phi. 
We meddle not with the Pope's claim, he can answer for himself.  Theophil. 
You must meddle with it, and bring inevitable proof for it, before your consequent will be currant, or your slight to Rome lawful.  Phi. 
If we sought to Rome, for secure against the Prince, your saying were somewhat, but I have often told you we do not.  Theo. 
And I have told you as often, that grant you did not, the Pope's claim to discharge Kings and Queens at his pleasure, is enough to reverse your argument. 
If this pride and tyranny be unlawful: resorting to him, and partaking with him, can not be lawful.  We care not what you dissemble of policy for a season, but what he challengeth for ever as of right. His pride, not your craft is the thing we stand on, and that being such as the learned Fathers whom you name, never saw nor suspected, maketh so great a difference between those days and these, that from their fact to yours no good consequent can be framed.  
And yet I could tell you besides, that when he commandeth you must and will execute. So that although you were no seekers nor provokers of his unchristian dealings against our Sovereign, you neither may, nor do refuse to be commenders, assisters, performers of his ungodly purposes, tend they never so much to the prejudice of this Realm, and disturbance of her majesties Title, State, and welfare. Which tyrannous usurpation in him, and traitorous affection in you, no Father, that is Catholic, 

Not one of their examples toucheth the Pope's power over Princes: but convince rather the contrary.  
Counsel and comfort may be fet from any place as well as from Rome.   did ever allow; no Prince, that is ancient, did ever endure. And as for your scattered and maimed examples, which here you heap to fray the simple with empty names and lofty words, not one of them avoucheth and such matter or meaning.  Phi. 
If they prove not the Pope's jurisdiction over Princes which you stoutly deny, yet I trust they prove, that we may send, or go to Rome, to be resolved in doubts of Religion, and to be relieved in times of affliction, which is all we require.  Theophil. 
Counsel in cases of faith, and comfort in days of danger, be no signs of authority, but duties of Charity, neither those peculiar to the Bishop of Rome, but common to the whole Church of God: and therefore if your examples reach no farther, but that Princes have been sometimes advised, and other good men harboured by the Bishops of Rome, whiles the City was famous for learning and religion, you take great pains to prove that which neither helpeth you, nor hindereth us. All this may be granted, and your running to Rome no whit the sooner concluded to be lawful.  Phi. 
What reason barreth us now from traveling to Rome more than others heretofore?  Theo. 
Your holy Father pretendeth and exerciseth in our days a monstrous and pernicious power over the Church of Christ, which at that time when these godly men wrote, and repaired to Rome, was neither attempted by him, nor mistrusted by them. So that they might resort to the Bishop of Rome, 
The Fathers resorted to the Bishop of Rome as to their brother and fellow servant.  as to their fellow servant without offence to the Church, or contempt to the state: because the Bishops than behaved themselves as religious members, not as presumptuous heads of the Church; and lived as subjects, not as superiors to the Prince: you can now not fly to the Bishop of Rome, but you must do violent wrong to them both: to the Prince by renouncing your subjection, breaking your oath, and bearing arms against your liege Lady, when the Pope commandeth: to the Church in thinking & teaching the Bishop of Rome to be the decider of all doubts, upholder of all truth, expounder of all Scriptures, Confirmer of all Councils, dispenser with all laws, yea supreme and infallible judge of all men and all matters, that any way touch or concern Religion. Which strange and incredible pride those examples which you bring, are so far from allowing, that we need no better witness to confute you with.  Phi. 
You do but jest I dare say.  Theo. 
Examine the particulars, & you shall find them make clean against you, or at lest nothing for you. The Bishop of Rome, you say, gave us our first faith in the time of the Britanes, restored it afterward in the days of the English, recovered us from Paganism, from Arianism, from Pelagianism, from Zwinglianisme. This last I may skip as a fond effect of your distempered choler. The Gospel now preached among us you call in your heat Zwinglianisme: from the which though some of you be lightly stepped, I trust in God, the worst your holy Father can do, shall never remove us. That this land was infected with Arianisme and Pelagianisme, 

Bede Eccle hist. gentis Ang. lib. 1. Cap. 8. lib. 1. Cap. 17.  
This land recovered from Pelagianisme by two French Bishops.  
Lib. 1. Cap. 17.   as many other places than were, I find it reported in the story of Bede: that the Bishop of Rome recovered us from both, or from either, I find it not; yea rather certain it is, the Bishops of France our neighbours upon request made unto them by the Britanes, sent Germanus and Lupus two french Bishops, chosen in a Synod by the general liking, to convert this Realm from Pelagius error, which also they did with great celerity. So that of those four recoveries to the faith, which you reckon in favour of the Bishops of Rome, the last is the present estate which we strive for, the two next be false, the first is only left & that furthereth your conclusion but little.  Phi. 
Will you deny that the Bishop of Rome first caused the Britanes and Saxons to be christened?  Theo. 
I will deny nothing that is true: presume you no more than you prove, and we shall soon grow to an end, Lucius an ancient king of the Britanes wrote to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome for his help, 

Bede. Eccle. hist. gentis Angl. lib. 1. Cap 4.  
Lucius Christened, and Edelbert converted from Rome.   that himself and his people might be baptized: and Gregory the great scent Augustine the Monk to see whether he could king Edelbert and the Saxons. Doth this prove the Pope superior to Princes, or that he may send his factors hither without the Prince's leave?  Phi. 
There was somewhat in it, that Lucius sent so far.  Theo. 
This Realm was then rude, learning here scant, religion newly sprung, & no where settled, Coilus, his father, brought up at Rome from a child, 
The occasions of Lucius sending unto Rome.  and one that of his own accord yielded both friendship and tribute to the Romans, Lucius himself a great favourer of the Roman Empire, and no place near home so famous & well furnished with able men to serve his turn as Rome. What marvel then if Lucius, so well acquainted and frinded at Rome before, thought best to be thence directed and instructed at his first entry to the Christian faith? But can you prove that Lucius was bound to do that he did, or that Eleutherius did any thing against the Princes will?  Phi. 
I say not so.  Theo. 
Then this example maketh little for you, which be sent hither not only without the Prince's leave, but against her liking and Laws, to withdraw the people's hearts from her, and to prepare them for a farther purpose: Gregory's fact in sending to convert the Saxons maketh less. 

They that came from Rome, would not enter this land nor preach here without the King's express licence.  
Bede lib. 1. Cap. 25.   For Augustine and his fellows, notwithstanding they were sent from Rome, as you are, and taught nothing but subjection and obedience to Princes, which you do not; yet would they not enter this land without the king's consent and permission, but rested in the Isle of Tenet till his pleasure were known; and offered not to preach in this Realm before the king in express words gave them licence. They came not in disguised as you do, they lurked not in corners, they traveled not by night, they brought no bulls in their bosoms to discharge the subjects and depose the Prince: the Bishop of Rome that sent them, neither stirred rebellion, nor invaded king Edelberts dominion. And where you being subjects offer that wrong to a Christian Queen, which they being strangers did not to an heathen king; yet would you bear men in hand you follow their example; but lay down the true report of these stories and see how handsomely they fit your conclusion. Eleutherius being requested by king Lucius sent some to baptise him and his subjects; and Gregory sent others to t●●e whether king Edelbert would give them leave to preach to the Saxons: ergo you may flee to the Bishop of Rome notwithstanding he profess himself an open enemy to the Queen.  Phi. 
You still press us with that which we never meant.  Theo. 
You still defend yourselves there where we do not strike. This is the very drift and scope of all your examples, as your own words witness: 

Apolog. Cap. 2.  
What greater hostility than this could the Turk himself offer?   And for us of the school and Clergy, whither should we rather flee than to him. Now that he hath openly showed himself an enemy to her Highness, in accursing her Person, in removing her Crown, in forbidding her subjects to obey her, in aiding rebels against her, and assaulting her land with force, you can not so much as doubt, would you never so feign; the facts are so notorious and fresh in the memories of all men.  Phi. 
We noted this in you, that where the Britanes and Saxons received preachers from Rome with honour and thanks, you persecute them with all kind of torments.  Theo. 
Your attempt is as contrary to theirs, as your reward is divers from theirs. They came with religion to God and submission to Princes, you come with neither.  Phi. 
I would you knew it, we come with both. And you may be ashamed to charge us with two such heinous crimes, proving neither.  Theo. 
Have patience till we come to the place, where both shall be discussed, and see whether that which is now said shall then be proved or no: but in the mean time go forward with the rest of your examples.  Phi. 
We flee to him of whose predecessors all the famous fathers called for aid, comfort and counsel in their like distresses, as Cyprian of Cornelius and Stephanus, Athanasius of julius, chrysostom and Augustine of Innocentius, Basil of Liberius, Felix and other Bishops of Italy, Hierom and Miletius of Damasus, Theodoret of Leo the great, and all the rest of other holy Popes.  Theo. 
This is no reasoning but roving. You flourish with a few general and doubtful terms, neither opening the causes, nor expressing the circumstances. They called, you say, For aid, 
What aid the fathers sought at Rome.  comfort and counsel. What aid? such as the Bishops of Rome might and did yield in those days without challenging any supremacy? That is nothing to your purpose, neither will that warrant your gadding to Rome. Such as none could give but they that were rulers & heads of the whole Church? That were somewhat, if it could be proved: but your examples contain no such thing. View the particulars.  

Cypri. lib. 1. Epist. 1. & li. 2. Epistola 1.  Cyprian in his epistles to Cornelius & Stephanus never calleth them otherwise than brethren and colleagues: and in matters concerning the regiment of the Church as well giveth as taketh both counsel and comfort. But can you show that Cyprian ever allowed any man to run to Rome for help against the judgements and acts of other Bishops? 
Cyprian misliketh running to Rome.  if you can not, as we be right sure you be not able, then can we show you, where Cyprian misliketh, and plainly reproveth this posting of yours to Rome, writing to Cornelius. He saith, that certain persons condemned in Africa by the Bishops there, 
Cypri. lib. 1. Epist. 3.  Romam cum mendaciorum suorum merce navigaverunt, sailed to Rome with their freight of lies: adding farther, And now what is the cause of their coming? for either they like that they did, and so persevere in their wickedness; or if they mislike & relent they know whither they may return. For where it is a thing prescribed to us all, and besides that equal and right, that every man's cause be there heard, where the crime was committed; and every Pastor hath his portion of the flock assigned him, which he must govern and rule, as one that shall give an account of his doings to God, Oportet utique eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare: Those that be under us must not run thus about [to Rome] but there plead their cause, where they may find both accusers and witnesses; unless perhaps a few desperate and lose companions take the authority of the Bishops of Africa to be less than [at Rome.]  
The like he saith of one Basilides that being deprived of his Bishopric procured letters from Rome for his restitution. 

Cyprian. lib. 1. Epistola 4.  
Cyprian encourageth the Spaniards to neglect the Pope's letters.   Neither can this infringe the ordering [of the next Bishop,] lawfully finished, that Basilides running to Rome deceived Stephanus our colleague by reason he is far off, & not acquainted with the truth of the case, getting himself to be restored unjustly to the Bishopric from the which he was justly deposed. If Cyprian did not like that Cornelius should meddle with matters concluded in Africa, neither esteemed the restitution of Basilides made by Stephanus, but rejected it as void and unjust, what other aid think you would he call for at their hands, but only such mutual concord, as should profit the Church, and well beseem the servants of Christ?  Phi. 
If Cyprian would not, Athanasius did; who being Patriarch of Alexandria fled twice to Rome for succour, in his own person, and was there not only received and harboured, but also restored to his former dignity of julius, notwithstanding the Counsels of Tyrus and Antioch had decreed the contrary, and Constantius the Emperor consented thereto.  Theo. 
The troubles of Athanasius gave julius good cause both to claim and use the uttermost of his authority. 
How julius helped Athanasius.  The wrong offered Athanasius was so shameful, the madness of Arians subverting the faith and oppressing the Church so manifest, the rage of Constantius, assisting their heresy with all his might so cruel, that if ever the Bishop of Rome would stir, this time must needs force him to do his best.  Phi. 
And so he did I warrant you.  Theo. 
What did he?  Phi. 
You know well enough, he summoned the Arians to appear before him, examined their proceed, reversed the sentence given against Athanasius, and placed him in his Bishopric in spite of his adversaries.  Theo. 
Can you prove that julius did all this alone without the help of others, or that he did any part of this as head of the Church & vicar general to Christ? 
He did all that he did, as Patriarch of the west with the help of the west Bishops.   Phi. 
What cavils you invent when you be urged with any thing?  Theo. 
What broken reeds you lean too and think them strong pillars? It is well known the Bishop of Rome was not only Patriarch of the West parts, but of the four patriarchs also which were the chiefest Bishops of Christendom, in order and account the first. By reason whereof no Council could be general unless he were called, no matters concerning the whole Church or principal patriarchs could be handled, 
The Bishop of Rome had his prerogative from the city of Rome, not from Peter.  unless he were present or privy to the same. Which prerogative was given him by consent of men, not by grant from Christ; in respect of the City that was the Seat of the Empire, then ruling the world; not in token of any supremacy descending from Peter. Thus much we grant without any proof of yours, & more than this, if you would sweat out your hearts, you shall never prove by these nor any other examples of the primitive Church.  Phi. 
Then by your own confession he was the chiefest and highest Bishop in the world. 
He was chief among them, not supreme over them.   Theo. 
He was before the rest in honour and dignity, but not over the rest in power and authority. His place was first when the patriarchs met, but his voice not negative: he might assemble his province and consult with them, but not conclude without them: himself was subject both to the decrees of Counsels, and to the laws of the Christian Emperors even in causes ecclesiastical: and was oftentimes not only resisted by famous men, but overruled as well by provincial as ecumenical Counsels, when he attempted any thing against the Canons. Which differeth much from the supremacy that he now challengeth and usurpeth. And therefore you did well to walk in a mist of ambiguous words, to cover the lameness of your conclusion.  Phi. 
Why did Athanasius flee to the Bishop of Rome for help, if julius had nought to do with his matter?  Theo. 
Athanasius being wrongfully thrust from his Bishopric, and an other forcibly set in his room by certain Arians assembled at Antioch, upon this pretence, that he was deposed in the Council of Tirus, before he was banished, and after his return presumed of his own head without a Council to re-enter and keep his place: and finding the East Church not able to secure him, for that Constantius the Emperor supported his enemies with a strong hand: 
Atha. sought to the west Emperor and to all the west Bishops that his cause might be heard in a Council.  fled to the Bishop of the West, where Constans a religious and courteous Prince, brother to Constantius, reigned, and made his complaint, as reason was he should; first to the Bishop of Rome, the chiefest man amongst them and the ringleader of the rest, with whom he was joined in consort and communion as the right and true Patriarch of Alexandria, desiring no more but that his case might be heard, and the desperate and furious proceed of his adversaries against him examined in a just and lawful Council. Which petition of Athanasius doth not prove the West Bishops to be controllers and overseers of such things as were done in the East, much less the Bishop of Rome to be supreme judge over all: but rather showeth that the Church of Christ was guided by the common consent and mutual agreement of both parts, as well East as West, indifferently balanced; and that the West Bishops might call for a reason of the sentence given against Athanasius, before they allowed the same, or received his successor to the fellowship of their communion.  Phi. 

Socrat. lib. 2. Cap. 15.  The ecclesiastical history saith otherwise; that Athanasius opened his cause to julius Bishop of Rome, and that he upon the prerogative of the Roman See wrote threatening letters in his behalf, and restored him to his place, reproving them that rashly deposed him.  Theo. 
Socrates as an Historiographer noteth in few words the chief points, and chief persons: but if you will take the pains to read the particular discourse of these things, which Athanasius writeth in defence of himself, you shall find that true which I say.  Phi. 
What shall we find?  Theo. 
That the West Bishops were joined with julius in all this action, and nothing done without their Sinodal decree.  Phi. 
How prove you that?  Theo. 

Athanasius cause intimated to all the west Bishops.  First the letters of credit which Athanasius brought with him to Rome from the Bishops of his communion in Egypt, Thebais, Lybia, Pentapolis, witnessing the manifold wrongs which he suffered, and earnestly craving a due reformation of the same, were written not to julius alone, but Omnibus ubique ecclesiae catholicae Episcopis, to all the Bishops of the Catholic Church wheresoever: having these words in the conclusion; For this cause in a public assembly by the consent of us all wrote we these letters unto you, praying your wisdoms in Christ to receive this testimony touching Athanasius, & to admit him to your fellowship and communion, and to be moved with a zealous indignation against the Eusebians [his enemies] the authors of these disorders; and that such lewdness and mischief prevail no longer against the Church, vos certe vindices huius iniustitiae imploramus, we call for your help to be the revengers of their unrighteous dealing. Haec quidem Aegyptij ad omnes & ad Episcopum Romanum julium scripsere: this they of Egypt wrote to all, and to julius the Bishop of Rome. So that in sight the complaint was made generally to them all.  Phi. 
But julius alone cited the contrary part to appear before him by a day limited, 
julius had the consent of both parts, that a council should be called.  and that argueth his authority over them that were not of his Province.  Theo. 
julius by the consent of both parts, and advise of all the Bishops of Italy and other places near him, appointed the matter to be heard in a Council, and exhorted the adversaries of Athanasius to be present at the time and place prefixed.  Phi. 
What a mincing you make of this matter? julius cited, that is julius exhorted them to come: julius heard the cause, that is julius called a Council to hear it.  Theo. 
What a mountain you make of a mole hill? I repeat the very words of julius, and good reason in his own fact to believe him best.  Phi. 
If he say so; but I doubt you mistake the words.  Theo. 
Then may you take them righter: but I am perfect, I miss them not. Hear first what Athanasius, 
Athanas. eadem Apolog.  and then after what julius writeth. Quin & Eusebiani ad julium literas misere, & ut nos terrerent, Synodum convocari iusserunt, & ipsi julio si vellet arbitrium causae detulerunt: The Eusebians also sent letters to julius, and the rather to fray us, willed a Synod to be called, and julius himself to be judge in the cause, if he would. Which Socrates doth not omit. Eusebius verò cum quod volebat perfecisset, 
Socrat. lib. 1. Cap. 11.  legationem ad julium Romanum Episcopum misit, obsecrans ut ipse judex esset in causa Athanasij, & ad se litem hanc vocaret. Eusebius when he had done all that he would, sent messengers to julius Bishop of Rome, praying him to be judge in the cause of Athanasius, and to call for the hearing of this contention.  Phi. 
Athanasius adversaries seem to consent, that julius alone should sit judge in this cause.  Theo. 
That julius as chief, but not that julius alone should examine this quarrel. For they required to be heard in a common Council both of East and West Bishops.  Phi. 
As yet I see no such thing.  Theo. 
Say not so: 
Episto. julij ad eos qui ex Antiochia scripserunt citatur ab Athanasio Apologia 2.  for Athanasius even now told you, that his enemies, to fray him, in their letter to julius, willed a Council to be held for this matter: and julius in his epistle replying to those that were gathered at Antioch the second time, writeth thus, What is there done worthy of offence? or what cause have I given you, to whom I wrote, to be angry? An quia adhortati vos sumus, ut ad Synodum occurreretis? Is it for that we exhorted you to meet us at a Synod? The Bishops assembled in the great Council of Nice not without the wisdom of God, gave leave that the acts of one Synod might be discussed in an other, to this end, 
julius pretendeth not Peter's keys for his authority.  that both they which were judges, knowing a second examination of the self same matter was to follow, should with all diligence weigh the cause; and those, against whom sentence was given, might clearly confess themselves to be condemned, not by any faction of the former judges, but justly and worthily. And if this were an ancient custom and the memory thereof renewed and put in writing by the great [Nicene] council, & you now will not suffer the same to take place with you, truly you do an unseemly thing. For no equity doth allow, that a few of you should abrogate a custom once received in the Church, & confirmed by [so great] a Synod, & yet that being granted you, the offence which you take is without all reason, for your Legates Macarius and Hesiochus, no way able to match those that Athanasius sent, but in every thing convicted and refuted by them, Concilium indici postularunt, literasque ad Eusebianos & Athanasium, Alexandriam, quibus convocarentur, mitti; ut coram omnibus justo judicio de causa cognosci posset; tunc enim se de Athanasio probaturos esse quod iam nequirent: required a Council to be summoned, and letters to be sent to the Eusebians and to Athanasius at Alexandria, to give them warning to come, that the cause might be debated before all, in an even and upright judgement: [adding] that they would then convince Athanasius of those things wherein now they failed. Yea publicly in our presence Martyrius and Hesichius were confounded, Athanasius Priests readily answering them with great boldness; 
This spirit differeth much from the late spirit of Rome.  & to say the truth, Martyrius and his side were always put to the worst, Ac proinde Concilium generale postulavit: And for that cause he requested a general assembly of Bishops. If therefore Martyrius and Hesichius [your agents] not requiring a Council, I had exhorted you, that they which wrote to me on either side might be called to a Council, namely in favour of my brethren, which complained they were oppressed: that motion of mine had been honest and just; for so much as it is acceptable to God & agreeable to the Canons: but now where those very men, whom you counted to be discreet and worthy to be trusted [with your message] were the first inciters of me to call you to a Synod, surely you ought not to take that in so ill part.  
By these words, these two points are more than manifest. First that julius did not peremptorily command them to appear before him, but exhorted them to meet in a lawful Council for the better discussing of matters in question: Next, that for the warning of a Council which should examine their acts, he pretendeth not his supreme power over all the Church, nor his Lieutenantship to Christ, but groundeth himself on their consents, which were the chief authors of this tragedy, and citeth the Nicene Council agreeing with the ancient usage of the Church, that Synods might discuss and redress the wrongs done by Bishops.  Phi. 
You can not deny but julius heard their Legates, before the Bishops met.  Theo. 
I grant, for his better information he might hear them alone, but not to give judgement thereof without others: 
Idem in Epist. judij.  so saith julius himself. Athanasius was neither condemned at Tyrus, nor present at Mareota, where you proceeded in his absence. And you know that the records of those acts be very suspicious, and of no force, where one part only was admitted [to prove]. Yet we, though it were so, for the more full discussing of the matter, did neither prejudice you that wrote against him nor those that wrote for him: but exhorted all as many as wrote, to present themselves here in judgement, that all things might exactly be scanned in a Synod. In the which Synod when the contrary side refused to appear, Athanasius was heard at large, and there received to the communion of all the West Church as right Bishop of Alexandria, notwithstanding his former deposition by the Bishops at Antioch, and the violent intrusion of an other in his place.  Phi. 
This you say, but this you prove not.  Theo. 
If Athanasius say the same, 

Athana. Apologia 2.  
Athana. heard and restored by a council.   it is proof sufficient; and that you shall hear him say. Viton the Priest (whom julius sent for that purpose) brought with him to the council more than fifty Bishops, where our defence was admitted and we counted worthy to be received to their communion and brotherly feast, and great indignation kindled against the Eusebians, to whom they willed julius to write back [in his own name] for that their letters were written to him [not to them.] And so julius did, 
The council willed julius to write in his own name because the Arrians wrote to him and not to them.  putting them to wit (which is the thing that you stagger at) that although his name were alone to the letters, yet the common consent, & approbation of the Synod wanted not to the matter. Notwithstanding, saith he, that I alone wrote to you, yet I wrote the judgement and opinion, not of myself only, but of all the Bishops of Italy, and of all in these quarters. The Bishops met at the time appointed, and were of that mind which I now signify to you again: wherefore though I alone writ, yet I would have you know that I writ the common opinion of them all. And his Epistle ended, This, saith Athanasius, the Synod at Rome wrote by julius the Bishop of Rome. 

Idem in Epist. julij.  
julius claimeth an equality with the East Bishops, no supremacy over them.    
So that all this while julius did nothing of himself without a Synod; neither did he or the Synod challenge any superiority over the East Bishops, but rather an equality with them; and for that cause might require to see the reason of their doings against Athanasius, before they would reject him as no Bishop, and communicate with Gregory that was placed in his seat. And so much the East Bishops should have done without ask. For where a provincial Synod bindeth no man out of the same Province, they were by the discipline and custom of the Church to send their letters to the Bishops of every Province, & namely to the chiefest; and to expect the general consent of their brethren, before they proceeded to the deposition of a Bishop, and so great Bishop as the Patriarch of Alexandria was, which is the thing that julius urgeth them with. 
Ibidem in Episto. julij  Si, ut dicitis, omnino in culpa fuerunt, oportuit secundum Canonem & non isto modo judicium fieri: oportuit scribere omnibus nobis, ut ita ab omnibus quod justum esset decerneretur. Episcopi enim erant, & non vulgares ecclesiae, qui ista patiebantur. If, as you pretend, they were guilty in deed, yet judgement should have gone forward according to the Canon [of the Church,] and not after this [strange] sort: 
They should have written to all the west Bishops, & not to the Bishop of Rome alone.  you should have written to us all, that that which had been just might have been determined by all. For they were Bishops, and no mean Churches, that were thus used. By this you see that in aiding and helping Athanasius, the Bishop of Rome did neither by word nor deed take upon him to be vicar general to Christ on earth, nor supreme judge of all men and matters in the Church, as now he doth; but claimeth rather a society with the East Bishops for himself and the rest of his province, as having no less interest in the Church than they had.  Phi. 

Socrat. lib. 2. Cap. 15. Idem lib. 3. Cap. 17.  What say you then to the prerogative of the Roman See, and to that ecclesiastical Canon, which forbiddeth to meddle in the Church without the consent of the Roman Bishop?  Theo. 
The Bishop of Rome had this prerogative, that first he should be written unto, by reason of his place, which was first; 
In Epist. julij.  but not that he alone should be written unto. So saith julius: Cur igitur, & in primis de Alexandria civitate, nihil nobis scribere voluistis? an ignari estis hanc esse consuetudinem, ut primùm nobis scribatur, ut hinc quod justum est definiri posset? Why then would you write nothing to us, & especially touching the city of Alexandria? Are you ignorant of this custom that you should write to us first, 
By reason his place was first and after to the rest.  that hence, that which is just, might be determined?  Phi. 
No better text: from Rome must be determined what is right in the regiment of the Church.  Theo. 
A wise catch I promise you. Did you not hear julius even now speak the same words of every Bishop; Vt ab omnibus, quod justum esset, decerneretur; that every one might determine what was just? So that julius by this had no greater authority than the rest: for right was to be determined by them all.  Phi. 
The Canon of the Church made every thing void that was done without the Bishop of Rome. 
Sozomen. lib. 3. Cap. 10.   Theo. 
That which you call a Canon, in deed was an order taken by the Bishops among themselves for the better guiding of the Church by common consent, when as yet there were no Christian Magistrates; and the same was afterward liked and allowed of Godly Princes, 
In weighty matters the consent of all the patriarchs was to be required.  as the best way to keep the Church in peace from quarrels and factions. And this it was. In weighty matters no provincial Council might deal without consulting the rest of the patriarchs, who straightway conferring with the Bishops of their Provinces, wrote back the general opinion of themselves and their brethren. This if any Council did omit, the Provinces round about were at liberty to reject their proceed, if they saw cause. This Canon or kind of regiment observed in the Church, julius objecteth against the council of Antioch. Oportuit secundum Canonem judicium fieri, judgement should have proceeded according to the Canon: 
In Epistola julij.  that is, Oportuit omnibus nobis scribere, ut ab omnibus quod esset justum decerneretur: You should have written to us all, that that which was just might have been concluded by all. And as by the Canon they should have written to all, so first to the Bishop of Rome, by reason that his place was the first in order among the patriarchs, which is all the prerogative that julius in his Epistle claimeth for himself and his See. 
Socrat. lib. 2. Cap. 17. & Sozome. lib. 3. Cap. 10.  This is that ecclesiastical Canon and privilege, which Socrates and Sozomenus do mention when they say the Council of Antioch did against the Canons, in that they called not the Bishop of Rome to their assembly.  Phi. 
The deposition of a Bishop was no matter of such importance that a Provincial Synod might not attempt it without the rest. 
The deposition of Athanasius a matter of great weight.   Theo. 
Yes, the deposing of a Patriarch was in itself a matter of great weight, and required the consent of the rest, as appeareth by that which the Council of Antioch long before this did against Paulus Samosatenus, where you shall find the causes of his condemnation laid down at large in their letters written to all Provinces, and namely to Dionysius and Maximus Bishops of Rome and Alexandria: 
Euseb. lib. 7. Cap. 30.  but yet the wrong offered Athanasius at this time touched the faith & Church of Christ nearer than one man's injury.  Phi. 
Why?  Theo. 
The Arians by their shifts and practices had almost gotten the most part of the East Churches, and finding the two principal Archbishops of Constantinople and Alexandria greatly to hinder their enterprise, for that their provinces were very wide, and many that stoutly defended the truth, were shielded by them, they thought best to invade them both at one time, thrusting Paulus from his Bishopric by plain force, and pretending a Canon of their own making against Athanasius. Which if the West Bishops had quietly suffered without interposing themselves and assisting their brethren, two parts of the world by their silence had been drowned in Arianisme, and themselves in great danger not long to remain without the same infection. This respect made them earnest for Athanasius, as Sozomene noteth. 
Sozome. lib. 3. Cap. 7.  The Bishops throughout the East, that favoured the Nicene faith, were deposed; and the chiefest Seats invaded [by the Arrians] as Alexandria in Egypt, 
The Arrians sought by deposing him to possess the East Church.  Antioch in Syria, the Royal City [of Constantinople] in Hellespont. This the Bishop of Rome, & the Priests of the west took to be their reproach, and [therefore] very friendly entertained Athanasius at his coming to them, and took upon them the defence of his cause.  Phi. 
This is not all that julius did for Athanasius.  Theo. 
What else can you show that he did?  Phi. 
He called a general Council to determine this matter, 
julius when he could do no good in Athanasius cause, besought the west Emperor to put to his helping hand.  and made Constantius the Emperor glad to receive Athanasius to his former seat.  Theo. 
By mine advise you should have left out this; it will come very short of your reckoning.  Phi. 
Not a whit.  Theo. 
Be not so peremptory.  Phi. 
What? was not this, that I say, done for Athanasius?  Theo. 
It was.  Phi. 
Who then besides julius could bring this to pass?  Theo. 
An other if you could light on him.  Phi. 
What was he?  Theo. 
Constans the West Emperor.  Phi. 
Who saith so besides you?  Theo. 
The three writers of the Church story, which with one consent agree, that the West Emperor called the Council, and threatened his brother if Athanasius and Paulus were not suffered to enjoy their former places. julius when the letters which he sent touching Paulus and Athanasius, 
Sozome. lib. 3. Cap. 10.  did nothing prevail with the East Bishops, opened their cause to Constans the Emperor. Constans wrote to his brother, that he should send some of the Bishops of the East, to show [him] the reason why these men were deposed. Three were chosen, who coming to Italy, went about to persuade the Emperor, 
Sozome. lib. 3. Cap. 11.  that the Synod of the East Bishops had done well; and Constans perceiving they had done unjustly, sent them back whence they came. And because Constans requiring this favour at his brother's hands, that Athanasius & the rest with him might be restored, could not obtain so much; and those that were with Paulus and Athanasius getting to his presence besought him that a Synod might be called, it pleased the Emperor that the bishops of either side should meet at Sardica by a certain day prefixed.  Phi. 


Athanasius with tears requesteth a council of the west Emperor.  
Theodoret. lib. 2. Cap. 4.   It might please him they should do so, but how prove you the thither they came by his authority?  Theo. 
Athanasius going to Constans bewailed unto him the violence that was offered the Apostolic faith, Putting the Prince in mind of his father's acts, that the greatest Council that ever was, was called by him, & the determination of those fathers lawfully confirmed; beseeching the Emperor with tears to imitate his Father. Constans upon the hearing of these things presently writeth to his brother, and warneth him to keep inviolably the inheritance of his father's faith. Constantius moved with th●se letters, appointed a Council to be held at Sardica, and willed the Bishops as well of the East as the west to be their present. 

Socra. lib. 2. Cap. 20.  
The emperors letters for Athanasius restitution.   After this Council had likewise concluded for Paulus and Athanasius against their deposers, Constans wrote to his brother the resolution of the Synod, and exhorted him to restore them to their places; which when Constantius delayed and differred, the West Emperor offereth him this choice, either to restore them their Churches, or if he would not, to look for hostility and war. Whereupon the [East] Emperor, being driven to this straight, sent for Athanasius and his fellows, by three several letters, and not only restored them, but abolished all things that might any way be prejudicial to them.  
By this you see julius had no power to call a general Council, but Athanasius was fain to beg it of the Prince with tears; and the Bishop of Rome was not then taken for the last and supreme judge on earth: But the Council sat in judgement after him, where matters were ended by number of voices.  Phi. 
Yet we said truth, that Athanasius called for aid of julius.  Theo. 
I said as truly that you flourish with generalities and ambiguities, & conclude nothing. For what have you gotten now more than we granted at first? or which way doth this example pertain to that which is in question betwixt us?  Phi. 
You make too light of our proofs.  Theo. 
Then put you more weight to them; I take them as I find them, and for aught that I see, you can not mend them.  Phi. 
Well: esteem them as you lift, they prove that the Bishop of Rome was ever a sure refuge for the Catholics against heretics, which he never performed more worthily than in our days.  Theo. 
I think in deed Rome was never fuller of devices and practices than at this present; Antichrist is so careful for his kingdom, lest it fall, that he spareth neither men, nor money to be revenged on those that shrink from him; 
Ambros. de incarnatio. Domin. sacrament. Cap. 5. Cyprian. sermo. 5. the lapse.  but when all is done, God will strike the stroke.  Phi. 
No doubt he will, but never for you, that be so shamefully fallen from his Church.  Theo. 
You be more shamefully fallen from his word; & consequently from faith, which is the foundation of the Church: neither can he be joined to the Church, which is severed from the Gospel. But we go from the matter, your examples be not yet all discussed.  Phi. 
Return when you will.  Theo. 
chrysostom and Augustine, you say, asked aid of Innocentius. 
What chrysostom requested of Innocentius.   Phi. 
They did so.  Theo. 
Aid they might ask, and he might yield; and yet neither make for your purpose.  Phi. 
That were marvel.  Theo. 
None at all▪ chrysostom, whom you first name, sought for help as Athanasius did, but the displeasure which Arcadius the East Emperor had conceived against him was so great, that Innocentius could not prevail.  Phi. 
It serveth our turns, that chrysostom did seek to the Bishop of Rome, notwithstanding Arcadius by force did overbear him.  Theo. 
chrysostom sought nothing, but that his cause might be heard in a full Synod before indifferent judges.  Phi. 
It maketh much for Innocentius supremacy, that chrysostom sought this at his hands.  Theo. 
You must make your foundation surer, before your building will stand. You saw by the last example of Athanasius, that the Bishop of Rome and the west Church might reject & refuse the sentence of any Provincial Synod given against the Patriarch, unless their consents were first had; And even the very same doth chrysostom request of Innocentius, that he would neither admit, nor allow the proceed of his adversaries against him, as good; nor communicate with him, that was chosen by them to succeed in his place.  Phi. 
This still confirmeth that nothing was good, 
The Bishops of the west Church were to consent before the sentence could be given.  if the Bishop of Rome did dissent.  Theo. 
And still that inferreth nothing, but that the Bishop of Rome and his Province were a part of the Church, and by reason and equity were to give their voices as well as others, before the rest might conclude any thing that did concern, or should bind the whole Church. And this is strange that where the Bishop of Rome for himself and his Province seeketh en equality with others, as a part of the Church; you frame him alone a superiority over all others, as the head of the Church. Your examples show this, that others without him could not bind the whole Church, because the consent was not general; & your conclusion must be this, that he without all others, as Christ's Vicegerent in earth, might dispose the whole Church at his pleasure. See you no difference betwixt these two positions?  Phi. 
I confess they differ, but can you show that others withstood him, as well as he withstood them?  Theo. 
Yea that I can.  Phi. 
Arians perhaps or Donatists.  Theo. 
Nay, Catholic fathers & Counsels.  Phi. 
Show that, and you say somewhat to the matter.  Theo. 
That I will show when your proofs are ended. I think not good to mingle yours and ours together.  Phi. 
Ours I grant, are much after one sort, and therefore I long to hear yours.  Theo. 
No haste but good, anon you shall: you would feign I see rid your hands.  Phi. 
You shall well know the contrary. Say what you can.  Theo. 
I say nothing but that you gain little by Chrysostoms' example.  Phi. 
Do we not? These be Chrysostom's words to Innocentius: Wherefore least this confusion invade every nation under Heaven, 
Chrysost. Episto. 1. ad Innocent. tomo 5.  I beseech you write, that these unjust proceed, both in our absence and when we refused not judgement, may be of no force; as in deed of themselves they are not: and let them which have done this wrong, feel the censure of the ecclesiastical Laws, and suffer us that were neither convicted, nor charged with any crime, nor so much as convented, to enjoy your letters [of communion] and charity, and likewise of all others, whose fellowship we had before. Doth he not in these words request Innocentius to pronounce the sentence void, that was given against him, & to remove the authors of this disorder from the communion?  Theo. 
To Dissent from it was enough to undo it; because neither he nor his province were acquainted with it: to excommunicate the doers, was nothing else, but to communicate no longer with them; which every Bishop and province might do, when any wilful breach of the Canons was offered.  Phi. 
This petition was made to Innocentius alone, and not to the residue of the West Bishops.  Theo. 
If Innocentius alone were spoken to, the matter is not great: Sure it is the Bishop of Rome neither did, nor might deal in these cases without the consent of his brethren; for fear, lest when the matter came to voices as in the end it must, his own province should take stitch against him. But how can you prove, that he alone was spoken to?  Phi. 
The words be plain. 
Chrysost. ut supra.  Obsecro ut scribas: I beseech you to write in the singular number.  Theo. 
What if a man should distrust the print or the Copy, would it not tempt your patience?  Phi. 
Have we not good cause, if you begin to discredit every thing that maketh against you?  Theo. 
Whether I suspect the place upon just occasion or no, yourself shall be judge. chrysostom in this Epistle having reported at large the violent and enormous rage of his enemies against him and his adherents, cometh at last to make his petition not to jonnocentius alone, 
Eadem episto. ad Innocentium. Chrysost. maketh this petition to all the west Bishops.  as you conceive; but generally to the West Bishops. Igitur Domini maxime venerandi & pij, cum haec ita se habere didiceritis, studium vestrum & magnam diligentiam adhibite, quo retundatur haec, quae in ecclesias irrupit, iniquitas: Therefore most reverent and religious Lords, since you see what is done, put to your endeavours and diligence, that this wickedness which is broken into the Church, may be beaten back. Quip si mos hic invaluerit, scitote quod brevi transibunt omnia. Quapropter ne confusio haec omnem, quae sub celo est, natione minuadat, obsecro, [ut scribatis] quod haec tam iniquè facta robur non habeant: nobis verò literis vestris & charitate vestra frui concedite. For if this grow to a custom, know you that all things will shortly come to nought: & therefore lest this confusion attempt every nation under heaven, I beseech [not one of you, but all] you, to write that these things so unjustly done, may be taken as void, and you [all] grant that we may enjoy your letters & your favours. And so goeth he on to the very end with verbs of the plural number, leaving off with these words: Haec omnia cum ita se habere intellexeritis a dominis meis pientissimis fratribus nostris Episcopis, 
Ibidem.  obsecro ut praestetis, id quod petent officij. All these things when you shall perceive to be true by these my Lords and most godly brethren the Bishops [whom I have sent] I beseech you give them that assistance which they shall ask. The whole petition from the first word to the last is made to them all without exception: the self same sentence, where he prayeth them to write hath these words, 

A verb of the singular number thrust in among verbs of the plural, to claw the Bishop of Rome.  
Theodores. lib. 5. Cap. 34.   nobis verò literis vestris frui concedite, you [all] grant us your letters. Now whether, obsecro ut scribas, can stand with these words literis vestris frui concedite, or rather obsecro ut scribatis, I refer it to yourself: this you can not deny but he requireth aid of them all, and prayeth their common letters, which is enough to show that chrysostom ment Innocentius should take with him the general consent of the West Bishops. And so he did. For this wrongful and unrighteous dealing against chrysostom, saith Theodorete, the Bishops of Europe did greatly detest, and therefore severed themselves from the communion of those that were the doers thereof.  Phi. 
I grant they did, but Innocentius alone did excommunicate the chief doers even Arcadius the Emperor, Eudoxia the Empress, Arsacius & Theophilus the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria. 
A bull absurdly forged to make men believe the Pope did excommunicate the Emperor for Chrysost. banishment. Nicepho. lib. 13. Cap. 34. Cronologia Canisij. The Bull proved to be forged. Socrat. lib. 6. Cap. 18.   Theo. 
Who told you so?  Phi. 
The bull is extant to this day.  Theo. 
A bull of that antiquity were news in deed.  Phi. 
You may soon find him.  Theo. 
Where?  Phi. 
In the 13. book and 34. Chapter of Nicephorus ecclesiastical history.  Theo. 
I was afraid you would have quoted Socrates or Sozomene.  Phi. 
Nicephorus is as good.  Theo. 
Not by ten parts of twelve.  Phi. 
Why not?  Theo. 
Besides that he loadeth the whole history of the Church with many fables and visions, he lived thirteen hundred years after Christ, as your own friends confess: which in comparison of the rest, is but yesterday. Therefore if Socrates, Theodorete and Sozomene, which wrote at that very time when these things were done, report no such matter, I would feign know, which way Nicephorus, that came a thousand year after them could light on a true constat of this ecclesiastical censure.  Phi. 
Perhaps he found it in some ancient Library.  Theo. 
As though the patriarchs and Princes of Greece would suffer such a precedent against themselves to lie quiet in their Libraries a thousand years.  Phi. 
That reason of yours is but conjectural. 

The first year of Chrysost banishment.  
Socrat. lib. 6. Cap. 19    Theo. 
Then hear that which is effectual; and you shall see the framer of this bull prove himself a calf. The twentieth day of june Honorius and Aristinetus being Consuls, chrysostom was carried from his Church into banishment by the emperors Edict, as Socrates witnesseth. The thirtieth of September the same year, a mighty hail fell in Constantinople, and the suburbs thereabout; and the fourth day after the hail [Eudoxia] the Empress died. 

The same year the Empress died.  
Socrat. lib. 6. Cap. 20.  
The second year of his banishment.  
Eodem Capite The third year.  
Socrat. lib. 6. Cap. 21.   The next year the eleventh day of November, when Stelichon the second time & Anthemius were Consuls, Arsacius died. The next year after that which was the sixth of Arcadius and the first of Probus, a very religious man named Atticus was chosen [Bishop of Constantinople.] The next year, which was the seventh of Honorius, and the second time of Theodosius Consulship, the fourteenth day of November john chrysostom died in banishment. You doubt not of this account I trust.  Phi. 
As yet I see no cause to doubt it. Socrates was then alive, when these things were in action.  Theo. 
The same order of their deaths you shall find in Sozomene, a writer of that age also when these troubles were hottest.  Phi. 
What then after all this?  Theo. 
Your solemn Bull avoucheth chrysostom to be dead, 

The fourth year Chryso. himself died.  
Sozome. lib. 8. cap. 27. & 28.  
The Bull supposeth the Empress to be living after Chrysostoms' death.  
Niceph. lib. 13. Cap. 34.  
A blind Prophet to threaten that she should shortly die which was dead four years before.   and Eudoxia to be living after him, which died three whole years before him.  Phi. 
What? It doth not I hope.  Theo. 
Mark the words: Tamet si enim beatus johannis vitam reliquit, in eterna tamen secula immortalis vitae haereditatem est consecutus, Verùm illa excipiet & presentem hic paenam, & futurum sempiternum supplicium post non multos hosce dies ei adveniens. Itaque ego minimus, & peccator cui thronus magni Apostoli Petri creditus est, segrego & reijcio te & illam a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi. For although blessed john [Chrysostomde] parted this life, yet hath he gotten the inheritance of an immortal life for ever: but Eudoxia shall receive a present punishment in this world, and eternal pains that shall befall her afore many days be past. Therefore I, though the least and a sinner, to whom the throne of Peter the great Apostle is committed, do segregate and cut off thee [O Emperor] & her from receiving the undefiled mysteries of Christ, etc. How think you, was the contriver of this Bull well in his wits, to threaten that the Empress should shortly die, which was dead long before; & to put her from receiving the Communion, after she had been three years buried?  Phi. 
Perhaps Innocentius knew not of her death.  Theo. 
Then surely was Innocentius all that while a sleep: for the continual intercourse between the two Cities both for temporal and ecclesiastical affairs was so great, the person so famous, the time so long, that no mean man in Rome could be ignorant of her death. 
Sozome. lib. 8. Cap. 28.  Besides that Innocentius Legates were at Constantinople to entreat Arcadius for a Council, a little before chrysostom died, and there unless they wanted both eyes and ears, they could not choose but learn, that the Empress was dead.  Phi. 
She was then living as Nicephorus saith.  Theo. 
The more he fableth, 
Niceph. lib. 13. Cap. 33.  the less credit he deserveth. Eudoxia died before Arsacius, and after his death was Atticus chosen: then how could she be living when Atticus was Bishop, in whose time the Legates of Innocentius came to entreat for chrysostom?  Phi. 
Let Nicephorus answer for himself. I laid before you what I find in him.  Theo. 
If this be all you can say for his defence, give us leave to tell you that this Bull bearing Innocentius name is some foolish and late forgery devised to persuade men that Popes in those days could quail Emperors, which God knoweth is nothing so. Next for Chrysostom's cause, 

Chrysostom appealed not to the Bishop of Rome, but to a Council.  
Socra. lib. 6. Cap. 15.   as it helpeth you little, so doth it hinder you much. For first chrysostom when himself and his Clergy were called to appear before the Synod, where Theophilus the Patriarch of Alexandria his mortal enemy was the chief man, appealed from them, not to the Bishop of Rome, but to a general Council. So saith Socrates. johannes eos, a quibus vocabatur, tanquam inimicos exceptione recusabat, & universalem Synodum appellabat. chrysostom refused those that called him upon this exception, that they were his enemies, and appealed to a general Council. So saith chrysostom himself: 
Episto. 1. ad Innocentium.  Though we were absent and appealed to a Synod, and sought for judgement, and refused not audience but manifest enmity; yet [Theophilus] received accusors against me, excommunicated such as held with me, and took libels at all their hands which had not yet purged themselves of such crimes, as were laid to their charge; all which things are contrary to the laws and Canons.  
Next when Innocentius saw the matter could not be ended but in a general Council, 

Sozome. lib. 8. Cap. 28. Ibidem.  
The Pope's legates sent away with reproach.  
They were punished by the Prince's law that did communicate with the Bishop of Rome.  
Niceph. lib. 13. Cap. 30.  
Sozome. lib. 8. Cap. 24.   by reason the three patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch & Alexandria were against him, he sent Legates to Honorius and Arcadius, to beseech them that a Synod might be had, and the time and place appointed. Wherein his supplication was so little regarded, that his Legates were sent away with reproach as disturbers of the west Empire, and chrysostom carried farther off in banishment than before.  
Lastly when such as favoured chrysostom in the East parts, would not communicate with his enemies, but joined themselves in communion with the Bishop of Rome, who likewise severed himself from those that were the beginners of this garboil; Arcadius made this Law: If any Bishop refuse to communicate with Theophilus, Atticus and Porphyrius, he shall lose both his Church and his goods: If any that bear office, they shall forfeit their dignity: If any Soldier, he shall lose his service: If any of the common people, let them be fyned and exiled.  Phi. 
Will you now trust Nicephorus?  Theo. 
Sozomene in effect saith the same. For the communion of Arsacius, Porphyrius, and Theophilus, at the suit of the Nobles, there was a law made, that no Christians should meet at prayers out of their Churches, and those that would not communicate with these [three patriarchs] should be expelled. 

Theodoret. lib. 5. Cap. 34.  
Chrysost. enemies were men of good account in the church.   So smally was Innocentius communion at that time respected, that the followers of it were sharply punished.  Phi. 
You know what manner of men they were that did it.  Theo. 
Such as you may not easily despise. Intending to write the wrong done to chrysostom, saith Theodorete, I am forced to shrink at the doers thereof for their other virtues. 

Socrat. lib. 7. Cap. 2.  
Theodor. lib. 5. Cap. 35.   Atticus, as Socrates confesseth, was a very learned, religious, and wise man. Porphyrius, saith Theodorete, left many monuments of his benignity, being a man endued with excellent wisdom. Arcadius, besides that chrysostom calleth him after his banishment, Christianissimum & pientissimum Regem, 
Epistola 1. ad Innocentium. Socrat. li. 6. Cap. 23.  a most Christian and Godly prince: a little before his death wan estimation of holiness not without the admiration of a great multitude saved from destruction by his prayers. Theophilus, Epiphanius and others that held tooth and nail against him were no babes in the Church of Christ. 
●eo. Epist. 64. & 69.  Cyrillus a famous father was after long time with much ado drawn to yield thus much, that Chrysostom's name should be rehearsed in the Catalogue of those that had been Bishops. 
Niceph. lib. 14. Cap. 27.  Arsacius, if Cyrillus may be trusted, was a blessed man and most worthy of commendation.  Phi. 
You go about to deface chrysostom by commending his enemies.  Theo. 
It is the least part of my thought: 

Socrat. lib. 6. Cap. 21.  
Chrysost. very passionate.   and yet Socrates doth not altogether excuse him, in saying he was a man Iracundiae magis quàm reverentiae indulgens, more addicted to serve his passions, than to reverence any person. And surely the words that he spoke of the Empress in his sermon openly before all the people, Again Herodias is mad, again she rageth, again she danceth, again she will have john's head in a dish, 
Socrat. lib. 6. Cap. 18.  were very bitter; but my meaning is to show they were great and good men in the Church, that about Chrysostoms' quarrel, were it right, were it wrong, neglected the communion of the Bishop of Rome.  Phi. 
Though they made light of it in this tumult and faction, yet Augustine, Hierom, and others did highly esteem it.  Theo. 
The communion and fellowship of Christian love and peace may not rashly be broken with any Church, especially not with the chief and principal Churches, unless the cause be weighty and urgent; but look when the Bishop of Rome attempted any thing against the faith or the Canons, & tell me then what account they made of him.  Phi. 
That you must look out, I know no such thing.  Theo. 
So will I, when my course cometh, but yours as yet is not ended.  Phi. 
Mine shall not be long.  Theo. 
As short as you will. I think the best be spent.  Phi. 
Augustine and the fathers assembled in the Milevitan Council ask help of Innocentius for the condemnation of Pelagius and his heresy.  Theo. 
The Bishops of Africa themselves in this and an other Council held at Carthage condemned the error of Pelagius, 
What help Saint Austen and others sought of Innocentius.  as repugnant to the Scriptures, and injurious to the grace of God. And because it was a matter of faith that indifferently concerned all, they thought it necessary to advertise the Bishop of Rome what they had done, and to pray him also to condemn the same: that as the infection was far spread and found many defenders; so the condemnation thereof might be general, and ratified by the public liking of the Bishops in every province. What can you gather by this, but that it was then the manner of the Church, as in truth it was, by their letters sent too and fro, both to ask and to give their mutual consents, for the suppressing of errors, that daily sprang, when general Counsels could not be called? In which case the Bishop of Rome both in respect of his City, that was Imperial; and his See, that was Apostolical, used to receive the first letters.  Phi. 
The Council of Carthage writeth thus to Innocentius: 

Inter August. Epist. 90.  
They requested Innocentius to concur with them in the condemnation of Pelagianisme.   Hoc itaque gestum charitati tuae intimandum duximus, ut statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae sedis adhibeatur auctoritas pro tuenda salute multorum: That which was done, we thought good to intimate to your charity, that to the decrees of our meanness, the authority of your apostolic See might be added, for the saving of many from infection.  Theo. 
First they for their parts decreed against Pelagius without the Bishop of Rome; next they seek the consent of the Bishop of Rome, not to make that good which they had done, but to prevail the rather with many that were out of their Province. 
Idem Epist. 90.  Error ipse & impietas quae tam multos assertores habet per diversa dispersos, etiam auctoritate Apostolicae sedis anathematizanda est: This error and impiety which hath so many favourers dispersed in so many places, had need be condemned by the credit and authority of your apostolic See.  Phi. 
Innocentius saith they did but their duties.  Theo. 
A man might soon entreat Innocentius to take enough upon him, and yet the worst he saith is this: 

Inter August. Epist. 93.  
The Bishops of Rome will quickly take enough upon them.  
What is meant by referring matters to Peter.   Arbitror omnes fratres & Episcopos nostros, quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, non nisi ad Petrum, id est sui nominis & honoris authorem referre debere, velut nunc retulit vestra dilectio: I think that all our brethren and fellow Bishops when any matter of faith is in question, aught to refer the same to none but to Peter the author of their office and honour, as now your kindness hath done. Where by referring to Peter he did not mean as you do, that all faith and Religion should depend on the Pope's sleeve; but that when they had concluded as they saw cause, they should give him intelligence to this end, that he might concur with them for the better repressing of heresy with full consent. Now that which Innocentius made but a thought of, you since that time proclaim for a Gospel.  Phi. 
Innocentius would not think so without some ground.  Theo. 
Thoughts are weak proofs, when the case is our own. And Innocentius Epistles in answer of these two Counsels, 
Censura in Epist. 90. & 93.  Erasmus noteth for want of words, wit and learning, requisite for so great a Prelate.  Phi. 
Erasmus is very bold with the Fathers.  Theo. 
Your decretal Epistles be even such for the most part, marry that is not to this purpose.  
basil is the next man in your beadrole, who called, as you say, for help of Liberius, Felix and other Bishops of Italy; 
basil wrote to the West Bishops in general, but never to the Bishop of Rome  but can you tell us where we shall find all these things that you affirm?  Phi. 
In his Epistles.  Theo. 
There be four or five Epistles of his written to the West Bishops in general, and to the Bishops of Italy and France, for succour and help; where the Bishop of Rome perhaps is included as one amongst the rest, but never entreated, nor so much as named, asunder from the rest. And here may you learn of basil, the cause why good men being oppressed in the East Church by the craft and power of heretics or enemies, sought to the West for aid and assistance. Not that they took the Bishop of Rome for supreme judge of all doubts and doctrines, 
The end why the East Bishops sought to the West.  as left in Christ's steed; but that the number & concord of the West Bishops might temper and hinder the malice of their adversaries, and bring their quarrels to be decided in an open and even Council.  

Basilij epistola 48. ad Athan.  So basil adviseth Athanasius to do. For the experience that I have had in things, I know this to be the only way to get help, that our Churches are linked with the West Bishops. For if they will readily show the same zeal for our Countries, which they did against one or two, that were defamed in the West, perhaps somewhat will be done that shall generally profit all; whereby those that are in authority may be moved to reverence their number, & the people every where will follow them without contradiction. And Basil himself writing to them: 
Basilij Epist. 61. occidentalibus frasribus.  As much comfort & help as you can, saith he, delay not to yield to the distressed and afflicted Churches. As we think the concord & unity, which you enjoy there among yourselves, to be our own happiness; so ought you to labour with us in these dissensions which assault us. If then there be any comfort of love, if any communion of the spirit, if any bowels of pity, be moved to help us: take ye the zeal of godliness, & deliver us from this tempest.  
And describing at large the miserable state of the Churches thereabout The principles of godliness, saith he, be overthrown, the rites of religion perverted, 
Basilij Epist. 69 Italicis ac Galli●.  faith itself in danger, godly preachers put to silence, every blasphemous mouth is open; holy things are profaned, and those that are sound among the people flee the house of prayers as in the which impiety is published. Therefore while yet some stand, before a perfect and full shipwreck oppress the Church, hasten unto us, hasten at the length yet. What you shall do to help us we need not tell you, but only this, that you must make speed, & the presence of many brethren will be requisite for this matter, to this end that they which come may make a full and just Synod. 
Basilij epist. 70. Galliae & Italiae episc.  This is the chiefest thing that we require, that by your means the troubles of our countries may be known to the Emperors own person, or if that be hard, that some of you come to see & comfort the afflicted. The things that we spoke, many suspect, 

Mark what things basil requested of the West Bishops.  
Basilij epist. 74. occidentalibus episc.  
The greater number, and the further off, the less suspected of the people.  
Ibidem.   as proceeding of private contention; you the farther you dwell off, the more credit you have with the people. If therefore many of you with one consent shall decree the same, it is evident that the very number of you concurring in one mind with us, shall cause all men to receive this doctrine without any doubting.  
You see what help basil asked of the West Bishops, making no mention of the Bishop of Rome, but praying them all to join together, and to show their zeals for the truth either by meeting in a full Synod for the condemnation of such errors, as were newly risen in the church; or by writing their letters to the East Bishops, that the teachers & embracers of those impieties should be severed from the communion of the faithful until their amendment. The redress of these things we seek for at your hands, the which you shall perform, if it please you to write to all the East Churches, that those which in this sort have corrupted the doctrine of truth be then admitted to the communion, when they correct their errors; & if they will not be brought from this innovation, but frowardly continue the same, than the rest to departed from them. We know it behoved us to be with you, as assessors to your wisdoms, and in common to consider how these things should be handled: but these times do not permit that, and the differing of it would be dangerous, for that their poison taketh hold apace.  Phi. 
But basil conferring with Athanasius how to help the Church, saith; 
Basilij epist. 52. ad Athanasium.  I have thought it meet, that the Bishop of Rome be written unto, to consider of our state, and to give us his counsel; and because it is a matter of more difficulty to send some thence by the common decree of a Synod, 
The Bishop of Rome might counsel but not command.  he himself using his own authority in this matter may choose men both able to endure the journey, & fit for the mildness & easiness of their dispositions, to correct those that here with us are wrested awry, or started aside. This proveth that the Bishop of Rome had authority sufficient of himself without a Synod to send Legattes to reform things amiss in the East Churches, which is clean against your assertion.  Theo. 
You mistake the matter for lack of due marking the circumstances. When these troubles were first beginning, 
Why basil required messengers from the West patriarch.  before they came to that extremity, which after fell out, basil knowing that the credit and opinion of the West Church might stay many from falling, and reduce others that were not too far gone, because it would be long to tarry the assembling of a Synod, and the enemy perceiving their intent would hinder the fruit of their labours: wisheth that the Bishop of Rome would use his discretion in choosing some that were fit for this purpose, and send them very closely to see what good might be done by gentle and fair persuasions.  Phi. 
You qualify the text with your own additions.  Theo. 
You shall find them expressed in Basils' own words if you weigh them well. First he would have the Bishop of Rome written unto, to consider their state, & to give them counsel, what to do. 
Basil epist. 52.  Next, because it is hard to have some sent by the common decree of a Synod, he using his own authority in this [so small] a matter, may choose men fit, etc. And that no man knowing of it, without any stir, let them come secretly by Sea to those that are here, lest the enemies of peace descry their coming. Lastly they fitting and applying their speech to content every man, with mildness and gentleness may rectify such of our side as tread awry. So that these messengers should be but mediators and procurers of peace between those that were of the same religion & joined in communion with the West Churches. When they come which by God's grace shallbe sent, 
Ibidem.  let them not occasion any schisms in the churches, but rather by all means draw those that be of one religion to unity. Care must be had, that all things be borne with, to win peace; & that the Church of Antioch in any case be provided for; lest that which is yet sincere in her, be weakened & rend in pieces through respect of persons. meaning the schism at Antioch where the Catholics had divided themselves and their Churches, some cleaving to Miletius, and some to Paulinus.  Phi. 
You could never speak it in a better time. Upon this and other such occasions I remember S. Hierom consulteth Damasus the Bishop of Rome, both what to believe, and with whom to communicate.  Theo. 
Indeed S. hierom's name is next, 
S. Hierom consulting Damasus.  and if he serve your turns he doth more for you than all the rest of the Fathers besides: but was Hierom in his old-age to seek what to believe?  Phi. 
I say not so; but that touching the faith and communion of the Church he submitted himself to the Bishop of Rome. His words are worth the noting. 
Hiero. Damas. Episto. tom. 2.  Because the East parts are together by the ears by an inveterate madness of the people, and Foxes there do root up the Vineyard of Christ, therefore thought I best to consult Peter's chair, and the faith which was praised by the Apostles mouth, thence desiring food for my soul, whence long ago I received the garments of Christ. I know not Vitalis, I refuse Miletius, I care not for Paulinus; he that gathereth not with you, skattereth; that is, he that is not Christ's, is Antichrist's. And having opened his grief, and showed what was demanded at his hands by the East Bishops in the matter of the Trinity, he concludeth: 
Ibidem.  I beseech your blessedness by him that was crucified, even the Saviour of the world, and by the Trinity, three persons of one and the same substance, that by your letters you will appoint me whether I shall confess [there be three Hypostases in one divine nature] or deny the same; and also that you will signify with which of those [three] at Antioch I ought to communicate. And urging the same matter the second time. 
Epist. sequent. ad Damasum.  Miletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus say they be joined in communion with you. I could believe them if one [and no more] said it; but now either two, or all three lie. Therefore I beseech your blessedness by the Cross of the Lord, by the necessary ornament of our faith, by the passion of Christ, that by your letters you will signify with whom I should communicate in Syria. Despise not the soul, for which Christ died. Give me leave to be as long in repeating the words of S. Hierom, as you were even now in alleging S. basil.  Theo. 
With a good will, you spend but a little the more time, and we shall have day enough. Marry now you have said all, mark first; that most of these praises be not several to the City of Rome, but general to the West Church. The unthrifty children [of the East] have wasted, 
Epist. ad Damasum prior. S. Hierom preferreth the West Church before the East as more sincere in faith; and not Rome before all the world.  saith he, their patrimony: only with you [in the West] is the inheritance of your Fathers kept undiminished. There the good ground yieldeth an hundred fold increase, that still resembleth the pureness of the lords seed: here the corn that was cast into the furrows doth degenerate into tars and oats. Now in the West the Son of righteousness shineth, in the East, Lucifer that fell, hath set his throne above the stars. You are the light of the world, the salt of the earth, the vessels of silver and gold: here are the wooden and earthen pots that stay for the iron rod and unquenchable fire. This comparison he maketh, as you see, not between all other places and Rome, but between the East and West Churches; preferring the one many degrees before the other. Secondly the reason why Hierom himself depended so much on the Church of Rome, was, as he saith, for that he was baptised in the City of Rome; and therefore as one of that City still desireth thence to be fed in Christ, where he was first clothed with Christ. thirdly the points that he doubted of, and sought to be directed in, were no matters of doctrine nor Principles of faith, but a question of words, and a dissension about the Bishopric of Antioch: for the which trifles, who can blame Hierom if he were loath to lose the communion of that City, where he was Christened? And as Hierom here honoureth the Church of Rome for keeping her faith, so elsewhere he taketh up roundly both the City and Clergy of Rome when occasion was offered.  
And in this very place by your leave he protesteth that he followeth no man as chief, 
Ibidem.  much less as head of the Church, but only Christ. Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, beatitudini tuae, id est cathedrae Petri communione consocior: I following none chief, but Christ; hold the fellowship of communion with your blessedness, that is with Peter's chair. 
S. Hierom sought no resolution in faith at Damasus mouth, but letters to keep him from trouble in a strange place. Ibidem.  Neither doth he pray the Bishop of Rome to appoint him what he shall believe touching the Trinity, as if Damasus word were the rule of his faith; but where he confessed in the Trinity three persons subsisting of one and the same substance, with the Council of Nice, and the whole West Church: and certain Bishops of the East not therewith content urged him precisely to grant the word tres hypostases; and for sticking at it, traduced him as an heretic, his request to the Bishop of Rome is, ut sive dicendarum, sive tacendarum hypostaseon detar autoritas; that he might be licensed to use, or refuse that word, without being molested at their hands any farther. When we ask them, saith Hierom, what they mean by tres hypostases, they say, three persons subsisting: we answer that we believe the same. 
Ibidem.  Non sufficit sensus, ipsum nomen efflagitant; & quia vocabula non ediscimus, haeretici iudicamur. It is not enough to believe so, they urge the very word itself; and because we can not frame ourselves to [these new] words, we be charged with heresy. So that Hierom craved Damasus letters and authority for his quietness, lest he should be troubled in Syria where he lay among strangers, for a word that he suspected to be scant sound. The other petition that he maketh is but to know, which of those three at Antioch were joined in communion with the Church of Rome, and the West Bishops; that he might safely communicate with that side. Grant these two cases wherein Hierom prayeth help of Damasus, and what are you the nearer?  Phi. 
Nay, grant the words that Hierom speaketh in his Epistle, and see what then will follow. 
Ibidem.   Theo. 
What words?  Phi. 
Cathedrae Petri communione consocior; super illam Petram edificatam Ecclesiam scio. Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, prophanus est. Si quis in Arca Noah non fuerit, peribit regnant diluuio: I hold the communion of Peter's chair [that is of the Church of Rome] upon that rock I know the Church to be built. Whosoever shall eat the [paschal] lamb out of that house, is a profane person. If any man be not in Noah's Ark when the flood riseth, he shallbe drowned. This is as much as we do affirm, or could desire for the Church of Rome: grant this, and the quarrel betwixt us shall soon cease.  Theo. 
You be so hasty when you hear of Peter's chair, that you never look at Christ himself, though he stand in your way. For Hierom in the same sentence protesteth, that although he keep the fellowship of communion with Peter's chair, 
Epist. ad Damasum.  yet he followeth none chief but Christ. Upon that rock I am sure, saith he, the Church is built. Why may not these words now be referred as well to Christ, as to Peter?  Phi. 
For shame, what an evasion this is?  Theo. 
Nay shame to yourselves that are so wedded to your own conceits. The words are more likely to belong to Christ than to Peter, 
Super illam Petram in Hieron stand fit to be referred to Christ than to Peter.  if you soberly view them. Christ's name going first, and Peter's second in the sentence, by the very rules of Grammar, super illam Petram, upon that rock, serveth more aptly for Christ, than for Peter. Again, the vehemency of the verb scio, I am right sure, doth argue the words to be more fitly referred to Christ than to Peter. For that the Church is built on Christ, no Christian ever doubted: but that Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built, S. Austen and others do plainly deny.  Phi. 
But S. Hierom in the third Epistle before this, saith expressly, Petrus super quem Dominus fundavit Ecclesiam: Peter on whom our Lord built his Church. 

Hieron. ad Marcellum adversus Montanum: tomo epi. 2.  
Upon this rock: diversly expounded of the fathers Aug. de verbis Domini secundum Mat. serm. 13.  
The Church built on none but on Christ. Hilar. de Trin. lib. 2.  
Ibidem lib. 6.    Theo. 
The words of our Saviour in the Gospel, Upon this rock will I build my Church, diverse men have diversly taken. S. Austen expoundeth them thus: Tu es ergo, inquit, Petrus; & super hanc Petram quam confessus es, super hanc Petram quam cognovisti, dicens, tu es filius Dei vivi, edificabo Ecclesiam meam; id est super meipsum filium Dei vini edificabo Ecclesiam meam. Super me edificabo te, non me super te: Thou art Peter, saith Christ, and upon this rock, which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged by saying; Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, will I build my Church; that is upon myself the Son of the living God will I build my Church. I will build thee upon me, not myself on thee. Hilary likewise, unum est immobile fundamentum, una haec est faelix fidei Petra Petriore confessa, tu es filius Dei vivi: super hanc igitur confessionis Petram Ecclesiae edificatio est. Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum est: This only is the immovable foundation, this only is the happy rock of faith, which was confessed by Peter's mouth; thou art the Son of the living God. Then upon this rock of confession standeth the building of the Church. This faith is the foundation of the Church. So doth Ambrose: 

Ambros. in 2. cap. Epist. ad Ephesio●.  
Idem de incarnate. Dominici sacrament. cap. 5.   Dominus dicit ad Petrum, super istam Petram edificabo Ecclesiam meam; hoc est, in hac Catholicae fidei confession. Eides ergo est Ecclesiae fundamentum. Non enim de carne Petri, sed de fide dictum est, qùia portae mortis ei nòn praevalebunt. Sed confessio vicit infernum: The Lord saith to Peter, upon this rock will I build my Church, that is, in this confession of the Catholic Faith. Faith therefore is the foundation of the church. For it was not spoken of Peter's flesh, but of faith, that hell gates should not prevail against it. But that confession conquered hell. 
Chrysost. homil. 55. in Matth. Bede in cap. 21. johannis.  Upon this rock will I build my Church, that is, saith Chrysostom, upon this faith and confession. Bede; Upon this rock, saith Christ, which thou hast confessed will I build my church. That rock was Christ, upon the which foundation even Peter himself was to be builded. These mean as S. Paul doth, that the right and true foundation of the Church is Christ, and none else. 
1. Cor. 3.  another foundation can no man lay, than that which is already laid, which is jesus Christ.  
Others I know apply these words upon this rock will I build my Church, 
Peter laid in the foundation of the Church as a principal member thereof. Origen. in 16. Mat. tract. 1.  to Peter; marry not as if he alone were laid in the foundation of the Church, and the rest of the Apostles excluded; but that which is here spoken to him, they make common to all, or as much elsewhere to be given to all. Origen, If only upon Peter thou thinkest the whole Church to be built, what wilt thou say to john and every of the Apostles? shall we dare say, that against Peter only, the gates of hell shall not prevail, and against the rest of the Apostles they shall? and not rather in them all and every one of them, that to be true, which is said, the gates of hell shall not prevail? and that also upon this rock will I build my Church? For if this speech, to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, be common to all, why then should not all that which goeth before and followeth after, as spoken to Peter, be common to them all? Hierom himself, whose authority you pretend, 
Hieron. lib. 1. adversus I●uiniaman.  as he placeth Peter in the foundation of the Church, so doth he the rest of the Apostles likewise. Thou wilt say, the Church is built on Peter: notwithstanding the self same in another place is done upon all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the steadfastness of the Church is equally settled upon them. This sense doth somewhat agree with that place of S. Paul, 
Ephes. 2.  were he saith: Ye be built upon the foundation (not of Peter alone) but of the Apostles and Prophets, jesus Christ being the head corner stone. And in that respect Paul saith of james, Peter & john jointly, they that seemed to be the pillours, 
Galat. 2.  gave me their right hands of fellowship.  
Both these constructions we can admit, 

Neither of these constructions make for the church of Rome.  
Tertul. de prescription.  
Cyprian. lib. 1. Epi. 3.   though we prefer the first, as most religious & cunning, nearest the true meaning of our Saviour; but you wrist the words of S. Hierom quite against himself & all the rest of the learned & Catholic fathers. It is one thing to say the church is built on Peter which Origen, Hierom & others affirm in the sense that I told you before: & an other thing to say the Church is built on Peter's chair at Rome, which no Father ever said or thought. And therefore if we should grant that S. Hierom in these words spoke of Peter, what are you the better? This is no proof that Rome is the Rock, on which the Church is built; but only that Peter is a Rock laid in the foundation of the Church, where also the rest of the Prophets and Apostles are.  Phi. 
The place doth mention the chair of Peter, which is Rome.  Theo. 
The words stand so, that they may respect either Peter himself or his chair: but the likeness of the names Petrus and Petra both for sound & for sense, the alluding to that, which Christ spoke to Peter in the Gospel, long before he knew Rome; the general consent of the Father's expounding the Rock to be taken either for Christ or for Peter, and never for Rome, import that these words in S. Hierom, have their relation to Peter's person, and not to his chair. This exposition the place which you brought confirmeth. Petrus, super quem Dominus fundanit Ecclesiam: 
Ad Marcellum tomo epistolarum 2. Testimonia.  Peter, on whom, (that is on whose person, not on whose successors at Rome) the Lord built his Church.  Phi. 
The rest of S. hierom's words can not be referred to Peter's person; as namely these, that next ensue: Without this house whosoever shall eat the [paschal] lamb, 
Hieron. Damas. quoniam vetusto. tomo 2.  is profane. And why should the former more than these?  Theo. 
Peruse the words as they lie, and you shall find your own error. Upon that rock I know the Church is built. The Church not of Rome only, but of Christ generally. Then followeth, extra hanc domùm, without this house. What house; but the church, which he said before was built on the rock? And out of this house (meaning thereby not the particular Church of Rome, 

The house of God, is the Church of God, and not the Church of Rome.  
What S. Augustine meaneth by Peter's seat.   but the Catholic church of Christ) whosoever eateth the Passover, is indeed, as Hierom saith, aprophane person. This is far wide from the mark which you shoot at.  Phi. 
S. Augustine I trust shooteth straight, when he apply the words of Christ in the 16. of Matthew, to the chair of Peter.  Theo. 
That were marvel, if he which by no means would allow Peter himself to be the foundation of the Church, be now content to yield that honour to the Bishop of Rome.  Phi. 
He doth so. These be his words: Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede, 

Aug. in Psalm. contra partem Donati.  
From, not in Peter's seat.   & in ordine illo Patrum, quis cui successit, videte. Ipsa est Petra quam non vincant superbae inferorum portae: Number the Priests even from Peter's seat, and see who succeeded one an other in that rew of Fathers: that is the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not conquer.  Theo. 
This place proveth nothing, unless you be suffered to refer the words, Ipsa est Petra, (that is the rock,) whither you list. You can not refer them, but either to the succession of Priests from Peter, or else to Peter's seat, which is all one with Peter's chair.  Theo. 
Why not to Peter himself?  Phi. 
That were far fet.  Theo. 
The words stand indifferent for both, as S. hierom's did; and not only the same reasons I made there, serve here, but also the proposition hath a manifest reference to Peter's person. He saith not number the Priests in Peter's seat, 
Why may not ipsa est Petra be referred to Peter's person as well as super hanc Petram in the Gospel, as the jesuits would have it?  but number them vel ab ipsa Petri sede, even from the very seat of Peter, that is from the time that Peter sat: He is the Rock, against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail.  Phi. 
You seem to read, Ipse est Petra, He is the Rock; but the words are, Ipsa est Petra, that is the Rock.  Theo. 
There are greater corruptions crept into S. Austin's works, by the negligence of Scribes than of a for e: Neither did I translate the words, but give you the right meaning of them; and yet, ipsa est Petra, in S. Austen may be referred to Peter himself, as well, as super hanc Petram, in the Gospel expounded for Peter, which you all uphold. But grant, which is more than ever you shall justly convince, that Peter's chair is thereby meant: Saint Austen doth not say that is the rock on which the Church is built: but that is the Rock which the gates of hell do not conquer: not promising that Rome still should, but witnessing that Rome then did withstand the gates of hell, by keeping the faith undefiled, which Peter delivered.  Phi. 
What S. Austen lacketh S. Cyprian supplieth. 
Cyprian. de unitate Reclesiae Catholicae.  Qui Cathedram Petri super quam edificata est Ecclesia, deserit; in Ecclesia se esse confidit? He that forsaketh the chair of Peter, on which the Church is built, doth he hope himself to be in the Church? I trust these words be plain enough.  Theo. 
The words as you set them be plain enough: but where saith Cyprian so?  Phi. 
In his book De unitate Ecclesiae Catholicae, you call it corruptly De simplicitate Praelatorum.  Theo. 
Call the book how you will, so the words be there.  Phi. 
There shall you find them.  Theo. 
There we find them not.  Phi. 
What Prints have you? 
S. Cyprian lately falsified by the papists.   Theo. 
Prints enough. Alopecius at Cullen, Heruagius at basil, Langelier at Paris, Crinitus at Antuerp, Gryphius at Lions, Manutius at Rome. In all these and diverse others we find no such words.  Phi. 
In deed I confess the words were wanting, till Pamelius a Canon of Bruges found them in an old written copy lying in the Abbay of Cambron. In his edition printed at Antuerp by Stelsius you shall find them.  Theo. 
And think you Philander, that all other copies both printed & written lacking those words, 
A Canon of Bruges with his blind Cambron copy, hath enlarged Cyprians text against all the copies of christendom.  Pamelius did well to put them to Cyprians text?  Phi. 
He laid them down as he found them written in the copy, which is kept at Cambron.  Theo. 
As though the blind Abbay of Cambron were of greater credit & authority than all the Churches and Libraries of Christendom.  Phi. 
I say not so.  Theo. 
What else do you say, when you cite these words for Cyprians, which no copy printed, nor written hath besides that of Cambron?  
There have traveled in the correcting & setting forth of Cyprian at sundry times, men of your own religion, not a few; namely Remboltus, Canchius, Costerius, Erasmus, Gravius, Manutius, Morelius; every one of these for their several editions searching far and near, and using the best written copies that could be gotten or heard of, and they all agree that no such words are found in their copies: yea Pamelius himself having as he confesseth the sight and help of eight other written copies from diverse places, found these words in none but in Cambron copy. 
Either the Cambron copy, or all the written copies in the world must be corrupted; & which of these twain think you, do the jesuits chose?  Since then either Cambron copy must be corrupt, or an infinite number of other written copies, that have been viewed by these learned men of your own side, and are yet extant in diverse abbeys and Churches obedient to the See of Rome at this hour; say yourself in reason, whether we ought to believe your Cambron copy before all the copies that have been perused, and are yet remaining in Europe.  Phi. 
That were much, but how could this copy be corrupted?  Theo. 
What a question that is? How could whole books be thrust into the works of Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierom, Austen & others, & lie forged under their names not in one, or two, but in the most part of the abbeys and ancient libraries of the West Church? Your Monks and Friars that were so skilful in committing these manifold forgeries were not to seek how to corrupt your Cambron copy.  Phi. 
It helpeth Pamelius very much, that Gratian 400. years ago cited the very same words as out of Cyprian. 
Distinct. 39 qui cathedram.   Theo. 
Gratian might be deceived by the same or some other false copy, as well as Pamelius: & of all men Gratian himself is most corrupt in alleging the Fathers; but what if Gratian be forged as well as Cyprian? 
Gratian lately augmented as well as Cyprian.   Phi. 
Nay then all shallbe forged, that liketh not you.  Theo. 
They that ventured on Cyprian & others, would never stick to frame Gratian to their purpose.  Phi. 
This is but your suspicion.  Theo. 
Yes I have some reason to challenge this in your Canon law for a corruption. The very same place of Cyprian is elsewhere alleged at large by Gratian in his decrees, 

Caus. 24 quaest. 1. loquitur Dominus ad Petrium.  
This place was not in the ancient decrees.   where we find no such words: and therefore this or that must needs be forged. Again ●ohannes Seneca, who lived seven score years after Gratian ouer-skipp●●h this place without any gloss, as not finding it in the decrees extant in his time.  Phi. 
You be deceived: there is a gloss upon this place.  Theo. 
I am not deceived, there is none. Look to the lesser volume of your decrees printed by john Petit, and Thielman carver, and you shall see there is none. And he that in the bigger volume of your decrees, thinking to prevent this objection, set a certain gloss to the chapter, Qui Cathedram, showed himself not to be his craft's master; 
Glos▪ ibidem qui Cathedram. The gloss lately forged as well as Gratian'S text.  for he grossly mistaking the words that follow, (Episcopi verò, which are Gratian'S) & thinking them to be Cyprians, put the sum of Gratian'S words, as a gloss to Cyprians text, which is nothing near: and so betrayeth him a willing, but no skilful forger. Last of all the relative, that you most esteem, and I most withstand, super quam, on which [chair] the Church is built, 

And all this to make Cyprian speak clean contrary to himself within the compass of eight lines.  
Cyprian de umitate Ecclesiae.  
Peter the first stone that Christ laid in the foundation of his church. Cyprian de umitate Ecclesiae.   is contrary to the plain words of Cyprian not many lines before cited by Gratian, and confessed by Pamelius to be found in his Cambron copy, super unum illum edificat Ecclesiam, upon him alone (meaning Peter) Christ buildeth his Church. So that either you must mend your book, and read super quem; on whom the Church is built, or else make Cyprian so forgetful that with in eight lines he contradicteth himself & refuteth his former saying.  Phi. 
May not the Church be built on him and his successors?  Theo. 
If Peter alone were chosen by Christ to be the foundation, that is the first stone that should be laid in the building of his Church; how can that possibly be extended to his successors? Can you remove Peter from the foundation where Christ laid him, & not do him wrong? Or can you change the foundation, and not shake the building of the Church?  Phi. 
You took the foundation I perceive for the first beginning.  Theo. 
And what call you that which is first laid in the building of an house, but the foundation?  Phi. 
Did Cyprian mean so?  Theo. 
Cyprian expresseth his meaning in this sort: Though Christ after his resurrection gave all his Apostles equal power, yet for the declaration of unity, with his own [voice and] authority did he dispose the original of that unity to begin in one [which was Peter]. The rest of the Apostles were the selfsame that Peter was, endued with like fellowship of honour and power, but the first beginning came from o●e, 
Exordium and fundamentum all one.  that is, Christ chose Peter alone to be the original or first beginning of his Church. Now this is proper to Peter's person to be the first Stone that was laid in ●he foundation of the Church, and can not be derived from him to his successor.  Phi. 
That privilege died with Peter, unless it remain in some successor.  Theo. 
Not so, Peter as well after death as during life, keepeth the same place which Christ gave him in the building of his Church, 
Peter at this day lieth in the foundation of the church where Christ placed him. Galat. 4. Ephes. 2. Heb. 12.  unless you mean to exclude the Saint's clean from the Church of Christ.  Phi. 
They be of the Church triumphant, not militant.  Theo. 
And those be not two, but one Church. jerusalem which is above is the mother of us all. Ye be now, saith Paul, no more strangers and foreigners, but Citizens with the Saints and of the household of God. For you be come to the City of the Living God, the heavenly jerusalem, and to the Church of the first borne written in heaven, and to the spirits of just men (now) made perfect. Where you see the Saints in heaven be not removed from the Church of God, but we received to their fellowship, they keeping still that honour and excellency which they had in Christ before our coming. Abraham is to this day the father of the faithful; the patriarchs & Prophets are not deprived of their dignity; Peter no doubt as he was, so he is the first Stone that Christ laid in the foundation of his Church, which dignity you can not take from him after his death.  Phi. 
What then shall his successor have?  Theo. 
The charge that he had to feed, & the same keys that were given him and the rest, to bind & lose: Which office if the Bishop of Rome will execute, he may have.  Phi. 
A fair promotion: You mean he shallbe a Bishop, as others are.  Theo. 
God grant he be so much. More if he will have by warrant from Peter, you must prove it better than by such forged authorities & manned examples as here you bring. Those that are past, yourself see, were to little purpose; Theodoretes example which is yet behind, is like the rest.  Phi. 
He submitted himself to Leo the great, & was by him restored to his Bishopric, 
Chalcedonens. concilij actio. 1. Leo took Theodoretes part against Dioscorus. Euagrius lib. 1. cap. 10. Leo Epist. 61. ad Theodoretum.  though he were not of his Province.  Theo. 
Leo took his part against Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria, that like a tyrant in the second Council of Ephesus not only was the death of Flavianus by spurning & treading on him, but also confirmed the wicked opinion of Eutiches, & deposed Theodorete without any just cause: whom the Bishop of Rome received to the communion & accepted for a lawful and Catholic Bishop, not regarding the sentence pronounced against him by Dioscorus.  Phi. 
Then Leo reversed the lewd acts of Dioscorus in that Ephesine Council.  Theo. 
Leo withstood them, as all other good men did throughout the world, but the judgement was reversed by the great Council of Chalcedon, 
Chalcedonens. Concilij actio. 8.  & not by the Bishop of Rome: where Theodorete was forced with his own mouth in their presence to clear himself from all suspicion, notwithstanding his restitution by Leo, before he could be admitted to make his complaint against Dioscorus.  Phi. 
Still you see the Bishop of Rome resisted other, & by dissenting from them overthrew their enterprises. 
Their examples prove the Bishop of Rome had no such power as he now claimeth.   Theo. 
And still you see the Bishop of Rome never ended these matters at home in his own Consistory as supreme judge of the whole earth, but ever made suit to Christi●n Princes, that these things might be determined in full assemblies of Bishops by the judgement & opinion of the most part, which is clean contrary t● that absolute power, he now claimeth, as vicar general to Christ, & the only Ruler of his universal Church. And therefore these examples which you have brought, & many like which you might bring, prove no● that power, which you defend at this day, to belong to the Bishop of Rome, but rather evert the same. For what needed his predecessors with all ovetie become suppliants to Catholic Emperors for the gathering of Bishops out of all quarters to decide matters in doubt, and that suit often refused, as when Innocentius messengers came back from Arcadius' with a shameful repulse, and Leo the great, whom you last spoke of, besought Theodosius the younger with sighs & tears to grant a Council for the repealing of Dioscorus acts, 
The Pope besought the Emperor with sighs & tears for a Council, and could not prevail.  & could not obtain it: what needed, I say, such earnest and humble request to those that neglected their prayers, if Christ had appointed them as Peter's successors, and his deputies without depending on Princes pleasures, or other men's voices to say but the word, which should stand good in his Church, against all persons, in all causes both of doctrine & discipline? And what better conviction of your falsehood can there be, than that in all these troubles & tempests of the Church, which you have chosen out of many for your best advantage, 
In all these examples the Bishop of Rome never so much as alleged or mentioned his universal power, which your Jesuits defend.  the Bishop of Rome never so much as pretended or mentioned his Lieutenantship to Christ, which you now defend, but ever keeping his place, which by reason of his City was the first among the patriarchs, & joining himself to the West Bishops which were then a good part of Christendom, by their help and the favour of religious Prince's gate those things, that oppressed the Church and impugned the faith, to be debated and determined by common consent, in general and lawful Counsels, without any reservation or motion of his absolute power, or negative voice?  Phi. 
Our examples, you grant, prove this, that he resisted others: now show you that others overruled him.  Theo. 
If I could not, the matter were not great, considering your examples conclude nothing against us: 
As the Bishop of Rome resisted others, so others resisted him.  but lest you should flatter yourselves too much in your follies, you shall see that others withstood him, as well as he withstood others.  Phi. 
Were they catholics?  Theo. 
I trust you dare not account them heretics. Peter, as you say, the first Bishop of Rome, was resisted by Paul the teacher of the Gentiles; 
Who they were that resisted the Bishop of Rome  Anicetus by Policarpus Saint john's own scholar; Victor by Polycrates, Ireneus, and all the brethren of Asia; Stephanus by Cyprian; Damasus, Syricius and Anastasius by Flavianus and all the Churches of the East, of Asia, Pontus, Thracia, and Illyricum; Innocentius by cyril; Sozimus and Bonifacius by Augustine and two hundred and sixteen Bishops of Africa; Caelestinus by Theodorete; Leo by the great Council of Chalcedon; Gregory by the Britanes; and many other Bishops of Rome by diverse godly Princes, Prelates, Countries, and Counsels.  Phi. 
I like not these general flourishes which serve only to obscure the truth, and beguile the simple.  Theo. 
How then can you like your Apology which consisteth of nothing else? And what a slender kind of proof, was that idle rehearsal of names, which you made even now for your running to Rome? But our particulars I am well content you shall skan.  
The first, Paul himself affirmeth. 
Galat. 2. Ibidem. Paul resisting Peter, & that after his installation at Rome if the Romish account be true, which most men doubt.  When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, for he was to be blamed.  Phi. 
The quarrel betwixt them was not great.  Theo. 
Not walking the right way to the truth of the Gospel, and compelling the Gentiles to live, like the jews, was no such petite fault as you make it; but grant it were. The smaller the fault, the stronger our instance. If Paul for a light matter resisted Peter to his face, what would he have done in a cause of more weight?  Phi. 
Was Peter then Bishop of Rome when Paul reproved him?  Theo. 
It forceth not whether he were or no. Peter as you pretend had his prerogative not from Rome, but from Christ, long before he saw Rome; and therefore was in as full authority when Paul resisted him, as when Nero martyred him: and yet if their account be true, that were the first authors of his preferment to Rome, he was rebuked at Paul's hands even when he was Bishop of Rome. 
Euseb. Chronic. in anno 44.  For, Peter (as Eusebius or some other in his name recordeth) went to Rome, and was Bishop there in the 44. year of Christ, that is, eleven years after his passion, Christ being put to death in the 33. year of his age: and Paul in the fifteenth year of his conversion, or as himself speaketh, 
Galat. 2. The Papists make Peter a Nonresident.  After fourteen years, came not to Rome, but to jerusalem to confer with Peter; which at least must be the 48. year of Christ and four years after Peter's installation at Rome. And after that when Peter came to Antioch, and began to dissemble for fear of the jews which were sent from james, Paul resisted him to his face, and sharply rebuked him, not respecting that he was then in his pontificalibus and newly made Bishop of Rome, as you yourselves believe. Now choose whether you will disclaim Peter for no Bishop of Rome, and so lose your succession from him, or grant that the Bishop of Rome may be lawfully resisted as Peter was, which is the very thing you required us to prove. One of these twain you shall never avoid; do what you can.  Phi. 
I may not deny that Paul did it, the Scripture is plain, I resisted him to his face; but whether he did no more than he might, or how to his face, is a School-point and a pretty question. 
Rhemish annor. in Epi. ad Gal. cap. 2. vers. 11. Whether Paul might resist Peter, is an ungodly doubt.   Theo. 
No question at all, unless you will charge Paul with rashness in doing it, unshamefastness in writing it, and wilfulness in directly defending it. For by this dissension doth he prove the ●oundnesse of his doctrine; and by Peter's yielding he confirmeth the Galathians that were wavering. And therefore you must either allow this resistance for good and lawful, or else conclude this Epistle to be no Scripture, and Paul to be void of the holy Ghost, in proposing an unhonest and ungodly fact of his own for a precedent, which to say, were no small blasphemy.  Phi. 
I did not avouch it, but only move the question.  Theo. 
You must move no such questions, if you be a Christian: they be reproachful to the spirit of God, and injurious to his word. You were driven to a narrow strait, when you came to this shift. You be loath I see, to confess either; but there is no remedy Philander, you must yield us one of these, whether you will or no.  Phi. 
Let me hear the rest, and then you shall know my mind.  Theo. 
Resist not truth, to maintain your credit; God will surely revenge it. This example is inevitable, study till your brains ache for an answer. But the rest you shall hear.  

Polycarpus withstood Anicetus for the observation of Easter. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 26.  Polycarpus being at Rome when Anicetus was Bishop there, they dissenting in some other small matters were by and by reconciled; but touching the observation of Easter-day, which in diverse places was diversely kept, Anicetus could not persuade Polycarpus to leave those things, which he had always observed with john the Disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the Apostles, with whom he had been conversant.  Phi. 
The contention was but in words between them.  Theo. 
Yes they differed in deeds, and Polycarpus could not be induced by any words to follow that manner of celebrating Easter-day, which Anicetus received from those Apostles, that founded the Roman Church.  
This controversy waxed hotter in Victor's time, who for the very same cause went about to cut off all the Churches of Asia from the unity of communion, 

Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 25.  
Polycrates withstood Victor for the same cause. Ibidem.   as entangled with some strange opinion; and by letters inveighed against them and utterly denounced all the brethren there excommunicated, but for all his haste he was quickly stayed.  Phi. 
By whom?  Theo. 
Polycrates in the behalf of the Churches of Asia, amongst other things replieth thus to Victor: I that have seen threescore & five years in the Lord, and have conferred with the brethren throughout the world, and have turned and searched the holy Scripture, will never be afraid of those things that are done to terrify me. 

A great multitude of Bishops with Polycrates against Victor. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 26.  
Victor reproved by his own side for offering to excommunicate the churches of Asia, that stood against him.   I could make mention of the Bishops that are with me, whom you required me to send for, and so I did, whose names if I would reckon they would make a great multitude, which taking the pains to visit me, a man of small account, consent to this Epistle. Victor's deed did not please all the Bishops that otherwise were of his side: Yea many of their letters, saith Eusebius, are extant that did sharply reprove Victor. Amongst whom Ireneus was one that wrote in the name of his brethren of France where he was chief, and allowed [Victor's opinion] that the mystery of the lords resurrection should be kept only upon Sunday. But yet he wisely and largely warneth Victor, that he should not excommunicate all the churches of God observing their ancient tradition.  Phi. 
They withstood him in a small and trifling cause.  Theo. 
You take hold of that which doth hurt you. To resist whom they should not, in a matter that they need not, is a double offence; and then should Ireneus and others have rather reproved Polycrates and his adherentes for neglecting their duties, than the Bishop of Rome for passing his bounds; but in that he was stoutly resisted by the one, and sharply reproved by the other, it is evident that neither of them took him for his sole and supreme director of Christ's Church on earth.  
Of Cyprian, 
Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 4.  I said before, that he counseled the Church of Spain to reject Basilides, notwithstanding his restitution by Stephanus Bishop of Rome: and how vehemently the said Stephanus was resisted by Cyprian for the rebaptizing of such as forsook their heresies, his Epistle to Pompeius doth abundantly witness. 

Cyprian. Epist. ad Pompeium contra Epist. Stephan.  
Cyprians stoutness against Stephanus Bishop of Rome.   Because you desired to know what answer our brother Stephanus [Bishop of Rome] returned to our letters, I have sent you a copy of that he wrote. By the reading whereof you shall more and more perceive his error, that he laboureth to maintain the cause of heretics against the Church of God. For amongst other things either superfluous, or impertinent, or contrary to themselves, which he writeth unskilfully and unwisely, he added this, etc. And having repeated and refuted the words of Stephanus, What blindness of heart, saith Cyprian, is this and what perverseness, 
Ibidem.  that he will not acknowledge the unity of faith coming from God the Father by the delivery of our Lord jesus Christ? And where no heresy no nor schism, can have the sanctification of healthful baptism out of the Church, why doth the inflexible obstinacy of our brother Stephanus break out so far, that of Martions baptism, and such like blasphemers against God the Father, he avoucheth children may be borne [unto God]? It cometh of too much presumption and frowardness, that a man had rather defend his own, though it be false and nought, than yield to an others deeds and words. How like you this resisistance? doth it go to the quick or no?  Phi. 
This was an error in Cyprian, 
Cyprian in an ill cause resisting the Bishop of Rome did and doth go for a Martyr and father of the church.  for Stephanus held the truth.  Theo. 
The question is not whether Cyrpian were deceived, but whether Stephanus were resisted. I grant in this case Stephanus had the better part, but yet Cyprian & the Bishops of Africa thought themselves to be right: & upon that opinion of truth how far they resisted the Bishop of Rome, their acts & Epistles declare.  Phi. 
Their matter, I tell you, was nought.  Theo. 
That doth rather fasten than shake my conclusion. For if Cyprian & the Bishops of Africa, when their cause was not good resisting the Bishops of Rome both in words & deeds, were taken & accounted in the Church of God for Christian & Catholic Bishops, yea Cyprian the chief leader of them, and most earnest against him, for a worthy Father & glorious Martyr; how much more than in a right and just cause might the Bishops of Rome be lawfully resisted in those days? 
Flavianus withstood 4. Bishops of Rome though their cause were not much amiss.   
The which I may likewise conclude by the next example, where the Bishops of Rome were not only resisted, but at length forced to yield to Flavianus, although their strife with him at the first seemed to carry some reason.  Phi. 
Did they not well to reject him, that was made Bishop against his oath? Flavianus was one of those that were sworn neither to seek, nor to accept the Bishopric of Antioch, 
Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 3.  if they were chosen, till Miletius & Paulinus were both dead; that thereby the Church of Antioch, which before was divided in two parts under two Bishops, might be joined together and united in one: and he upon the death of Miletius, whiles Paulinus yet lived, not respecting his oath, was content to take the place.  Theo. 
I said there was some cause for the Bishops of Rome to refuse him, and yet notwithstanding the goodness of their quarrel, 

Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 23.  
Who took part with Flavianus against the Bishops of Rome.  
The Prince willeth Flavianus to keep his Church, though four Popes for 17. years together impugned him.  
Ibidem.   and sharpness of contention, which Damasus, Syri●ius, Athanasius and Innocentius maintained against him, all the Churches of the East, of Asia, Pontus, Thracia, and Illyricum took part with Flavianus, defended his election and received his communion, though the Bishops of Rome would do neither.  
And Theodosius the elder a very religious Emperor, having the courage and wisdom of Flavianus in admiration, and seeing the number of Churches that did communicate with him, willed him to return, & feed the Church [or flock] committed to his charge. Against whom when the Bishop of Rome made a long accusation, the godly Prince undertook his defence, pleaded his cause, and exhorted them to knit their Churches together, and to leave striving and extinguish those foolish brabbles. And so was the Bishop of Rome glad to give over the quarrel, which he and three of his predecessors had for the space of seventeen years eagerly followed against Flavianus.  

Ibidem.  How little Cyrillus esteemed the communion of the Bishop of Rome doth well appear by his answer to Atticus, 

Nice. lib. 14. cap. 27.  
cyril esteemed not the communion of the Bishop of Rome.  
Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 34.   where he vehemently dissuadeth that Chrysostoms' name after his death should be put in the Catalogue of Bishops, notwithstanding Innocentius and the West Bishops, would not communicate with Egypt or the East parts till that were obtained.  Phi. 
It was a fault in cyril to be so vehement against Chrysostom in favour of his uncle Theophilus the chief doer of all this, and that oversight he after corrected, by yielding to that which before he rufused.  Theo. 
What moved cyril at the first to withstand, and after to yield, I need not care, you may not judge; were the cause good or bad, to my purpose all is one; this is it that I urge, neither cyril nor Atticus, nor the Churches with them were reputed schismatical for lacking or neglecting so long time the communion of the Bishop of Rome, though the matter they stood on, were scant sound.  Phi. 
You should bring us an example where the Bishop of Rome was withstood by a Council: the facts of private men carry not so great credit, as when they be done in a public Synod.  Theo. 
The men, that I have named unto you, 
Those resistances were offered not by private persons but by Counsels and Countries.  were no such obscure persons, that you need doubt of their credit. They were for their calling and function, Bishops and patriarchs: for their learning and holiness, lights in the Church of Christ, and are so taken to this day. Neither, as you suppose, were they alone in these actions, but had the Bishops and Churches adjoining to take their parts, and did these things, which I spoke of, in open Council. Polycrates had with him a Council in Asia, when he resisted Victor, 
Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 24. &. 25. Ibidem. Cap. 26.  and Ireneus had likewise an other in France, when he reproved him. Cyprian and 84. African Bishops joined together in the Council of Carthage, against Stephanus. With Flavianus, 
Concil. Cartha. de haeret. baptisandis inter opera Cypriani.  as Sozomene writeth, were the Bishops of Syria, Phenica, Armenia, Cappadocia, Galatia: as Theodorete saith, all the Churches of Asia, Pontus, Thracia, Illyricum, besides all the East Churches. That which cyril defended was done by two Counsels & allowed by the three patriarchs of Alexandria, 
Sozome. lib. 7. Cap. 11.  Constantinople, Antioch and their Provinces. And therefore these are no private men nor matters, 
Theodoret. li. 5. Cap. 23.  as you pretend, but things done in open Synods by no mean Bishops. And yet to content your mind, you shall see where the Bishop of Rome claiming far less authority than he doth at this day, 
Socrat. lib. 6. Cap. 18.  was openly resisted in a Council of 217. Bishops to his immortal shame, and your utter overthrow in this cause. 
The sixth council of Carthage stoutly resisted the Bishop of Rome, and convinced him of forgery.   
Sozimus Bishop of Rome, sending his Legates Faustinus, Philippus, and Asellus to the sixth Council of Carthage, in favour of Apiarius a Priest, that fled to Rome for aid against Vrbanus his Dioecesane, which had taken both his function, & the communion from him for his lewdness; amongst other things gave them in charge, to claim this prerogative for him and his See, that if any Bishops were accused or deposed, and appealed to Rome, the bishop of Rome might either write to the next Province to determine the matter, or send some from his side to represent his person, and to sit in judgement with the Bishops. 
Vide Concilium Carthaginense sextum, Cap. 3.  And to prove this lawful, he cited in writing under his hand a Canon of the Council of Nice tending to that effect. The Godly fathers assembling themselves out of all Africa, to the number of 217. and finding no such Canon in their books either Greek or Latin, wrote to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch for true and authentic copies of the Nicene Council: and seeing their own copies agree word for word with those that were brought, and no such thing to be found in any Canon there, first by their decree cut off appeals to Rome, and secondly by their letters traduced the Bishop of Rome, as well for his ambition, as forgery.  Phi. 
An old broken matter, 
Bonifacius saith the divelled Saint Augustine & the rest to be saucy with the Bishop of Rome.  often alleged, and offen answered.  Theo. 
You could do little if you could not crack, but that will not serve your turns: you must spare us a better answer. In deed Bonifacius the second doth answer the matter in this sort: Aurelius praefatae Carthagiensis ecclesiae olim Episcopus cum collegis suis instigante Diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum nostrorum Bonifacij & Caelestini contra Romanam ecclesiam cepit: Aurelius once Bishop of Carthage with his colleagues (amongst whom was S. Austen with many other learned and Godly fathers) in the time of Bonifacius and Caelestinus our predecessors, 
Bonifacius secundus ad Eulalium de reconcilia. Carthaginens. Eccl. Concilio: tomo 1.  began through the instigation of the Devil to be malapert with the church of Rome. If you take this for an answer, so is it: other I know none, that your friends have made.  Phi. 
The Bishops of Africa, you know were deceived in the number of the Nicene Canons.  Theo. 
I know they were not; but grant they were, this sufficeth me that they resisted three Bishops of Rome, Sozimus, Bonifacius and Coelestinus one after an other, both by their decrees and their letters. For upon occasion of Apiarius flight to Rome, they decreed that Priests, Deacons, and other inferior clerks, if they complained of the judgements of their Dioecesanes, 

Aphric. concilij, Cap. 92.  
Appeals to Rome condemned by Saint August. and his Colleagues.   should be heard by the bishops adjoining. Quod si & ab eye provocandum putaverint, non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad primates Provinciarum suarum. Ad transimarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, a nullo intra Africam ad communionem suscipiatur: And if they think good to appeal from them also, let them not appeal but to the Counsels of Africa, or the primates of their own Province. And he that ventereth to appeal over the Seas [to Rome] let him be received of no man within Africa unto the communion.  Phi. 
This decree barreth Priests & inferior Clerks from appealing to Rome, but not Bishops.  Theo. 
The Canon was fitted to the matter in question. Appiarius that ran to Rome, was a Priest and no Bishop: and yet touching appeals of Bishops to Rome, what answer they made, followeth in their letters first to Bonifacius, before they sent for authentic copies to the chief places of Christendom: 
Aphric. council. Cap. 101.  to whom they signify, that concerning appeals of Bishops to the Priests of Rome, they would suffer that to be kept for a while, till they could get the Canons of the Nicene Council; & after they had received the same from Cyrillus and Atticus, they framed their answer to Coelestinus on this wise.  
Our dew salutations remembered and done: we entreat & earnestly pray you that hereafter you will not lightly give audience to those, 
Aphric. council. Cap. 105.  that come from hence to you, neither any more receive such to the communion as we excommunicate; because your reverence shall easily perceive that order taken by the Nicene council. 
The fathers never heard of Christ's vicar general.  For if there appear a proviso for inferior clerks, and lay men, how much more would the Synod have the same observed in Bishops; that being excommunicated in their own Province, they should not be suddenly, hastily, or unduly restored to the communion by your holiness? And likewise your holiness must repel these wicked refuges of pristes & other clergy men [to Rome] as becometh you: for that by no determination of the fathers this is derogated from the church of Africa: & the Nicene Canons do most evidently commit both inferior Clergy men, 
Where then are appeals to Rome?  & the Bishops themselves to their own metropolitans. No doubt they most wisely and rightly provided, that all matters should be ended in the places where they first arose; neither shall the grace of the holy Ghost be wanting to any Province, by the which equity may be gravely weighed, and stoutly followed by the Priests of Christ; especially, where as every man hath liberty, if he mislike the judgement of those that hear his cause, 
The holy Ghost as well ●● one progress as in 〈◊〉.  to appeal to the Counsels of his own Province, or to a general Council. Or how shall the judgement over the Seas [at Rome] be good, whereto the necessary persons of the witnesses either for sex or for age, or sundry other impediments, can not be brought? For that any should be sent [as Legates] from your holiness side, 
 we find decreed by no Synod of the fathers. That which you sent us hither by Faustinus, as a part of the Nicene Council in the truer copies, which we have received from holy Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, 
The Council of Nice corrupted by the Bishop of Rome.  & reverent Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, taken out of the originals themselves, (which also we sent to Bonifacius your predecessor) In them, we say, we could find no such thing. And as for your agents or messengers, send them not, grant them not at every man's request, lest we seem to bring the smoky pride of the world into the Church of Christ, 
The Pope's claim called the smoky pride of the world.  which proposeth the light of simplicity & humility to those that desire to see God etc.  
Doth your eye sight serve you Philander to mark in this old broken matter, as you call it, how many ways the Bishops of Africa withstood the Bishop of Rome? 
What the Council of Africa denied to the Bishop of Rome.  Appeals to Rome, which Sozimus claimed by the Council of Nice, they confute by the same Council, and impugn with other grave & pithy reasons: Legates a latere, which he challenged, they reject as never spoken of in any Council: Running to Rome, which you make lawful, they call a wicked refuge; and sending of messengers from Rome, a smoky pride of the world. The corrupting the Nicene canons by Sozimus, they disprove by copies that were true and authentic; and Apiarius whom the Bishop of Rome harboured and restored the second time to the communion, they utterly banished from the Church of Christ; and not therewith content, they set down a rule that if any Priest afterward did appeal to Rome, no man in Aphrica should receive him to the communion. 
Was this resisted or no?  What think you, would these men have done, if Sozimus had claimed to be head of the universal Church, vicar general to Christ, supreme and infallible judge of all men and matters ecclesiastical, and that not by consent of Synods, but by grant from Christ? What could they have said to your untydie vanities, that the Popes [seat is the native home of all true believers,] himself [the rock of refuge in doubtful days and doctrines,] and the whole world [his fold and family?]  
You must frame us some better answer to this gear than Bonifacius your holy father did. I trust in these days you dare not say, the devil led S. Augustine & all the Bishops of Aphrica, to be pragent & saucy with Coelestinus, as he said. For if the devil led them that in defence of themselves & their right searched and avouched the true Canons of the Nicene Council, what spirit led Sozimus, that began a strange and new claim; and to bolster up his pride, wilfully corrupted the Council of Nice?  Phi. 
He did not corrupt the Council of Nice, 

Epist. Aegiptiorum ad Marcum pro exempla. Niceni Concilij tomo Conciliorum 1.  
The Papists to save the Pope's credit have committed shameful forgeries.   but rather their Bishops of Aphrica that withstood him were beguiled in the number of the Nicene Canons.  Theo. 
He did corrupt the Council of Nice, and the Bishops that detected his falsehood were not beguiled.  Phi. 
They had but twenty Canons, where the Council of Nice made threescore and ten, as we find in an Epistle written by those of Egypt to Marcus Bishop of Rome, for a true extract of seventy Canons after the Arians had burnt the Authentic copy which Athanasius brought from Nice.  Theo. 
You rescue one forgery with an other. When your adherents saw that Sozimus was taken tardy with belying the Nicene Council, to save his credit they devised that the council of Nice should make seventy Canons, though there were never seen but twenty. And to give this tale some life they coined a letter in the name of Athanasius and others to Marcus Bishop of Rome, complaining what the Arians had done at Alexandria, & requesting at his hands the true copy of those seventy Canons: never remembering how fond and foolish a fable this would be, when it should come to scanning: and how substantially the Bishops of Aphrica went to work, when this title was first pretended.  Phi. 


Rescriptum julij contra orientales pro Athanasio.  
And he a wise man to choose the worst.   Doth not julius in his Epistle to the East Bishops repeat 27. Canons of the Nicene Council more than our copies have; & six of them clearer for the Pope's authority, than that which Sozimus alleged?  Theo. 
You come in with your decretals, as if they were some worthy monuments. But Sirs, the more you forge, the less you gain. All the decretals you have will not countervail the reason which S. Austen and the rest make to Bonifacius. 

Episto. Africani conci. ad Bonif. Cap. 101.  
No decretals can discredit. the diligence of the African Bishops.  
Concilium Carthaginense sextum Cap. 9   Quis dubitet exemplaria esse verissima Nicenae Synodi, quae de tam diversis locis & de nobilibus Graecis ecclesijs adlata & comparata concordat? Who can doubt those copies of the Nicene Council to be most true, which being brought from so many places, & from the noble Churches of Greece, agree when they be compared? The letters of Marcus and julius framed in corners, and found at Rome, light of credit, and full of lies; are not able to frustrate the great pains and good means which the Bishops of Africa bestowed and used in searching the truth.  

Concilij. Afric. Cap. 102. & 103.  They had their own books which were many both in Greek and Latin: they had the very copy, which Coecilianus Bishop of Carthage, that was present and subscribed in the Council of Nice, brought with him from thence: 
Their Decretales are too young to outface the authentic copies.  they had a faithful transcript from the Churches of Alexandria and Constantinople out of their original records. These three copies so many thousand miles asunder, and every one of them Authentic, when they were brought together and compared, did word for word agree with themselves, and with the books that were in every man's private keeping. If that be not enough, 

Ruffin. lib. 1. Cap. 6.  
The Pope's silence then, convinceth this forgery since.  
Mark the likelihood of this fable, and see the shamefastness of Papists that mock the world with them.   Ruffinus that lived in Italy and wrote in the days of Theodosius the elder before this matter came in question, published in his Latin history to the eyes of all men the very same number and order of the Nicene Canons, which the Council of Africa followed: Yea the Bishops of Rome themselves, Bonifacius and Coelestinus, to whom this answer was made, never replied, never urged, nor offered any more Canons than these twenty, which were sent from other places, though the cause required, and the time served to bring forth their seventy Canons, as well for Sozimus discharge, as their own interest & authority which was then not only doubted, but also resisted.  
Besides, this your assertion of seventy Canons, what a peevish and senseless fable it is? How could all the true copies of the Nicene Council throughout the world be consumed and destroyed within three score years, and no man mislike it, no man perceive it, no man report it? Or how could fifty Canons be suddenly lost, and every where twenty left in fair and Authentic writings? Why would the Arians, (for they must be the doers of it,) wreak their malice on those Canons that did not touch them; 
Extat Socratis lib. 1. Cap. 9  and spare the Nicene creed & Epistle written to the Church of Alexandria, which directly condemned their impiety? Nay why did the church of Rome suffer those 50. Canons to perish, that made most for her prerogative, and kept these twenty safe, which rather restrain than enlarge her authority?  Phi. 
Trust you not Athanasius, that was present when the Canons were made? 
The Canons burnt before they were made.   Theo. 
I trust him well, but I trust not your shuffeling in what you list under his name. Your forged Athanasius is soon disproved. For if julius were Bishop of Rome when the Council of Nice was called, as Sozomene & Bede do witness; 
Sozome. lib. 1. Cap. 17. & Beda distinc. 16. sexta.  how could Athanasius write to Marcus next before julius, that the Canons of the Council of Nice were burnt? Were the Canons burnt, trow you, before they were made? Again, though all men did not allow the decrees of the Nicene Council, 
Sozom. lib. 3. Cap. 1.  yet whiles Constantine lived, no man, saith Sozomene, durst openly and plainly refuse them, much less burn them in a furious & public tumult.  
And what if Athanasius were not then near Egypt when Marcus wrote this solemn Epistle, 
Athanas. not near Egypt when this letter was written thence in his name.  will you never be weaned from these foolish forgeries? Marcus letter beareth date, decimo calendas Novembris, Nepotiano & Secundo Consulibus: the 21. of October, Nepotianus and Secundus being Consuls; which was the later end of the 30. year of Constantine's reign. Now all that year was Athanasius kept from Egypt at the Council of Tyrus, 
Rescriptuu● Marci Athanasio & Aegyptijs.  & without returning home, fled to Constantinople, where he stayed till he was banished into France. Neither was there any such persecution in Egypt that year, or any time before under Constantine, as this Epistle doth specify, 
Vide Sozome lib. 1. Cap. 25. & 28.  but a great while after under Constantius, when Marcus was dead and rotten. And to conclude if the copy which Athanasius brought with him from Nice were burnt by the Arians in his time, as his letter to Marcus importeth; 
Concil. Africa. Cap. 102.  how could Cyril that came long after him find an Authentic copy in the same Church, as his words infer to the Council of Africa? 
another forgery under julius name worse than the former.   Phi. 
Marcus' Epistle might be suspected if julius letter did not affirm the same.  Theo. 
julius Epistle is a right pattern of your Romish records. For there besides impudent forgery, you shall find wilful perjury.  Phi. 
Why so?  Theo. 
Your counterfeit julius is not content to forge Canons, 
Rescript. julij ad Orientales Cap. 29.  but he bindeth them also with an oath. Verun me dixisse testis est divinitas: god is my witness, that I speak truth. 
The Papists have forged a decretal in julius name, where as his true letter is extant in Athanasius apology.   Phi. 
You should the rather believe him.  Theo. 
Believe him? As though the right and true rescript of julius to the Synod of Antioch were not set down by Athanasius himself in his second Apology to the manifest detection of your shameless forging and forswearing? Compare that letter with this, and you will blush to see the Church of Rome so foully overshot. And yet were there no such thing extant, this blind decretal doth convict itself. For it beareth date the first of November, Felicianus [and his fellow] being Consuls: 
Socrat. lib. 1. Cap. 40.  which was the very year that Constantine the great died. Now the council of Antioch that deposed Athanasius, 

A man may feel this forgery with his fingers.  
Sozome lib. 3. Cap. 5.   to the which julius wrote, was gathered by Constantius the fift year after Constantine's death: and so this answer to the council of Antioch was written five years before there was any such council assembled. Again julius himself saith in his Epistle to those of Antioch, that Athanasius [stayed at Rome] with him one whole year & six months, expecting their presence, 

Athanasij Apologia 2.  
The first dated Calend. Octobris, the second calend. Novembris the same year.   after they were cited by his first letters to show the reason of their proceeding against Athanasius: & these two decretals of julius, which you bring us, bear date just 31. days asunder, in which tune you can not go from Rome to Antioch, & return with an answer, except you get you wings. And so notwithstanding your shifts & devices to cloak & hide the matter, if it would be; your holy father falsified the council of Nice to serve his ambition, & the Bishops of Africa by common consent both stoutly, & rightly withstood him.  Phi. 
Well Theophilus, the truth of these things God knoweth, I will defend no more than I may with honesty.  The. 
You were not best. God be thanked, men's eyes are open, you can not blind them with such canuisadoes. But I will go forward.  
Theodorete is the next, who was one of those that took part with john of Antioch against cyril in the first Council of Ephesus, and both charged him with heresy, and deposed him notwithstanding he supplied the place of Coelestinus Bishop of Rome. 
Euag●. li. 1. ca 4.   Phi. 
Theodorete did this in a faction to serve other men's humours.  Theo. 
I grant it was a private grudge between the two patriarchs, & that the Bishop of Antioch, with whom Theodoret came, 
Theodoret against the Pope's deputy.  sought unlawful means to be revenged of Cyril; but yet this Theodoret & the rest did.  Phi. 
It skilleth not what they did, so long as their doings were condemned by two general Counsels, & themselves glad to revoke their own acts.  Theo. 
In that they deposed Cyrillus & Memnon against all order, and without just cause, & upon stomach defamed the Chapters, as heretical, which the council of Ephesus by Cyrils' direction proposed against Nestorius, they were worthily reproved: & when choler was a little digested, both sides did wisely to relent, & remit all former offences: but what council did ever object this to them as a fault, that they resisted the pope's deputy?  
Nay rather the rest of the bishops that held with Cyril, (when the letters of Theodosius came, 
The Legates of Rome threatened by the first Ephesine Council.  wherein he approved the deposition as well of Cyril & Memnon, as of Nestorius) not only prescribed & limited the Pope's Legate & others that were sent in Embassage to the Prince, what they should do, but added this threatening: Scire autem volumus vestram sanctitatem, quod si quid horum a vobis contemptum fuerit, neque sancta Synodus acta habebit rata, neque vos communionis sinet esse participes. 
In Apologet. Cyril. mandatum Synod. Ephes●.  We give your holiness to understand, that if any of these things (which we have appointed you) be omitted by you, neither will this holy Synod ratify your acts, nor receive you to the communion. If you respect not those that impugned Cyril, I show you that the Pope's legate was both commanded & menaced by those which assisted Cyril, whom you can not choose but allow. By the which it is evident that the lawful & general council of Ephesus thought they might, and said they would, not only control, but even excommunicate the pope's vicegerent, if he did not that which was enjoined him by the Synod.  
The great Council of Chalcedon gave the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome: 

Vide concilij Chalcedonens. actionem 16.  
The great council of Chalcedon overruleth the Bishop of Rome.   & when those that represented the person of Leo, the next day desired of the noble men that sat there as judges & moderators, that the matter might be brought about again & put to voices, pretending that it was not orderly passed; the council, that in the absence of the Pope's Legates had made this decree, in their presence confirmed the same, they contradicting & doing what they could for their lives to withstand it.  Phi. 
If they were not present, the decree was not good.  Theo. 
There you beguile yourself. If the bishop of Rome were not called, the Council was not general; but though neither he nor his Legates were present, the decree might be good.  Phi. 
How prove you they were absent?  Theo. 
Their own words to the judges be so. Paschasinus & Lucentius Vicegerents to the See apostolic said: If it please your highness, 
Actio. 16▪ council. Chalcedonen.  we have somewhat to say to you. The most glorious judges answered; say what you wil Paschasinus & Lucentius said, yesterday after your H. were risen, & we followed your steps, there were certain things decreed, as we hear; which we think were done besides the order & Canons of the church. We beseech you therefore that your excellencies would command the same to be red again, that the whole [council or] company may see whether it were rightly or disorderly done. 
The Pope's Legates could not then command in general counsels.  The most glorious judges answered: If any thing were decreed after our departure, let it be read again. And before the reading, Aetius the Archdeacon of Constantinople said: The manner is in Synods, after the chiefest points are concluded, to dispatch such other things as be needful. We had somewhat to do, for the church of Costantinople. We prayed the bishops [that came] from Rome, 
The Council of Chalcedon proceeding without the Romish Legates.  that they would [stay &] communicate with us. They refused, saying, we may not, we are otherwise charged. We acquainted your honours with it, & you willed that this holy council should consider of it. Your highness then departing▪ the Bishops that are here, conferring of a common cause, required this to be done. And here they are. It was not done in secret, nor by stealth, but orderly and lawfully. They were absent as you see, & because they were required & refused, the Council proceeded in their absence and decreed without them on this wise.  
Following every where the steps of the sacred fathers, 

Chalcedo. Concil. cano. 28. actio. 15. repetitur actio. 16.  
For what cause Rome had the supremacy given her.   we determine & decree the self same thing [which they did] for the privileges of the most holy church of Constantinople being new Rome. Our fathers not without good advise gave to the throne of elder Rome the chiefest place of honour, because that city reigned [or was the Seat of the kingdom] And the hundred & fifty Bishops which were gathered under Theodosius the ●lder in the royal city of Constantinople, moved with the same consideration; bestowed equal [& like] privileges on the most holy throne of new Rome: having great reason to determine that the City which is now honoured with the Empire and Senate should enjoy equal privileges with the elder Royal City of Rome, and in Ecclesiastical affairs be advanced as the other, being the second after her.  Phi. 
Neither Leo nor his Legates would ever consent to this decree.  Theo. 
I care not for that. First the judgement & opinion of the council of Chalcedon is clear with us, that the chiefest honour and highest place was allotted the Bishop of Rome, not as Christ's vicar, nor as Peter's successor, but in regard of his city, that was Imperial. Next, the same consideration now serving them, to advance Constantinople, which moved their fathers to prefer Rome, they thought it lawful for them to make the Bishop of Constantinople equal with the Bishop of Rome: and so they did, notwithstanding the Legates of Leo laboured tooth and nail to prevent the same.  Phi. 
They placed the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Bishop of Rome, not in equal degree with him.  Theo. 
The Bishop of Rome kept his place, which was first in order among the patriarchs, when they went in council; and next after him was the Bishop of Constantinople to sit before the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch: but in plain terms the Council of Chalcedon gave the See of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; equal privileges with elder Rome, and in causes ecclesiastical to be advanced as far forth as Rome.  
Against the Council of Chalcedon if you oppose the Legates or letters of Leo, you make but a slender match. In this Council were six hundred & thirty Bishops, double the number of the Nicene Synod; and Leo was led with private respects to cross this Canon, 
Why Leo was so earnest against this Canon.  as loath to see the Bishop of Constantinople rise too fast, for fear least at length he should offer to prick before the Bishop of Rome, which in deed came to pass not long after in the days of Gregory the first; and therefore the fathers lightly rejected all that his Legates could say, when the matter came the second time to voices, as appeareth in the sixteenth Action of the said Council, where the judges, after either side had proposed what they could, 

The Romish Legates & their allegations rejected the second time in the Council of Chalcedon.  
Eiusden Concilij ●c●io 16.  
The selfsame privileges that Rome had, given to Constantinople.  
The Pope had no negative in Counsels.   resolved on this wise: By these things that have been done and alleged we perceive the first and chiefest honour, according to the Canons, is reserved to the Archbishop of ancient Rome: and moreover that the Archbishop of the Royal City of Constantinople, which is new Rome, must enjoy the selfsame prerogatives and privileges etc. Thus we conceive you. Now let the sacred and ecumenical Counsels speak their minds. The reverend Bishops answered: This is a right judgement; we all say the same; every one of us is well contented therewith; this is a good decree; let this determination stand in force: all this is orderly concluded: we pray you demisse us; we all continue in the ●ame mind. Lucentius Vicegerent to the Bishop of Rome replied: The See apostolic, which gave us this in charge, must not be abased by this decree. And therefore whatsoever was yesterday concluded in our absence to the prejudice of the Canons, we pray your excellencies to command that it may be put again to voices. If not, that our protestation against it may be set down in record, that we may know what to inform the Pope of the Universal Church. The judges answered: That which we pronounced, the whole Council hath approved.  Phi. 
The Synod approved it, but the Bishop of Rome resisted it.  Theo. 
You confess that which I would infer.  Phi. 
What do I confess?  Theo. 
That the Council made this Canon, the Legates of Leo gainsaying it.  Phi. 
The more to blame they that did it.  Theo. 
So you reverence general Counsels when you be disposed: yet this is apparent that the council of Chalcedon over ruled the Bishop of Rome, 

Canons made in councels maugre the Bishop of Rome & his legates.  
Liberatus Cap. 13. Concilij sexti Constantinop. Cap. 36.   and maugre his Legates that were present & earnest against it, they concluded without them that which they most misliked. Neither could Leo for all his eager & sharp resistance prevail with them or against them; the Christian Emperors still favouring, and the sixth general Council again confirming that which their fathers before them had enacted at Chalcedon. Renewing the decrees of the 150. fathers that met in this royal City of Constantinople, & of the 630. Bishops which assembled at Chalcedon, we likewise determine, that the See of Constantinople shall have equal privileges and honours with the Seat of elder Rome, and in ecclesiastical matters be advanced as far forth as it, being next unto it.  
Which words are falsely reported or rather lewdly corrupted in your Canon law, by putting a negative to the later part of them that draweth the whole to a contrary sense; 

How the Pope's law useth ancient customs.  
Distinct. 22. Renovantes  
A monstruous corruption of a council turning an affirmative into a negative.   Non tamen in ecclesiasticis rebus magnificetur ut illa, sed secunda post illam existens, And yet for all that, shall not [the See of Constantinople] be advanced in ecclesiastical affairs as high, as Rome; but be the second after her. And so where the Council decreed, that Constantinople should be advanced in ecclesiastical matters as far forth as Rome, you falsify the words and conclude, that Constantinople shall not be advanced as far forth as Rome, which is no forgery.  Phi. 
Let him answer for it, that did it.  Theo. 
Be your decrees no more worth now than to be thus shaken off, to shift for themselves? Not long since they were the fairest flower in your garland: but if you renounce your Canon law, we will press you no farther with it.  Phi. 
Not so neither.  Theo. 
Then how can you salve this shameful corruption?  Phi. 
Perhaps it was mistaken.  Theo. 
And never after perceived?  Phi. 
I do not say so.  Theo. 
Why then not amended; 

Africani council, Cap. 92.  
The Canon law glozeth the Council of African quite against the text.  
Caus. 2. quaest. 6. placuit.  
Saint Austen forged to make the Pope's decretals of equal authority with the scriptures.  
De doctrina Christiana, lib. 2. Cap. 8.   but openly suffered?  Phi. 
An error it might be, wilful it was not, I dare swear.  Theo. 
Is your Canon law so free from wilful corruption, that you dare swear for it?  Phi. 
As I think.  Theo. 
How doth it handle the words of the Milevitane and African Council, which I last alleged? Ad transmarina qui putaverint appellandum a nullo intra Africam in comunione suscipiatur. They that offer to appeal over the seas, let them be received of no man within Africa to the communion. That is true saith your law, nisi fortè Romanam sedem appellaverint: unless perhaps they appeal to Rome. And so where the council purposely decreed this, to keep all men from Rome, your law wittingly perverteth their words, and addeth, except they appeal to Rome; Which is both a ridiculous and malicious corruption.  
The like prank you play for authorizing your decretals out of S. Augustine, and making them equal in credit with the canonical Scriptures. In which words you not only commit gross forgery, but also run into heinous blasphemy. For where S. Augustine saith: In canonicis autem scriptures, ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam plurium autoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illae sint, quae Apostolicas sedes habere, & epistolas accipere meruerunt. In [esteeming] the Canonical scriptures, let [a Christian man] follow the authority of the greater number of catholic churches; amongst whom those [Churches] are, which deserved to have both the seats of the Apostles, and to receive their letters. Your canon law turneth and altereth his words thus: 
Distinct. 19 In canonicis.  Inter quas [scripturas Canonicas] sane illae sint quas Apostolica sedes habere & ab ea alij meruerunt accipere epistolas: In the number of which [Canonical scriptures] let those epistles be, which the apostolic See [meaning Rome] hath, and others have received from her. And lest you should think any other Epistles are meant than such as the Bishops of Rome themselves wrote, in fair red letters before the text these words are placed: 
Rubricae Ibidem  Inter Canonicas scripturas, Decretales epistolae connumerantur. The Decretal epistles [of Pope's] are counted [by S. Austen] for Canonical scriptures. What greater blasphemy can be devised or uttered against Christ & his spirit than that the Pope's Epistles should be canonical scriptures, that is of equal authority with the word of God? And how far S. Augustine was from any such thought, the very place, which your law so wickedly perverteth, doth best witness. 
Glosa Ibidem.  First you grossly mistake the antecedent to the relative, Inter quas [scripturas] for Inter quas [ecclesias.] Next you change the nominative case into the accusative, and the accusative into the nominative, as also the plural number into the singular; saying, quas Apostolica sedes habere, for quae Apostolicas sedes habere. Thirdly you put in these words of your own heads; & ab ea alij: which are not in S. Augustins' text. And so where S. Austen saith, Among the which those Churches are, that deserved to have the seats of the Apostles, and to receive their letters, you say plainly: Among which (Canonical scriptures) those Epistles are, which the apostolic see (of Rome) hath & (which) others have deserved to receive from her. I report me to your own conscience Philander, whether this be not a barbarous kind of corrupting the fathers, which is often used in your canon law, as I could show, but that I should make too long a digression.  Phi. 
If it be nought I excuse it not.  Theo. 
Come you with an if, as though the case were not clear?  Phi. 
A man may be soon overseen.  Theo. 
These be shrewd oversights. But return to the matter that was first in hand.  


The britanes 4000 year ago would yield no subjection to the Pope's legate. Beda lib. 2. Cap. 2.  
Bed. histo. gentis Anglorum lib. 2. Cap. 2.   The Britanes are the last that I named, but not the last that resisted the Bishop of Rome; whom Augustine the Monk, that came from Gregory, could by no means get to yield him any subjection, though king Edelbert slew twelve hundred of their Monks in one day for refusing obedience to that Romish Legate.  Phi. 
Beda saith so many were slain, but he saith not for that cause.  Theo. 
Beda confesseth that seven Bishops of the Britanes, & plures viri doctissimi, and many very learned men utterly refused Augustine, when they met him in a Council. His words be: At illa nihil horum se facturos, neque illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant. Conferentes ad invicem, quia si modo nobis assurgere noluit, quanto magis, si ei subdi ceperimus, iam nos pro nihilo contemnet? The Britanes answered they would do none of those things [which he required] neither would they acknowledge him for their Archbishop. Casting thus with themselves, that if now he will not so much as rise to us, how little account will he make of us, if we become subject unto him?  
The ancient British Story, which Galfridus Monemutensis translated, writeth thus of them: 
Galfrid. monemutens. lib. 8. Cap. 4.  In a part of the Britanes, Christianity yet flourished, the which beginning in the days of Eleutherius never failed among them. After Augustine came he found seven bishoprics and an archbishopric supplied with yery godly governors; & Abbeys a great number, in which the flock of Christ was kept in good order. Besides other Cities, in the City of Bangor there was a most noble Church of 2100 Monks, all living with the labour of their hands. Their Abbot was named Dinooch a man marueously well learned. Who by divers arguments made it appear, when Augustine required the Bishops to be subject to him, that they ought him no subjection. Edelbert therefore the king of Kent, as soon as he saw them refuse to yield obedience to Augustine, 
1200 monks in one time chose rather to die than to be subject to the Bishop of Rome.  and despise his preaching, stirred up Edelfride and other Princes of the Saxons to gather a great army, and go to Bangor to destroy Dinooch and his Clergy. Who taking the City commanded the sword of his men to be turned first upon the Monks, & so twelve hundred of them the same day decked with martyrdom entered the kingdom of heaven.  
Lower, if I would go, examples are infinite, where the Bishop of Rome hath been not only stayed of his course, and overruled, but severely repressed and deprived of his Papacy.  Phi. 
By some tyrants or schismatics I warrant you. For never Catholic Prince or Bishop would offer him that abuse.  Theo. 
Fitten not so fast lest you recant it with shame. Godly Princes and prelates, your own Cardinals and Counsels have without any scruple, 

Concili. Laterae. sub Innocentio 3 Cap. 4  
The Grecians detesting the Bishop of Rome.  
Paul. Aemil. in Philippo 4. Idem Aeneas Silvius, lib. 9 epitomes in decades Blondi. Sessio ultima Florentiae in literis unionis. Graecorum responsio in ultima sessione Florentiae▪   cited, suspended, and deposed him: which I trust is a plain kind of resistance.  Phi. 
If they did all that which you speak.  Theo. 
I speak no more than your own men do witness.  
The Grecians I will omit, that never obeyed; and long since so detesteth both him and his Church, that if at any time the latin Priests had celebrated on their Altars, they would not offer on the same, except they first washed them, as (thinking them thereby to be) defiled. Michael Paleologus their Emperor they rejected from Christian burial, for that in a council at Lions he professed the Greek church to be subject to the Roman See.  Phi. 
But after in the Council of Florence they submitted themselves to the Bishop of Rome as to the true vicar of Christ & head of the whole church & father & teacher of all christians.  Theo. 
When the question was first moved them at Florence, their answer was, We have no leave [nor commission from the greek church] to speak these things. And being urged the second time, responderunt ut pridie, they answered as before, nolentes, ut de alia quaestione, praeter illam de spiritus sancti processione, in unionis literis ulla mentio fieret; not willing that in the letters of union any other matter should be contained besides the proceeding of the holy Ghost. And though they were won at length to suffer it to pass in the letters of concord, hoping the West Princes upon that perfect agreement would aid them against the Turk, 
Platina in Eugenio 4.  and two of them were made Cardinals, that by their authority the Greek nation might be kept in obedience: Yet the whole Country, saith Platina, non ita multò post in antiquos mores recidit, not long after fell to their former bent: but I will not urge the dislike between the two Churches. The West Church will serve my turn better and stop your mouth sooner, in the which we shall find precedents enough for this purpose.  


Luitprand. li. 6. Cap. 10. Ibidem Cap. 7.  
The germans against the Bishop of Rome.  
Platina in Gregorio 6.   Otho the great called a Council of Bishops in Italy, where john the 13. was deposed for his infamous and lewd life: the things be so loathsome that I will not name them. This fact of the Prince and the Synod, the Church saw, suffered, and allowed, and received Leo the eight placed by them in his steed.  
Henry the second likewise in a Council drove Benedict the 9 Sylvester the third, and Gregory the sixth, three most vile monsters, to forego the Popedom, and chose Clemens the second to succeed them.  
About Henry the fourth and Gregory the seventh though the stories be divided, some taking the Princes and some the Pope's part: yet the Bishops of Germany and Italy from Worms, Mentz and Brixia sent him but homely greetings, as Vrspergensis confesseth. 
Cronicon Abba. Vrspergensis.  In the year of our Lord 1076 saith he, there was kept a Council at Worms, where king Henry being present, almost all the Bishops of Germany, except the Saxons, deposed Pope Hildebrand, writing him a letter after many crimes recited with this conclusion: For so much then as thine entrance [into the Popedom] is infected with so great perjuries; and the Church of God dangerously tossed by reason of thy novelties; and thy life stained with so manifold infamies; we let thee understand, that as we never promised thee obedience, so hereafter will we yield thee none; & because no man amongst us (as thou openly gavest out) hath been hereto accounted a Bishop by thee, thou also from henceforth shalt be taken by none of us for apostolic.  
The Bishops and nobles at Brixia concluded against him in these words: Because it is certain that he was not chosen by God, 

Ibidem anno 1080.  
This was he that first ventured to depose Princes.   but by fraud and bribery most shamelessly intruded himself; which also subverteth the order of the Church, and troubleth the Christian Empire, which practiseth to kill both the body and soul of our Catholic and peaceable king, and maintaineth a perjured king which hath sowed discord between those that agreed; strife between those that were at peace; offences between brethren; and divorces between man and wife; and hath shaken whatsoever stood quiet amongst the godly; we assembled together in the name of God against the said Hildebrand a most impudent person, breathing out sacrileges & spoils, defending perjuries and murderers, calling in question the Catholic and apostolic faith of the body and blood of our Lord, an old disciple of the heretic Berengarius, an observer of divinations & dreams, a manifest conjuror, & using familiarity with devils, and therefore fallen from the true faith: adjudge him to be Canonically deposed & expelled. 

Ibidem anno 1083.  
The Romans rejected him as well as the Germans did   And this took place three years after when the Romans desired a day to be appointed, in the which the Pope and all the Senators should come before the Emperor: but the Pope would not come in presence, whereupon the Romans being moved yielded to the king, and with one consent rejected Pope Hildebrand; who secretly fleeing gate him to Salerna, and there stayed till he died.  Phi. 
Henry did this by force, and the Bishops that so reviled the Pope were of his faction: 

Platina in Gregorio 7. The later Italians make Hildebrand a Saint for his presumption against the Emperor.  
Beno Cardinal. de vita & gestis Hildebrandi. Sigibertus in anno 1084.   but the stories commend Gregory the seventh for a wise, just & mild man, a favourer of the poor, of orphans and widows, and the only stout and earnest defender of the Roman Church against the treacheries of heretics and power of ill disposed princes, seeking to possess the goods of the Church by violence.  Theo. 
Gregory's life I will not examine, it is not incident to this matter. Yet if we believe Beno the Cardinal that lived at the same time, he deserveth no such praise as you give him; but I respect not that in this place. Certain it is the Bishops of Germany and Italy not only refused but also deposed him; yea thirteen Cardinals of the wiser and better sort, the Archdeacon and chief precedent and many of the Lateran Clergy [at Rome] seeing his intolerable Apostasy, forsook his communion: and so by the judgement of the Romans themselves Hildebrand was turned out of his Popedom.  Phi. 
I know they did it, but therein they passed their bounds.  Theo. 
If the crimes by them objected were true, they did but their duties.  Phi. 
Their accusations were all false.  Theo. 
That is lustily spoken, but faintly proved: and yet if it were so, my first assertion standeth good, that your own Cardinals & Counsels have often resisted, & repressed the Bishop of Rome.  Phi. 
And my answer standeth as good, that they were schismatics which did so.  Theo. 
What say you then to the Council at Pisa, 
Platina in Gregori. 12. The general Council of Pisa deposed two Pope's Idem in Alexandro 5.  where the whole College of Cardinals with one consent deprived Gregory & Benedict of their Popedomes, all nations allowing that straight sentence, besides [a few] that favoured Benedictus: and Alexander the fift on his death bed protesting their acts in that Council to be good and lawful? Will you now reply that all nations, and all the cardinals, yea the Pope himself were schismatics? Or if you care not for that, what say you to the general Council of Constance that deposed as many Popes as the Council of Pisa, and not only de facto did it, but also expressly and advisedly decreed that they might do it? Dare you think the Council of Constance to be schismatical? And what if the general Council of basil by manifest positions conclude you an heretic, for holding that a Council may not depose the Pope? will you rather incur the guilt of heresy, than forsake your new found divinity?  Phi. 
You load me with too many allegations at once. I can not tell which to answer first.  Theo. 
I will sever them with a good will, say what you can against them. The general Council of Pisa deposed two Popes and chose Alexander the first: ergo the Pope may be both resisted, and deprived by a Council.  Phi. 
Was that Council general?  Theo. 
Read the Bull of john the 23. convocating the Council of Constance, 
Concil. Constantiensis sessio. 1. Their church allowed the Council of Pisa for sacred and general. Laziardi historiae universalis epitome ca 267.  Dudum felicis recordationis Alexander Papa quintus, praedecessor noster in sacro generals Pisano Concilio tunc praesidens etc. Not long since Alexander the fift of happy memory, our predecessor, then sitting chief in the sacred general Council at Pisa. Laziardus a writer of that age saith: Both Colleges of Cardinals, or at least the most part of them, called a general Council at Pisa, where they stayed from the Annunciation of the virgin Marie till the xxvi. of june, with a great number of Prelates & Ambassadors of Kings, Princes, & Universities. Upon which day, those [two] which strove for the Popedom, being first deprived by sentence, and order of law in all things observed, they chose Alexander the fift.  Phi. 
Do all stories agree that they deposed Gregory and Benedict?  Theo. 
See Blondus, aventinus, Nauclerus, Sabellicus, Paulus Aemylius, or whom you will. 
johannes Nauclerus in anno 1408.  The Cardinals of Gregory and Benedict, saith Nauclerus, meeting & conferring, resolved the city of Pisa to be the fittest place for a general council to be kept. Whereupon by letters and messengers they called all Bishops, Prelates, Princes & communities to come to the Council, that should be held at Pisa, exhorting them to send their Legates, & to withhold obedience from those [two] Popes, whom they had cited to be present there. In the year of our Lord 1409. at Pisa they began to proceed, 
Two Popes condemned by the council of Pisa for heretics and schismatics.  and against both Pope's Gregory and Benedict, not appearing upon lawful citation, but wilfully refusing, they pronounced sentence of deposition and deprivation, as against heretics and schismatics: forbidding all Christians to call either of them Pope, or yield either of them obedience as Bishop of Rome. This done they went to the election of an other, whom they called Alexander the fift.  Phi. 
Might they call and keep a Council without any Pope?  Theo. 
Look you to that. 

Ibidem.  
The Cardinals conclude it lawful for them to call a Council without the Pope, and if need be to depose him.   Nauclerus addeth that About the deposition of these two Popes there was a great debating in the Council of Pisa; whether (granting that both these Popes did scandalise the Church by manifest collusion, and perjury, etc.) the Cardinals might call a council, & both of them being cited to come to the Council, & not appearing but persisting in their contumacy, whether they might be deposed, and an other chosen. And after long disputation in the presence of very many Doctors of divinity, and of both laws, no man gainsaying, but all consenting, it was concluded that it might be lawfully & canonically done. Mark Philander: a general Council called without a Pope, and two Popes deposed in the same for not appearing before the council, & all this good & lawful by the judgement of your own Cardinals, divines and Canonists, without contradiction, and the Pope himself accepting this for a sacred and ecumenical Council.  Phi. 
I marvel they went so far.  Theo. 
Never marvel at that. 

The Council of Constance deposed three Popes.  
Constantiensis Con cilij sessio. 1. Sessione 3. Sessione 10. & 12. Sessione 37.  
The Pope condemned for an incorrigible heretic & schismatic.  
Sessio. 4. & 5. Sessio. 3. Sessio. 4. & 5.   The general Council of Constance which followed five years after this, went a great deal farther. For when john the 23 had by his letters called the Council, and sat amongst them in person as precedent and head of the Council, the first thing they did, they began to sift him; and notwithstanding he fled and left the Council without Vicegerent or deputy, yet they proceeded, and not only suspended but also deprived him for his notorious Simony and detestable and unhonest life and manners. And likewise when by no means they could get Gregory the 13 to resign or appear before them, they condemned him for a schismatic and an heretic incorrigible, and cut him off as a withered member. And lest you should think this rashly or lightly done, they solemnly decreed that the Pope was subject to them and bound to obey them, & could not without their liking dissolve or remove the council, and to that end they did frustrate and reverse all that was done or might be done by the Pope present or absent to the prejudice and disturbance of their Synod. Can you wish for plainer examples that a Council may proceed without and against the Bishop of Rome, than these be?  Phi. 
I confess they make me stagger; 
Their own Church hath allowed and honoured these Counsels.  and yet I dare not trust them, unless the Church receive them.  Theo. 
And doth your church now mislike the proceed at Constance and Pisa, which the church of Rome then and all other nations, by the witness of your nearest friends, approved and followed as right and sincere?  Phi. 
I refuse not the Counsels.  Theo. 
But doth your Church allow them for general?  Phi. 
I think she doth.  Theo. 
Keep your thoughts to yourself; my question is whether your Church accept them, or no?  Phi. 
She doth not reject them.  Theo. 
Answer directly. Doth your Church embrace them, or no?  Phi. 
She doth.  Theo. 
You might have said so rather; what needed this circumquaque to no purpose? Then I infer; the doctrine of your church, little more than eight score years ago, was, that a Council might overrule and depose the Pope, and the same Council be called and kept without him, if he colluded or refused. This is proved, as well by the deeds of the counsels of Constance & Pisa, which are already showed; as by their decrees, which are extant to this day. What was concluded at Pisa by general assent, I said before: what the Council of Constance resolved in the like case, their words shall declare.  
First this holy Synod [of Constance] lawfully congregated in the holy Ghost, 

Constantiensis Synodi sessio 4. The Pope bound to obey his own counsels.  
Sessione 5.   being a general council, and representing the catholic church militant, hath power immediate from Christ, the which [power] every one of what state or dignity soever he be, yea the Pope himself is bound to obey in those things that concern the faith & general reformation of the church of God, in the head & members. Again it declareth that whosoever of any condition, state or dignity, yea though he be Pope, shall stubbornly refuse to obey the statutes, ordinances & precepts which this sacred Synod, or any other general council lawfully gathered, hath already made or shall hereafter make concerning the premises, or any their appertinents, except he repent he shall be driven to condign satisfaction and duly punished, and if need be, other helps and remedies of law and justice used. 
Ibidem.  Item this holy Synod ordereth, defineth, determineth and declareth, that if our said Lord the Pope being required for unities sake by this sacred Council, do refuse to forsake his Popedom, or defer the renouncing thereof longer than he should; as then, so now; and as now, so then; shall be counted by all Christian faithful men to be deprived of his Popedom, and all obedience withdrawn from him.  
And not herewith content after they had cited and expected him, they proceeded first to his suspension, and after to his deprivation in this wise: 
Sessio. 10. Pope john suspended for his Popedom.  Because it plainly appeareth to us, that our Lord Pope john the 23. from the time that he was chosen to the Popedom till this present, hath il governed that office to the public slander of himself & the Church, and with his damnable life & filthy manners hath given and yet giveth to others an example of lose life; and moreover hath by plain Symonical contracts sold Cathedral churches, Monasteries, Priories and other Ecclesiastical benefices; therefore by this our sentence we pronounce and decree the said Lord Pope john worthy to be suspended from all administration of the Popedom, both spiritual and temporal, and we do suspend him, and by this writing forbidden him the execution thereof. And we declare that for and upon the premises, as being notorious, we ought & mind to proceed to the final rejecting him from the Popedom. Wherefore we straightly prohibit you and every one of you by the tenor of these presents in virtue of your obedience, & under pain to be counted favourers of this schism, whether you be kings, Cardinals, patriarchs, Archbishops, bishops or whatsoever, spiritual or secular persons, that you, nor any of you, directly or indirectly hereafter obey, regard or assist the said Pope john being justly suspended by us from all intermeddling with the Pope's function etc.  

Sessio. 12. Sententia definitiva contra johannem Papam 23. The Pope solemnly deprived.  The very same causes they repeat when they deprive him, adding that his departure from the City and sacred general Council of Constance, closely by night, at an unseasonable hour, in strange and dissembled apparel, was unlawful and scandalous to the Church & the Council, as troubling and hindering the peace and union of the Church, nourishing an inveterate schism, and swerving from his vow, promise & oath: & therefore say they, the sacred general council of Constance by this definitive sentence here comprised in writing, pronounceth, adjudgeth and declareth the said Pope john, as unworthy, unprofitable, and hurtful, to be removed, deprived, and deposed from the Popedom, and from all spiritual and temporal administration thereof: & therewithal doth remove, deprive, and depose him: declaring all christians of what state, or degree or condition soever they be, to stand quiet and discharged from his obedience, and the fidelity, and oath, which they have made to him: Inhibiting all the faithful of Christ hereafter so much as to call him Pope, being now deposed from his office, or to cleave to him or any way to obey him as Pope.  Phi. 
You repeat this at large, that the simple might see how solemnly the Pope was deposed.  Theo. 
I do in deed, and you must think they look for your answer.  Phi. 
How hasty you be when you have a little advantage?  Theo. 
How loath you be to come to that which at length you must? For say Philander, might the Council of Constance do that which they did, 
Not long since the Pope was subject to Counsels by the confession of their own Church, and now he will be Lord over them.  or no? You hold a Wolf by the ears, I can tell you.  Phi. 
The truth is, I find myself in some strait. If I say they did well, than I confess that a Council may lawfully resist and deprive the Pope, for all this they did; if I say they did evil, then must the Council of Constance be schismatical in offering Christ's vicar so great and open wrong; and the Church of Rome yea the Catholic Church that allowed and honoured their acts and decrees, foully deceived; and Martin the sixth whom this Council elected, and the Christian world obeyed, no lawful successor, but a violent intruder: which God forbid I should affirm.  Theo. 
Then if you dare not say the Synod did evil, you must yield they did well, and consequently the point which you first doubted, is fully proved; that a Council may lawfully control, correct, and depose the Pope, notwithstanding you make him chief judge on earth & head of the whole Church.  Phi. 
Was Pope john lawfully chosen?  Theo. 
You search every angle, but in truth you can not scape. 

In joan. 24. it should be 23.  
To quarrel with Pope john's election is to no purpose.    Phi. 
Platina saith some such thing.  Theo. 
So some would shift the matter; but if his entry to the Popedom were not good, his summoning the Council of Constance could not be good, and so this Synod never lawfully called. Next the Council did not reject him as unorderly chosen, nor disclaim him for no Bishop, but removed him from the function which he had, as unworthy the same. And their general decree, by which they define the Pope to be subject to the Council, must not be referred to wrongful inuadors, but wholly restrained to lawful possessors of the Roman See: else, no mastery for the Council to be superior to those that were no Popes, but only usurpers. And therefore if there were any fault in his election, since the Council did omit the same in his deprivation, and proceeded against him for other crimes, it can do you small pleasure.  Phi. 
Did he not submit himself to their definitive sentence, and with his own mouth ratify their acts whatsoever before they ventured to depose him? 

Pope john when he saw no remedy, submitted himself to their wills, but did not autorize them to be his judges.  
Nauclerus in anno 1415. Vide Constan. Synodi sessionem 11.    Theo. 
When Pope john saw the Duke of Austria proscribed and adjudged by the Emperor to forfeit all his goods and lands, for helping and receiving him in his flight, and himself now brought back and kept in prison, to abide the determination of the Council; and foul matters objected against him, and witnesses produced and examined upon the same: & being already suspended from his Popedom by the Council, & then required to say for his defence what he could; and warned against the next day to be present in the Council, to hear the judgement that should be given upon the premises: what marvel if he seeing no way to prevent that which the Synod would execute, thought better to please them with a forced humility, than to provoke them to farther bitterness with a bold defiance? But did the Council ground themselves upon that his submission, or else did they derive their authority from Christ without the Pope, & above the Pope? 
The Council grounded themselves neither on Pope john's permission nor submission, but on their own power & proofs.   Phi. 
I know they challenged their power immediately from Christ.  Theo. 
By that you may see they meant to exclude the Pope's consent & allowance; which also well appeared by their doings. For they cited, suspended, convicted, imprisoned, & assigned him a term to receive judgement before ever he came to that submission. And last of all, if you could light on it, there is a great difference between confessing the process, & referring himself to the discretion of the Council, which Pope john did at length much against his stomach, & authorizing the judges to proceed, which they neither did ask, nor would accept at his hands.  
And lest you should think I mistake the Council of Constance, the Council of Basil, which began 14. years after, doth not only confirm that which I defend, but also repute you for heretics that eagerly withstand it. Their words be these: 
Basiliensis concilij sessio 33. The Council of basil against the Pope.  Veritas de potestate Concilij generalis supra Papam, declarata per Constantinense, & hoc Basiliense Concilia generalia, est veritas fidei Catholicae: veritas haec; Papa generale Concilium actu legitimè congregatum, sine eius consensu nullatenus potest autoritatiue dissoluere, aut ad aliud tempus prorogare, aut de loco ad locum transfer, veritas est fidei Catholicae. Veritatibus duabus praedictis pertinaciter repugnans, est censendus haereticus. This position that a general council hath power over & above the Pope, declared in the general council of Constance & basil, is a truth of the catholic faith. Again that the Pope by no means can dissolve, defer, or translate a general council lawfully called & once sitting of his own authority, without the consent of the said council, this is likewise a truth of the catholic faith. These two former truths he that stiffly denieth, must be taken for an heretic. Now choose whether you will forego your assertion, or else abide the verdict of your own Council.  Phi. 
Against the Council of basil much might be said if time and place did serve.  Theo. 
Time and place do serve, except you relent, by their illation to conclude you an heretic.  Phi. 
That Council was neither general, nor lawful.  Theo. 
It is not enough for you to say the word, you must tell us why. 
The Cardinals and the Bishops began to be so busy with the Pope, that the Church of Rome is forced to renounce her own Counsels.   Phi. 
They bent themselves against Eugenius the fourth, and did what they could to thrust him from his Seat.  Theo. 
Perhaps Eugenius deserved no less.  Phi. 
No, they did it upon a faction, in favour of the Duke of Milan, that hated Eugenius.  Theo. 
Contention is no just exception against a Synod. For so you may refuse the best that ever were. But what can you say, why the Council of basil should not be counted in your Church both lawful and general? Was it not orderly summoned as your manner is? Were not all nations called? The Bull of Martin the fift is extant, by the which the Council was first indicted; and Eugenius himself, that struggled a while to dissolve the Council, was glad at length to change his tune, and to retract all that he had done in derogation of the Synod, and with an other Bull fairly subscribed with the cardinals hands, to confirm and confess the Council of basil to be a general, sacred and lawful Council. And here you shall see a plain precedent that the Princes and Bishops assembled at basil not only resisted Eugenius, labouring what he could to disperse them, but also forced him to yield, and acknowledge the lawfulness of their Synod.  
Eugenius, 

Platina in Eugenio 4.  
Eugenius forced to allow the Council of basil, by reason of the number that took part with the Synod.   saith Platina, much distressed first with wars on every side, next for that he saw the council of basil began by Pope Martin's decree, daily increase; the Princes of Spain, France, Germany and Pannonie repairing thither, and referring the common cause of christendom to the judgement of the council; meaning to shut it up, translated the same from basil to Bononia by the consent of all the cardinals that were about him. But the Emperor and the rest of the Princes and Prelates that were at basil, were so far from obeying the Pope, that they summoned him twice or thrice to present himself with his cardinals at basil, chosen by Pope Martin as a fit place to keep the council in; otherwise they would proceed against him as a transgressor and wilful refuser. Eugenius troubled with this message, confirmeth the council of basil with his apostolic letters, licensing all men to go to the council.  Phi. 
I grant they resisted Eugenius, but I doubt of the Council whether it were lawful or no.  Theo. 
Will you trust Eugenius himself?  Phi. 
If he say the word. 

Basiliensis concilij sessio 16.  
Eugenius bull for the confirmation of that council.    Theo. 
Thus he saith: Not long since for certain causes expressed in our letters, and by the consent and advise of our brethren the cardinals of the church of Rome, we dissolved the sacred general council of basil lawfully begun by the decrees of the general counsels of Constance and Senes, & by commission from Martin the fift, & likewise from us. Mary seeing great dissension hath risen, & greater may rise by the said dissolution, we determine & declare that the foresaid general council of basil from the first beginning of it was & is lawfully continued, & always hath, yet doth, & aught to dure, as if no dissolution had been made. And that our affection and integrity to the sacred general council of basil may plainly appear, whatsoever hath been done, attempted, or alleged by us, or in our name, to the prejudice or derogation of the sacred general council of basil, we undo, revoke, frustrate, and annihilate.  
If this be enough, Nicolaus the 5. that came next after Eugenius upon the composing of the schism between the Council and the Pope, 

The Bull of Nicolaus the 5. for the like purpose.  
Bulla Nicolai 5. supper approbatione actorum & gest. in council. Basiliensi.   gave out a general Bull for the confirmation of all their doings without exception. Omnia & singula tam justitiam, quàm gratiam concernentia per ipsum tunc Basiliense Concilium qualitercunque facta, gesta, concessa, data, disposita & ordinata cuiuscunque naturae existant, motu proprio ex certa scientia & de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine, de consilio & assensu venerabilium fratrum nostrorum sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalium praesentium serie approbamus, ratificamus, & etiam confirmamus, rataque & firma haberi volumus. All & every thing, that concerneth either favour or justice, done, devised, granted, given, disposed & ordered by the council of Basil, of what nature soever, we of our own motion & certain knowledge by the fullness of our apostolic power, and with the assent and advise of our brethren the Cardinals of the holy church of Rome, allow, ratify, and confirm by the tenor of these presents, and will have to stand sure and firm. So that the Council of basil hath ill luck, if after all these bulls it be not both a lawful and general Council.  Phi. 
The Bishops of Rome, that came after, never liked the Council of basil; but we will not strive for that: we shall see what you will infer.  Theo. 
No news for Popes to mislike that which pared their ambition, and hindered their gain, as the Council of basil did: but can you, or they deny that the Council was orderly called?  Phi. 
I do not stand so much on that.  Theo. 
Then I conclude, 
A Council might then command, correct, and depose the Pope: & now they will be obeyed above and against Counsels.  that a Council may lawfully resist, command, correct, and depose the Pope; for so did the late Counsels of Pisa, Constance, and basil (which your Church then held for sacred and ecumenical) both determine in words, and practise in deeds. You must confute, or confess this illation.  Phi. 
I have said what I could, and all will not help. The Counsels you prove to be general: and I see they not only resisted and deposed Popes, but also concluded it lawful for them so to do.  Theo. 
Then you confess they did and might resist the Pope.  Phi. 
Counsels I grant might, and did; but not others.  Theo. 
Why may not others do the like?  Phi. 
They must rather obey than resist.  Theo. 
We dispute not as yet, whether it be lawful or no for every man to resist the Pope, the cause being just; and when that cometh in question, you must show good and apparent reason why they may not: that which I first avouched was this: your own Cardinals and Counsels, your own friends and fellows, which you may not count schismatics and heretics, 
The Pope in the midst of his pride resisted by his own crew.  have stoutly resisted him, and restrained and limited his dominion, even in the midst of his pride and joylity. For Counsels I have said sufficient: Now for others.  
The famous University of Paris, which I think you will not condemn; and the whole kingdom of France have often times opposed themselves against the Pope, and withdrawn their obedience from him in part or in all as occasion required.  Phi. 
For some money matters it may be they withstood his Collectors and Officers.  Theo. 
The Divines of Paris openly confuted the conclusions and articles of john the 22. touching the beholding and seeing of God, 
The Divines of Paris condemned Pope john's doctrine with the sound of trumpets. Gerson serm. in festo Paschae reperitur in 4. part operum. johannes Marius de schism. & council. cap. 2●.  and gate the same to be condemned before the king of France with the sound of trumpets, as Gerson reporteth. By this, saith he, appeareth the falsity of [Pope] john's doctrine, which was condemned with the sound of trumpets before Philip king [of France] by the Divines of Paris, and the king believed the Divines of Paris before the [Pope's] court. And joannes Marius, john the second Pope that sat at Auinion, fell into suspicion of heresy. For he taught and defended certain articles touching the sight and vision of God, which the Divines of France, king Philip taking their part, very freely contradicted.  
The year before the Council of Pisa, which I last spoke of, was gathered, when Benedict the 13. would yield to no reason, for ending the schism between him & Gregory the 12. Charles the French king, 

Laziard. Epitome. cap. 267. joan. Marius cap. 22.  
The French king dischargeth his realm from the Pope's obedience.  
Naucler. generatio. 48. circae annum 1438.  
The Pragmatical sanction maintained in France an 100 years against the Pope.   with the advise of the Bishops, Princes, and Universities of his Realm caused himself to be proclaimed adherent [or obedient] to neither of the twain; & by them all it was decreed, that the whole Church of France should departed from the obedience of Benedict, and by the authority of this Council, all the French Cardinals forsook him.  
When the Council of basil was ended, the Germans, the king of France, the king of England, the Prince of Milan, & others favoured the same with all their power, neglecting Eugenius authority, then sitting in the Council of Florence: and the rather to give it full force and effect, in the kingdom of France, Charles the 7. in a Parliament at Burdeuz made a law, called the Pragmatical sanction, for the perpetual observation of those things, which the Council of basil had decreed. And this law the Bishops of France, and School of Paris defended and followed almost an hundred years, in spite of all that Pius the 2. Sixtus the 4. Innocentius the 8. and other Bishops of Rome could do to the contrary.  Phi. 
Did the Bishops of Rome labour against it so long, and could not prevail? 
Robertus Guaguinus in Caro. 7.   Theo. 
First hear how well they did like it; and then how long they did impugn it. The [Pragmatical] constitution made by the authority of the Council of basil, the Bishops of Rome, that came after, detested as a pernicious heresy; and not one of them, the Synod of basil once dissolved, did ever allow the same. Which well appeareth by the message that Pius the 2. sent to jews the 11. for the repealing of this constitution, as the king himself reporteth, 
Ludovic. Pio 2. inter Epist. Aeneae Syluij Epi. 388.  writing back to the Pope in these words: We have consented to those things which were advertised us in your name [by your Legate a latere] to wit, that the Pragmatical sanction grieved and injured both you & your See, as being made in the time of sedition, & schism, & subverting all right, & all law by taking what authority they list from you. And this besides, which the same [Legate] in the name of your holiness affirmed, that whereas by this Pragmatical constitution, the authority of your supreme Seat in the Church is restrained, & a castle of liberty provided for the Prelates of our Realm; & unity & conformity towards your Seat (as other kingdoms observe) is refused; 
Guaguinus in Ludovic. 11. The Bishops of France & the university of Paris withstod the Pope labouring to abrogate the pragmatical sanction. Ibidem.  the foresaid law is to be removed & abolished out of our Realm, as made by inferior Prelates against your See, the mother of all Churches.  
By these persuasions, and with urging a former promise, Pope Pius the 2. (a great favourer and express defender of the Council of basil before his promotion, though after blinded with ambition, of all others he most detested the pragmatical sanction, & called it heresy,) won the kings good will and had his letters to the Senate of Paris for the repealing of this law: but neither the king's Attorney, nor the Bishop's would consent thereto. Yea the School of Paris feared not to resist the (Pope's proctor) appealing to the (next) general Council.  
This wisdom and freedom the Clergy men of France and students of Paris showed and used in maintaining the Pragmatical sanction against diverse Popes from the year of our Lord 1438. till the year 1516. which Leo the 10. (that in our days wrested it out of their hands) is forced to confess. We weigh with ourselves how many treaties have passed between Pius the 2. Sixtus the 4. Innocentius the 8. Alexander the 6. and julius the 2. Bishops of Rome, 
Lateranensis Concil. sub. Leo. 10. Sess. 11. in bulla quae incipit, primitiva. Five Popes before Leo had laboured in vain against that law.  our predecessors, and the most christian kings of France for abolishing a certain constitution called the Pragmatical, bearing great sway in that kingdom: and though Pius the 2. by his Legates sent to Lodovic the 11. persuaded him with so many reasons, that the king himself by his letters Patents did abrogate the said Pragmatical sanction as authorized in the time of sedition & division; yet neither the said abrogation, nor the apostolic letters of Sextus [the 4.] made upon concordates with the Ambassadors of the said Lodovic were received by the Prelates and Ecclesiastical persons of France; neither would the said Prelates and Clergy obey them, or give ear to the admonitions of Innocentius and julius aforenamed, but would needs stick and cleave still to the said Pragmatical sanction. And when upon agreement with Francis the French king Leo the 10. in a Council at Rome did abrogate the said constitution, & pronounced it utterly void, the whole University of Paris in the year 1517. appealed from the Pope and his assembly to a general & free Council. Their words be worth the hearing.  


Appellatio universitatis Parisien. repevitur in fasciculo rerum expetendarum.  
Paris appealeth from the Pope.  
The Pope may lawfully be resisted.  
The French king commanded the Pragmatical sanction to be observed in his Realm whether the Pope would or no.  
The Divines of Paris deny the Pope's assembly to have the holy Ghost.   Because he which is God's Vicar in earth, whom we call the Pope, though he have authority immediately from God, yet is not thereby free from sin, neither hath received licence to sin: so that we must not obey him, if he decree any thing against the divine precepts, but rather may lawfully resist him, etc. And where as the council of Basil made many good & wholesome decrees for the increase of God's service, & health & peace of others, which Charles the 7. a most religious advancer, & excellent preserver of the worship of God, & Ecclesiastical honour, in that famous council of the church of France held at Bordeaux caused to be recited, & commanded to be kept inviolable, as ever since they have been kept & observed, etc. But now the Romans eager on their own lusts & gains; & perceiving by this means silver & gold not to come out of the kingdom, & delphin [of France] as before it did, & as they wish it should; spiting these laws, have often practised to have them abrogated by the Bishop of Rome, which hitherto by God's help hath been withstood; until Leo the 10. came, who, favouring the Romans more than he should, in a certain meeting at Rome, which is we know not how, but surely not in the holy ghost gathered against us, hath decreed we know not upon what reason, the said wholesome statutes to be abolished, & opposing himself against the catholic faith & authority of sacred general counsels, hath condemned the holy council of basil, etc. Therefore in these writings we appeal from our Lord the Pope, not well advised: & from his infringing the sacred council of basil, & the Pragmatical sanction, to the next council that shallbe lawfully & freely called. So far your own fellows, in this very age wherein we live, durst & did resist your holy father.  
And lest you should think that only scholars & not Bishops, were of this opinion: the prelates of France not past 7. years before this appeal, in a council at Tours, gave their full resolution to Lodovic the 12. that it was lawful for him to forsake the Pope's obedience, 

Cronicon. Massaei, in anno 1510.  
The French Bishops resolve their king that the Pope might be forsaken & his censures neglected.   & to despise the Pope's curses. An. 1510. the French king gathered a council at Tours, where he proposed these questions: whether it were lawful for the Pope to wage war with a Prince for no cause: & whether such a Prince defending his own, might invade the beginner, and withdraw himself from his obedience. The council answered, the Pope might not: & the Prince might do that which was demanded, & that also the Pragmatical sanction was to be kept throughout the Realm of France: neither need the king to care for [the Popes] unjust censures, if he cast out his thunderbolts. This answer of the council the king sent to julius, who when peter's keys would not prevail, drew out Paul's sword, & with the shedding of much christian blood, sought an unchristian revenge. The French men, saith Erasmus, which with their blood gate julius so many notable triumphs, 
Adagiorum Chiliadis 2. centuria 5. adag. 10.  by his means, with the spilling of a great deal more blood, were thrust out of Italy, & as though that were too little, followed with all kind of reproaches: & if death had not prevented julius, we had seen that most flourishing kingdom utterly overthrown.  Phi. 
They got nothing, you see, by withstanding the Pope's keys.  Theo. 
Christendom hath gotten less by withstanding the Turk, & yet that doth not make his cause good: but Lodovic the 12. did herein no more than Philip the fair king of France also did before him, & put the Pope to the worse.  Phi. 
What did he?  Theo. 
He not only contemned the Pope's Bulls & curses, 
King Philip of France used the Pope in his kind. Laziardus historiae universalis epitome. ca 247.  but clapped his Legate by the heels, sequestered himself & his whole realm from his obedience, & at length caught the Popes own person, & kept him in prison till he died.  Phi. 
Durst he be so bold with his holiness?  Theo. 
How bold the king of France was, a friar, as you be, shall tell you. Bonifacius the 8. minding to send an army to Jerusalem, & hoping to get Philip [of France] to further the matter, sent the Bishop of Apamea to the king: who, when he perceived he could do no good, began to threaten king Philip that he should be deprived of his crown, if he did not satisfy the Pope's request; & was therefore by the commandment of the king cast in prison. Which done, Bonifacius a man above measure arrogant, pretending that Philip had violated the law of nations would needs be revenged, & sending the Archdeacon of Narbon into France, forbiddeth Philip to take any more of the church revenues, whereas before, the king (& that Bonifacius could suffer) had one years fruit of every vacant church which we call the kings due: farther he denounceth that the crown of France is devolved to the church of Rome by Philip's contumacy, 
The Pope claimed to be the depriver of Princes.  adding that if Philip refused this, he would pronounce both him & those that favoured him heretics: moreover he appointed the bishops & certain abbots with the divines & Canonists a day to appear before him at Rome, & withal declareth the charters & grants bestowed on the French by the bishop of Rome to be void. This message done by the Archdeacon with pride enough, Philip set the Bishop, which was kept in ward for his lewd words, at liberty; and charged him with speed to departed the Realm; & the next spring the Prince gathered an assembly at Paris, & rehearsing the injuries that he had received at Bonifacius hands, asked first the Bishops of whom they held their lands & revenues; 
The king refuteth the Pope's claim  then turning himself to the Nobles, & you my Lords, saith he, whom do you take for your king & ruler? (both) answering without stay, that they held & enjoyed all those things by his Princely laws: but, saith the king, Bonifacius so dealeth, as if you & the whole Realm of France were subject to his See. For the Empire of the almains, which he thrice denied Albert, hath he now given him and also the kingdom of France. 
The French king promiseth to defend the liberty of his land against the Pope.  But we thanking you for your fidelity & good will, & trusting to your help, do promise to defend the liberty of our Land. The Council risen the king by open Proclamation forbade all men to carry gold, silver, or any other thing out of his Realm, a pain set for the breakers of this Edict; & besides watch & ward was appointed at every passage & port to apprehend those that came in, or went out of his Country. And not long after a (second) Council of Bishops and Nobles were assembled at Paris, where they discussed Bonifacius claim to the kingdom of France, the Father's affirming that Bonifacius was unworthy to be Bishop, for that he was an homicide, and an heretic, whereof they had witnesses present. Therefore with one consent, they concluded that Bonifacius ought not to be obeyed, 
The Realm of France conclude the Pope ought not to obeyed.  unless he first cleared himself of that he was charged with: After this king Philip taking the pride of Bonifacius in very ill part sent some to intimate his appeal against the injuries of Bonifacius, who (belike meaning to gratify the king) caught the Pope in his father's house at Anagnia, whence the proud Prelate was led to Rome, & cast in prison, where within four & twenty days he ended his life, either by violence, or else for grief of hart. Thus died Bonifacius like a dog, that went about to strike a terror into Emperors, Kings, Princes, Countries & commonwealths rather than any religion; & which assayed to give kingdoms & take them away, to advance men and pull them down at his pleasure. Wherefore it was truly said of him, he entered like a Fox [craftily] lived like a Lion [furiously] & died like a dog [shamefully.] 

Thomas Walsingham in Edwardo 1. anno 2304.  
The French king would suffer none of his land to go or send to Rome.  
sabel. Enneadis 9 lib. 7. Platina in Bonifacio 8.    Phi. 
This is but one man's judgement.  Theo. 
Yet a man of your own side: and if our English Monks do not deceive us, it was the prophesy of Caelestinus his predecessor, who said to him, Thou hast entered like a Fox, thou wilt reign like a Lion, & shalt die like a dog: but the truth of the story is it that I seek for, and that in effect, a few circumstances altered, is confessed by the best of your writers: and this they add, which I would have you mark; that the king not only withdrew his obedience from the Pope, but also restrained his subjects from sending or going to Rome. So Sabellicus; Philip offended with Bonifacius, by open Edict forbade all French men to go to Rome, or to send any money thither. So Platina; The king meaning in part to revenge the wrongs which the Pope had done him, made a law, that none of his Realm should go to Rome, 
AEmylius in Philippo 4.  or send money thither. So Paulus AEmylius; The Bishops and prelates of France were commanded by Bonifacius to appear at Rome by a certain day. The king suffered no man to departed out of France: which you think much her Majesty should at this present in a far better cause command within her dominions.  Phi. 
One Swallow maketh no summer.  Theo. 
One such Summer is able to mar the Pope's harvest: but herein the king of France is not alone, the kings of England have done the like.  Phi. 
Which of them?  Theo. 
I could easily name them, but I need not. The ancient Laws & Liberties of this Realm permit no man to go out of this land, nor appeal to Rome without the king's consent.  Phi. 
Very ancient I promise you: 

The ancient laws of this Realm are against resorting and appealing to Rome.  
Math. Paris in Guilielmo 2. anno 1094. 500 years ago no Bishop of this Land subject to the Pope.  
Ibidem.   those laws were first made by king Henry the 8. about fifty years since. Is not that great antiquity?  Theo. 
The laws that I speak of are 500 years old, and were in full force under William Rufus, and Henry the 1. the Sons of William the Conqueror.  Phi. 
Did they restrain their subjects from going to Rome?  Theo. 
Whether they did or no, judge you.  
When Anselmus Archbishop of Canterbury asked leave of William Rufus to go to Rome; the king replied, that no Archbishop nor Bishop of his realm should be subject to the Pope or court of Rome, especially since he had all those liberties in his kingdom, which the Emperor had in the Empire. And for this cause was Anselmus convented by the king as an offender against the State. And to this accusation did the most of the Bishops except the Bishop of Rochester give their consents. And for that he ventured over the Seas to Rome without leave, All his goods & cattles were seized to the king's use, all his acts & proceed in the Church of England reversed, & himself constrained to live in banishment during the life of king William. Which Anselmus in his Epistle to Pope Paschalis complaineth of in this sort.  
The king requireth of me, 

Anselm. Epist. 36. ad Paschalem.  
Was this Land then think you, subject to the Pope?   that under pretence of right, I should yield to his pleasures, which are repugnant to the law & will of God. For he would not have the Pope received, nor appealed unto, in his Land, without his commandment; neither that I should write to him, or receive answer from him; or that I should obey his decrees. In all these things and such like, if I demanded advise, all the Bishops of his Realm denied to give me any, but according to the king's pleasure. After that I asked licence of him to go to Rome, unto the Sea apostolic, the king answered, that I offended against him for the only ask of leave: and offered me, that either I should satisfy him for the same, as a trespass; by assuring him never to ask this leave any more, nor to appeal to the Pope at anytime hereafter; or else that I should speedily departed out of his Land.  
And after in the time of king Henry the 1. 
Math. Paris in Henrico 1. anno 1104.  when the said Archbishop was returning home from Rome, the king's Attorney in his master's name forbade him to enter the Land, unless he would faithfully promise him to keep all the customs both of [William conqueror] his father, & [William Rufus] his brother. And K. Henry as soon as he perceived the Pope & the Archbishop to continue their former opinion [against his liberties] presently seized the Bishopric into his hands, 

The two Archbishops banished for resorting to the Pope.  
Idem anno 1119.   and arrested all Anselmus goods.  
The like success had Thurstane Elect of York, who gate leave of K. Henry the 1. to go to the council of Rheims, giving his faith that he would not receive consecration from the Pope: & coming to the Synod, by his liberal gifts as the fashion is, won the Romans favour, & by their means obtained to be consecrated at the Pope's hands: which as soon as the king of England knew he forbade him to come within his dominion.  
To this & other such liberties of the crown, K. Henr. the 2. not long after made all his Bishops & Nobles to be sworn, 

Mat. Paris in Henrico 2. anno 1164.  
The laws stood in full force an 100 years after the conquest.   in a general assembly at Claredon. In the year of our Lord 1164. K. Henry being at Claredon in the presence of the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons & great men of the realm, there was made a rehearsal or acknowledgement of some part of the Customs & liberties of his Ancestors, to wit of K. Henry his grandfather & others, which ought to be kept in his realm & observed of all, to avoid the dissension & discord that often happened between the clergy & the king's justices & nobles of the realm. Amongst the which custams being 16. in number these were two. 

Ibidem.  
The Jesuits departing this Realm is against the ancient laws of the same.  
Appeals to Rome prohibited by the old Laws of this Realm. An oath taken to observe the same.  
Ibidem.   No Archbishop, Bishop, nor any other person of the realm may go out of the land without the kings leave. For appeals, if any be made, they shall come from the Archdeacon to the bishop, & from the Bishop, to the Archbishop; & if the Archbishop fail in doing justice, it shallbe lawful to come last of all to the king, that by his commandment the matter may be ended in the Archbishop's court, so that no man shall proceed to appeal any farther, without the king's consent. This acknowledging & recording of the customs & liberties of the crown, the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Prior's [yea] the clergy with the Earls, Barons & all the Nobles swore, & by word of mouth faithfully promised should be kept & observed to the king & his heirs for ever simply without fraud.  Phi. 
The selfsame writer, that you bring, dispraiseth those customs, & calleth them wicked & detestable.  Theo. 
His report is the stronger against you, in that he was a Monk & a misliker of those laws; & his judgement against us, the weaker. For these princely dignities had prevailed from the Conquest till that time, & were in that age, yielded & sworn unto by the Bishops & clergy of his realm: & are in themselves, if you list to discuss them, agreeable both to the sacred scriptures & ancient counsels, notwithstanding some Friars & favourers of the Romish See did then & do now to their power withstand them.  Ph. 

Thomas of Canterbury made a saint for resisting his Prince.  S. Thomas of Canterbury withstood them unto death, & chose rather to lose his life, than to yield to any such customs.  The. 
Do you make him a Saint for resisting his prince, or else for saving certain lewd priests from the due punishment of the prince's laws?  Ph. 
I count him a martyr for spending his blood in defence of the church liberties.  The. 
Their rage that slew him I do not commend, because it was done by private violence not by public authority: but his stout standing in a peevish quarrel against his oath, against his prince to purchase impunity for homicides & other heinous offenders against the common course of law & justice, I think in these days you dare not openly defend, for fear lest the world cry shame on you.  Ph. 
You charge him with more than you can prove.  The. 
I charge him with no more than your friends & his are forced to confess.  Th. 
Archbishop of Canter. when he had granted these [16.] laws, (which this superstitious monk calleth) wicked & detestable, 

Mat. Paris Ibidem.  
Thomas Becket the first that impugned the liberty of this realm.   & promised with an oath to keep them: examining diligently that which he had rashly done, afflicted himself grievously, & sent straightway messengers to the court of Rome to signify the grief of the church & his own, & asked absolution from the band which he had unwisely entered into, which also he obtained. The same year K.H. meaning as he said, to punish with due severity the disorders of all sorts, affirmed it to be against reason that he should deliver to the bishop such clergy men unpunished, as were convicted before his justices of any public & heinous crime. And therefore he decreed that whom the Bishops sound guilty in the presence of the king's justice, they should degrade and deliver to the king's court to be punished. 
The Archbishop standeth against the king in defence of thieves and murderers.  The Archbishop held on the contrary, that they ought not to be punished by laymen after they were degraded by the Bishop, lest they should be twice punished for one thing. The occasion of this strife was given by one Philip de Broc, a canon of Bedford, which being indicted of murder, spoke reproachfully to the judge: which when he could not deny before the Archbishop, he was deprived of his prebend, & exiled the land for 2. years. The Archbishop seeing the liberties of the Church now trodden under foot: without the king's knowledge, took ship, & intended to go to Rome, but the wind being against him, he was driven back to the shore. And immediately upon that when he was called to account for the whole receipts, that came to his hands whiles he was Chancellor of England, lest he should unjustly be condemned, he appealed to the See of Rome, & under pain of excommunication forbade as well the Bishops as all the nobles to give sentence against him, 
The fine shift of a rebel to save himself. The Monk favoureth the rebellion of the Bishop.  that was there both their father and their judge. The Nobles and Bishops, that were called by the king for this purpose, without conviction or confession of his gave judgement against him [alleging and] protesting the privilege of himself, & his church. The Archbishop driven to this extremity and forsaken of all the rest of the Bishops, hoist the cross which he held in his hand aloft: & marched away from the king's court in the eyes of them all, & the next night stolen from the place, & gate him over to Flaunders, & so to the Pope. He broke the oath which he took, for the keeping of the foresaid laws & liberties of the crown: 
The dutifulness of Thomas Becket.  he claimed a freedom for thieves & murderers that they should not be subject to the prince's power: he refused the kings court, & appealed to the pope for a matter of debt, lest he should tender an account of his temporal office whiles he was Chancellor; which of these three points can you now with learning or honesty defend?  Phi. 
The liberty of the holy Church is a just & good quarrel for a man to die in.  Theo. 
If you mean thereby an impunity for mutherers & such like offenders, then is it a most wicked and irreligious part for a Bishop to open his mouth for such liberty; much more to resist his Prince for that quarrel.  Phi. 
His quarrel was better than so.  Theo. 
Neubrigensis a man of that age, and one that honoured the person, and praised the zeal of  Th. 
Becket, reporteth thus of the quarrel between the king & him. 

Gulielm. Neubrigensis rerum Ang. lib. 2. cap. 16.  
This is the liberty of the● church, which Becket strived for with the king.   The king, saith he, was advertised by his judges, that many crimes were committed by clergy men against the laws of his Realm, as thefts, robberies & murders. In so much that in his audience, it was, they say, declared; that more than an hundred murders were done in England by clergy men in the time of his reign. Wherefore the king very much kindled in a vehement spirit made laws against malefactors of the clergy: which he thought to make the stronger by the consent of the Bishops. Calling therefore the Bishops together he so plied them, (what with fair means, what with foul) that they all save one, thought it best to yield and obey the kings will, and set their seals to those new statutes. I say all save one; for the Archbishop of Canterbury would not bow, but stood immovable. Whereupon the king began to be greatly offended with him, and seeking all occasions to resist him, called him to account for those things which he had done before as Chancellor of the Realm. Now must you show that by God's laws thieves and homicides, if they be clerks, may not be punished by the prince's sword; or if you dare not plead that in these days for very shame, then must you grant that your Canterbury saint resisting his Prince where he should not, was an Archrebel against God and the Magistrate: 

Mat. Paris in Henri. 2. eodem anno.  
King Henry the second against the Pope.  
Appeals to Rome again prohibited. In quadrilogo. Treason to bring an interdict from Rome.  
Mat. Paris ut supra.  
Not lawful to departed the Realm without the king's letters.  
Banishment to regard the Pope's Bull interdicting this Land.   one of these twain you must needs choose.  Phi. 
We shall digress too far, if we discuss these things in this place.  Theo. 
Your stomach, I see, doth not serve you at this present, & we shall have some other opportunity to debate the same: in the mean time learn what laws king Henry the 2. enacted & executed, in spite of your holy father & his devout chaplain.  
The king at the return of his Legates, perceiving his request [for the confirmation of his ancient liberties] to be repelled by the Pope, not a little offended therewith, wrote letters to all his Sheriffs & Lieutenants in England on this wise: I command you that if any clergy man or lay men in your county, appeal to the court of Rome, you attach him, & hold him in fast ward till our pleasure be known. And to his judges in this sort: If any man be found to bring letters or mandate from the Pope, or from Thomas the Archbishop, interdicting the Realm of England, let him be taken and kept in prison, till I send word what shallbe done with him. The four that wrote the life & extol the facts of  Th. 
Becket ad to this law: Let him be straightway apprehended for a traitor, & execution done upon him. Also let no clerk, monk, canon, or other religious person go over the Seas without letters of passport from us of our officer; if any venture otherwise, let him be taken & cast into prison. Let no man appeal to the Pope, or to Th. the Archbishop, neither let any suit surcease at their commandment. If any Bishop, Abbot, Clerk or lay man shall observe [their] sentence, interdicting our [Land,] presently let him be banished the Realm, and all his kindred with him; and their goods and lands confiscated. Let the Bishops of London and Norwich be summoned to appear before our justices, and there to answer for interdicting the Land, and excommunicating the person of Earl Hugh contrary to the Statutes of our Realm. Thus far the valiant & worthy Prince went in defending his Laws & liberties against the Bishop of Rome, & how far he would have gone, but that the time was not yet come, when God would deliver his Church from the yoke of Antichrist, appeareth by an Epistle of his written to the Archbishop of Cullain in these words.  
I have long desired to find a just occasion to departed from Pope Alexander and his perfidious cardinals, 

Mat. Paris in Henrico 2. anno 1167.  
The Pope 400 years ago abetted traitors against the king.   which presume to maintain my traitor Thomas of Canterbury against me; whereupon by the advise of my Barons & clergy, I mean to send the Archbishop of York, the bishop of London, the Archdeacon of Poitiers, (etc.) to Rome, which shall publicly denounce, & plainly propose this on my behalf, and all the Dominions I have, to Pope Alexander and his cardinals: that they maintain my traitor no longer, but rid me of him, that I with the advise of my clergy may set an other in the church of Canterbury. They shall also require them to frustrate all that Becket had done, and exact an oath of the Pope, that he and his successors, as much as in them lieth, shall keep and conserve, inviolable to me and all mine for ever, 
The king voweth openly to impugn the Pope and all his.  the Royal customs of king Henry my grandfather. If they refuse any of these my demands, neither I nor my Barons, nor my clergy will yield them any kind of obedience any longer: yea rather we will openly impugn the Pope, and all his, and whosoever in my Land shallbe found hereafter to stick to the Pope, shallbe banished my Realm.  Phi. 
The king made amends for all, when the Archbishop was slain, renouncing the liberties which he strived for so long, and honouring him as a Martyr whom before he pursued as a traitor.  Theo. 
The manifold devices & practices of the late Bishops of Rome, (God so punishing the dullness, and discord of Princes, neglecting his truth, and envying one an other) have weakened and wearied very many both kings and Emperors, partly with a false persuasion of religion, partly with a number of feigned miracles, but chief by drawing their subjects from them, and setting other nations upon them; yea by stirring and arming their own blood and bowels against them. And therefore no marvel if king Henry relented somewhat of his former stoutness, when the king of France, 

Math. Paris i● anno 1173.  
This was one of the Pope's common practices.   the Earl of Flaunders, the king of Scots, the young king his son, and two other of his children, the Duke of Aquitane and Earl of Britain, conspired against him; but it is evident, that from the conquest till the time these laws and liberties stood in their full force and were publicly received and used in this Realm.  Phi. 
Did the Pope procure him these enemies?  Theo. 
What packing there was between the French king and the Pope, though the stories in this place do not confess, yet we may soon conjecture by the general drift of your holy Father & his blessed adherents in those days, & specially by the example of king john the son of the said king Henry, 
Math. Paris in vita johannis anno 1212. Anno 1213.  whom (for refusing the disordered election of Stephen Langton to the church of Canterbury) Innocentius the 3. so terrified with open invasion of enemies, & secret defection of subjects, that for safeguard of himself he was driven to resign his kingdom, & take it again at the Pope's hands in fee farm under the yearly rent of a thousand marks: binding himself & his heirs for ever to do the like homage & fealty to the Bishops of Rome for the crown of England. 

The barons of this realm pursued the king in contempt of the Pope  
Anno 1216.   Which shameful servitude of the Prince, & utter ruin of the Realm so much displeased the barons & bishops, that before took the Pope's part against the king, that in plain contempt of the Pope's keys & curses, they chose them an other king, & chased king john, the Pope's farmer, from place to place in despite of all y his new Landlord could do or devise. But this I omit because the quarrel touched the right & title to the crown; I meddle only with those resistances, which the kings of England made for men and matters ecclesiastical.  Phi. 

Be not these two laws ancient that be as old as the conquest?  I trust they were not many.  Theo. 
For the first hundred years next the conquest, it is clear the kings of this Realm would never allow their subjects to run to Rome, nor suffer appeals to be made to the Pope without their express consent: now shall you see, what they which came after, did.  
When king Edw. the 3. revived the statute of Praemunire (made by king Edw. the 1. in the 35. year of his reign) against such as sought to Rome to provide them of benefices & other ecclesiastical promotions within this realm, enacting the same penalty for those that by process from thence impugned any judgement given in the kings courts, or brought from Rome any Bul, writing or instrument to those & other like effects; 

Polydorus Virgilius in Eduar. 3.  
The Pope would feign have prevailed against the statute of praemunire, & could not.  
Ibidem.   Gregory the 11. then Bishop of Rome, understanding thereof, was very earnest against it, (protesting) this was nothing else but to make a schism in the church of Christ, to abolish religion, to subvert right & reason, & infringe all counsels; & speedily dealt with king Edw. to abrogate this law. A schism rising not long after (in the church of Rome) there was not a Pope that had any care of this, till at length Martin the 5. wrote more vehement letters to K. H. the 6. But these two bishops of Rome received one & the same answer; which was that an act of Parliament could not be repealed without the authority of a Parliament, & that shortly one should be called to that end, which never after was performed. Yea the king that came after did not only cause that law to be kept & put in ure, but increased the terror of it with a rigorous punishment, which is, that the party so offending shall forfeit his goods & himself be condemned to perpetual imprisonment. This writer an Italian born, & a man wedded to the See of Rome, confesseth the Pope's authority was abated & restrained by the laws of this Realm, in the time of king Edward the 3. and so continued ever after; & that not only the Pope's letters were twice refused, but the sharpness of the punishment increased to strengthen the Statute that pared their power, and limited his jurisdiction within this Realm.  Phi. 
Perhaps they withstood him for temporal matters.  Theo. 
The matters were such as your own church accounteth spiritual; to wit, elections of Bishops, gifts of benefices & proceedings in other causes; tending, as the commplaint of Gregory teacheth you, 
In loco supra citato.  to the division of the church, extirpation of religion, & subversion of all counsels, which you may not think to be temporal matters. And this resistance which the Bishop of Rome so much repined at, in the days of king Edward the 3. never ceased till king Henry the 8. of famous memory banished the Pope's usurped power clean out of this Land.  Phi. 
So did none of his progenitors before him.  Theo. 
It may be they went not so far as he did; 
Polydor. in Richard. 2. anno. 1391.  but as Polydore writeth, R. Rich. the 2. went fairly towards it. In a Parliament held the 14. year of his reign the king & his princes were of opinion that it would be very good for the realm of England, if some part of the Pope's dominion were determined with the Sea (that is excluded out of this land) for that many were daily vexed for causes, which they thought could not so easily be ended at Rome. Wherefore they made a law that no man ever after should deal with the Bishops of Rome, 
No person might procure or execute any censure from Rome  that any person in England should by his authority for any cause be excommunicated, & that none should execute any such precept if it were sent him. If any man broke this law, the pain appointed was, he should lose all he had, & lie in prison during his life. And where the pope travailed by all means to overthrow the statute of provision & praemunire, the parliament held in the 13. year of Rich. the 2. for the better establishing & surer executing of the law, made it death for any man to bring or send Bul, or other process from Rome to impugn the same. These be the words: Item it is ordained & established that if any man bring or send within this realm or the king's power any summons, 
Ex Richardo 2. anno 13.  sentence or excommunication against any person of what condition that he be, for the cause of making motion, assent or execution of the said statute of Provisors (or praemunire) he shallbe taken, 

Richard the 2. made it death to bring any summons or sentence from Rome.  
Prince's may resist the pope in their Parliaments as well as Bishops in their Synods.   arrested, put in prison & forfeit all his lands & tenements, goods & catle for ever: & moreover incur the pain of life & member. So the kingdoms & commonwelths, as well as counsels: & of all others France & England have from time to time resisted your holy father in the midst of his terror & tyranny.  P. 
You show they did it: but you do not show they did well in it.  Th. 
I need not, you must show they did ill. The prince by god's ordinance beareth the sword, & not the pope; therefore the presumption lieth for the prince against the pope, till you prove the contrary: besides if bishops in a synod may lawfully resist him, why may not princes in their parliaments do the like? Thirdly since the Roman Emperors were wont to command him, what reason can you bring why christian princes should not now restrain him? And last of all, if you forget not yourself, my promise was to show, that not in the primative Church only, when there was no question of his obedience to religious princes; but in latter times, when the Bishop of Rome presumed to be Lord over all, he was controlled & resisted by those Counsels & commonwealths, which your own Church never durst reject as schismatical and heretical. 
They resisted him for the regiment of their Realm, not for the faith of christ.   Phi. 
In some things they withstood him, but not in all things as you do.  Theo. 
That shift is little worth. If resistance be lawful in part, why not in all, when just cause requireth?  Phi. 
In matters of faith they never resisted.  Theo. 
That maketh our resistance the more lawful. They withstood him for an earthly policy, we for Christ's glory; they for external discipline, we for Apostolical doctrine. Therefore if they might lawfully resist, much more may we. But my demand is, only whether you see, that as the Bishop of Rome withstood others in the regiment of the Church, so many Counsels & Countries, Princes & Prelates withstood him, as the places, which I bring, convince?  Phi. 
What if they did?  Theo. 
First did they that which I speak or no?  Phi. 
Grant they did.  Theo. 
Then your examples conclude nothing against us. For as he resisted others in causes Ecclesiastical, so did others resist him: and our examples infer against you that your own Church never obeyed that supreme power and infallible judgement, which he now claimeth, & you now yield, to flatter him with.  Phi. 
They took him for Christ's vicar and Peter's successor.  Theo. 
How they took him in latter ages, it greatly skilleth not; the learned and ancient Fathers call him Peter's successor, Christ's vicar they never call him. And grant he be Peter's successor, that importeth no supremacy.  Phi. 
Doth it not? 
Many things to be proved (which are stark false) before the supremacy will follow.   Theo. 
No marrow doth it not. You must first prove that Peter was supreme governor of all the Church: which you shall never do. Next you must prove, that this dignity was not proper to Peter's person, but common to Peter's successor, which we deny. For Peter's primacy was given him in respect of the confession which he made, not in respect of the place which he should enjoy. Lastly you must show which of Peter's chairs must have Peter's privilege; that is, why Rome rather than Antioch. These three points when you justly prove, we will say more to your vain pretences and glorious titles: in the mean time, till occasion serve to make farther trial, you may go forward with the rest of your Apology; which if it be like this, it will do your friends little good, and your foes less hurt.  Phi. 
You disgrace that which you can not disprove.  Theo. 
We need no better disproof, than the sober reading of your insolent and impertinent discourses purposely made to commend and advance yourselves and your adherentes above the skies. 
They must flatter the Pope, that live of his alms, as you do.   Phi. 
Where do we so?  Theo. 
Almost in every leaf. For example, this whole chapter is spent in flattering your holy Father, & praising his devout city. The next hath nothing else, but the commendation of yourselves & your Seminaries; as if the proclaiming of his & your virtues, were the chiefest point of his and your faith.  Phi. 
You say not well, we do not so.  Theo. 
Read the places, you shall find them full of these and such like flowers. To Rome Whatsoever is learned, 
Apolog. Cap. 2.  wise, virtuous, of all the most famous Universities, Monasteries, Societies and Celleges through the world, is recuiled as to a continual mar● of all kind of doctrine & prudence. 
Ibidem.  And again: These and such other high experiments with innumerable examples of virtue and devotion shall this Roman institution give to our Countrymen, under the famousest teachers & governors of youth in our age, or some worlds before: Who otherwise would admire their petty masters at home, the cause of all error & ignorance. Are you not liberal in praising yourselves? Belike you think with your only looks to daunt all the Divines & preachers of England, as if not a few wandering friars & craking Jesuits, but some new Cyprians, or famous Augustins were lately arrived at your Romish Seminary. But let pass your follies & come to your authorities. To what end aleage you S. Hieron?  Phi. 
S. Hierom calleth [Rome] the place of greatest faith and devotion. 

Praefat. lib. 2. in episto. ad Gal. Esa. 1.  
Nahum. 3. Rome is not that it was.    Theo. 
What then? jerusalem was first a faithful City, & yet in time became a shameless strumpet. Niniveth was spared for her true repentance, & afterward plagued for her robberies and lies. What Rome was then, doth no way prove what Rome is now. You must send us better reasons from Rome & for Rome before you shall persuade us, that there is at Rome such store of learning and virtue as you vaunt of. If Rome be changed since Hierom wrote, your conclusion halteth, though his words go right.  Phi. 
That change you must prove.  Theo. 
Alas good Sirs, begin you now to doubt whether Rome be changed? 

Rome changed.  
Mantuanus Syluarum lib. 1.   Read your own Friars, Monks and Abbots, and you shall soon be resolved in that doubt. Friar Mantuan saith shortly, but truly: 
Vivere qui sanctè cupitis, discedite Roma,  
Omnia cum liceant, non licet esse bonum.   
You that wish to live godly, depart from Rome; all things are there suffered save godliness. Matthew Paris a Monk of S. Albon, every where toucheth the virtues of the church of Rome, & saith they were known to the very miscreants. For when that soldan of Iconium desired to be baptized from Rome, 
Math. Paris in Henrico 2. sub anno 1169.  his nobles by reason of so many vices abounding at Rome, said, How can there come sweet and salt water from the same fountain? whence Christians should fet the water of righteousness, 
Idem in Henry 3. anno 1241.  there they find a poisoned puddle. And in the year of our Lord 1241 he saith: The unsatiable greediness of the Church of Rome so increased, confounding right and wrong, that without shame as a common & impudent harlot, she lay open for money to every man, counting usury for a small fault, and Simony for none.  
But no man more lively describeth the manners and dispositions of the latter Romans than Bernard Abbot of Clarevallis, 

Bernardes' report of the Romans in his time.  
Bernardus de. consideratione ad Eugenium lib. 4.   and that not privily behind their backs, but openly to their faces: forewarning Eugenius the pope what to look for at their hands: Quid tam notum seculis, quàm proteruia & fastus Romanorum? Gens insueta paci, tumultui assueta. Gens immitis & intractabilis, usque ad huc subdi nescia, nisi cum non valet resistere. Experire paucis, noverim ne & ego gentis mores. Ante omnia sapientes sunt ut faciant mala, bonum autem facere nesciunt. Impij in deum, temerarij in sancta, seditiosi in invicem, emuli in vicinos, inhumani in extraneos. Hij sunt qui subesse non sustinent, praeesse non norunt, superioribus infideles, inferioribus importabiles, invericundi ad petendum, ad negandum frontosi. Importuni ut accipiant, inquieti donec accipiant, ingrati ubi acceperint. Docuerunt linguam suam grandia loqui, cum operentur exigua, largissimi promissores, & parcissimi exhibitores, blandissimi adulatores, & mordacissimi detractores, simplicissimi dissimulatores, & malignissimi proditores. What hath been so famous for many years, 
What examples of virtue & devotion the Roman institution hath given.  as the frowardness and haughtiness of the Romans? A nation not acquainted with peace, accustomed to tumults. A nation fierce & intractable, to this day not able to be ruled, but when it cannot resist. Listen a while whether I know the manners of that people or no. [The Romans] are wise to do evil, good they know not how to do. Irreligious toward God, presumptuous against holy things, seditious among themselves, envious to their neighbours, uncourteous to strangers. They will neither obey, nor can tell how to rule; unfaithful to their superiors, untolerable to their inferiors: shameless to ask, & bold to deny. Importune to have, unquiet till they have, & unthankful when they have: great speakers & little doers. 
If we should say as Bernard doth I deem you would be angry.  Most liberal to promise, most loath to perform: most sweet to flatter, most bitter to backbite; most curious dissemblers, most mischievous traitors. Lupi sunt, etc. They be wolves, not sheep: of such art thou shepherd: If I durst speak all, they be rather pastures of devils than sheep.  Phi. 
If this be true, they be changed in deed.  Theo. 
The truth thereof you may not well doubt, unless you will now return him for a liar, whom Alexander the 3. 400. years since did canonize for a saint: but will you stand to his judgement whose name you pretend?  Phi. 
What else?  Theo. 
Then gain you little for the commendation of Rome. 

S. hierom's report of the madness of Rome.  
Hieron. praefat. lib. 2. in Episto. ad Gala●as. Idem in Esaiae Cap. 2.  
Idem ad Princip. Mar●elle Epitaph. Idem adversus I●●ianum li. 2. Idem praefat. in lib. Dydimi despiri●● sancto.   For Hierom doth attribute no more to the Romans than Paul doth to the Jews, which is to be naturally zealous. And this as in true religion we count it praise worthy, so when error prevaileth nothing is more pestilent. Again, this one virtue of theirs is by & by requited in the very same place with two shrewd vices. Rursus facilitatis & superbiae arguuntur. Paul noteth the Romans, saith he, to be proud of nature, & easily seduced. What else he found in them, & what he thought of them, you shall soon perceive, if you list to believe him. Narrant historiae tam gracae quamlatinae, nihil judaeorum & Romanorum gente esse avarius. The stories both greek & Latin confess, none to be more covetous than the jews & the Romans. Difficile est in maledica civitate non aliquam sinistri rumoris fabulam contrahere. It is an hard matter in this slanderous city [of Rome] to be free from ill tongues. Nullane fuit alia in toto orb provincia, quae reciperet praeconium voluptatis, nisi quam Petri doctrina super Petranfundaverat Christum? Was there never an other place in all the world to receive this voluptuous doctrine, but that which Peter's preaching had built on the rock christ? Cum babilone versarer, & purpuratae meretricis esse colonus & iure Quiritum viveren, ecce olla illa, quae in Hieremia cernitur, a fancy Aquilonis cepit ardere, & Pharisaeorum conclamavit Senatus, & omnis quasi indicto sibi praelio doctrinarum adversum me imperitiae faction coniuravit. Whiles I stayed at Babylon, & was an inhabitant of that purple whore, & lived amongst the Romans, behold the pot which was seen in Hieremie from the North began to seethe, & the Senate of Pharisees made an uproar, & the whole faction of rude & ignorant, as it were in defiance of learning, conspired against me. He that saith the Romans be zealous, addeth also that they be covetous, envious luxurious & proud pharises. Lay your one virtue to these four vices which Hierom saw growing, and bernard found ripe at Rome, 

Cyprian and Augustine forced by the Jesuits to make for Rome.  
Cypri. epist. 55. vel li. 1. epist. 3.   and tell us what you get by this account.  
With as great discretion you cite the words of S. August. & S. Cyprian for the praise of the see of Rome, drawing S. Augustins' words from their true meaning, & corrupting in Cyprian both the saying & the sense. For S. Aug. saith, Heretics bark in vain, at the church, not of Rome, but of Christ. And Cyprian meaneth himself, not that bishop of Rome, when he saith: Ob hoc ecclesiae praepositu persequitur, ut gubernatore sublato atrocius atque violentius circa ecclesiae naufragia grassetur. The adversary for this cause pursueth the bishop of the church, that the governor being made out of the way, the shipwreck of the church may follow with the greater mischief & violence. Other words in the epistle which you quote there be none: & these differ much from the words which you allege. 
Apolog. Cap. 1.  They bawl against the Pastor, the sooner to seize upon the flock, as Cyprian speaketh. And so with three maimed and miswrested authorities you close up the looseness of your second chapter.  Phi. 
S. Aug. surely meaneth the see of Rome when he saith, 

August. de utilitate Credendi Cap. 17.  
From the Apostles See, is from the time the Apostles sat or taught in the church.   Quae ab Apostolica sedeper successiones Episcoporum frustra circumlatrantibus haerelicis culmen autoritatis obtinuit: Which from the Apostolic See, by successions of bishops, (heretics barking round about in vain,) hath obtained the highest authority.  Theo. 
Mean what you will by apostolic See: the word (frustra haereticis circumlatrantibus, heretics barking on every side in vain) must be referred either to the chiefest, or else to the nearest substantive in the sentence, & Sedes apostolica is neither. The chiefest substantive is the [catholic] church; the nearest is, the successions of bishops on one side, the height of authority on the other side. 
August. de utilitate credendi Cap. 17.  For thus saith Aust. Shall we doubt to commit ourselves to the bosom of that [catholic] church, which by the confession of all men, from the Apostles seat [or time] by [many] successions of bishops, heretics barking on every side in vain, hath gotten the chiefest credit or authority? By this assertion heretics did bark in vain either at the catholic church itself, or at the successions of bishops, or at the credit & authority which the Church of Christ had by the confession of all men. But that they did bark in vain at the see of Rome, I find no such thing in these words of Aust.  Phi. 
The church received her authority from the Apostolic See, which is Rome.  Theo. 
The phrase ab ipsa Petri sede, from Peter's seat, which is usual in S. Aust. & more effectual than this, doth not signify from Rome, but from Peter's seat. As Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede. Number the priests (not from Rome, 
August. in Psalmo contrae partem Donati.  but) from Peter's seat; that is, from Peter's time. And again, Tenet me ab ipsa Petri sede successio sacerdotum: The succession of priests from Peter's time stayeth me in the church. And likewise in this place, Ab apostolica sede, 
Idem contrae epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti, Cap. 4. From, not in the Apostles seat.  from the apostles seat, is, ever since the apostle sat: & that the words following confirm. For in Rome you can reckon but one succession of bishops: & Austen saith, Ab apostolica sede per successiones Episcoporum, by many successions of bishops even from the apostles time. So that neither the words which you allege, should be referred to Sedes Apostolica, the apostolic seat, nor if they were doth the phrase infer that the church had all her credit from Rome, but y● by the confession of all men, the [catholic] Church had been in greatest credit ever since the time that Peter sat, through the successions of [her] bishops, heretics barking [against her] in vain.  Phi. 
You said there was nothing in our second chapter worth answering: it hath cost you more pains than you thought.  Theo. 
Your general & dissolute discourses I told you were to little purpose. For grant that some godly men resorted to Rome, whiles the bishop there was equal with his brethren & obedient to the magistrate, which is all that you prove; what doth this help you, to conclude that you may now run to Rome, the Pope claiming and usurping a new found power repugnant to the scriptures, injurious to the Church of Christ, and pernicious to the Prince, whom God hath anointed over you.  Phi. 


In our days the Pope claimeth a new found power over the church and Prince.  
Apolog. Cap. 2.   The Pope claimeth no such power as you speak of.  Theo. 
What power he claimeth & useth over princes, is too well known for you to deny. The world hath had long experience of it, this Realm hath had late. What authority he challengeth over the Church of Christ, if he did keep secret, you do not. You make him the rock of refuge in doubtful days & doctrines, the chief pastor & Bishop of your souls in earth. The vicar general of Christ: and he that taketh these titles to himself without allowance from God, is an enemy to Christ, & oppresseth his Church.  Phi. 
God hath allowed the Bishop of Rome that power which he claimeth.  Theo. 
That if you could prove, the matter were answered; & that till you do prove, your popular persuasions are, as I said, but lip-labour, and no way concern the cause.  Phi. 
That is & shall be proved.  Theo. 
Never feed us with shales, you never were, nor ever shall be able to prove it.  Phi. 
Suspend your judgement till you see the end.  Theo. 
I am content to hear all, marry in the mean time you may not presume that which is but lightly touched by you, to be clearly proved.  Phi. 
We will not.  Theo. 
By that which you have done I guess what you will do. We have discussed two chapters of your Apology: where we found nothing but words. And therefore unless you draw to some matter, I see no reason why I should stand refelling your phrases.  Phi. 
The third chapter goeth nearer.  Theo. 

The intent of the Pope's Seminaries.  In your third chapter what shall we find?  Phi. 
The meaning & purpose why both our Seminaries were erected.  Theo. 
Your own purposes you can best tell.  Phi. 
First to draw divers youth who for their conscience lived in the low Countries, from sole, several & voluntary study, to a more exact method & course of common conference & public exercise to be pursued by their superiors appointment rather than their own choice. Secondly doubting the time of our chastisement might be so long as to wear out either by age, imprisonment, or other miseries, the elder sort of the learned Catholics both at home and abroad, it was thought a necessary duty for th● posterity to provide for a perpetual seed & supply of Catholics, namely of the Clergy. Thirdly their purpose was, to draw unto this College the best wits out of England, that were either catholicly bent, or desirous of more exact education than is in these days in either of the universities (where through the delicacy of that sect, there is no Art holy or profane thoroughly studied, & some not touched at all) or that had scruple of conscience to take the oath of the Queen's supremacy in causes ecclesiastical, or that misliked to be forced to the ministery, as the use is in divers Colleges: a calling contemptible even in their own conceit, & very damnable in the judgement of others, or that were doubtful whether of the two religions were true, which hath driven divers over to their great satisfaction, & admiration of the evidence of our part. These were the chief respects that led his holiness to found our two Seminaries, the fruits whereof we have seen to our great comfort.  Theo. 
And this I see, you keep your old wont. You affirm what you list upon your own credit; & disdaining your adversaries as profane & unlearned, you commend yourselves for the only minions of the world: set this aside, and what one thing is there in your third chapter worth the speaking to.  Phi. 
You mislike that Seminaries were appointed for English Students beyond the seas. We now prove the first erection of them to be needful & healthful for this realm.  Theo. 
Sir, your liege Lady misliked and had good cause so to do, that her subjects were ●locked from her & encouraged against her by your practices & promises, & that her open and sworn enemy kept them in coverts, which you call Seminaries, and trained them up at his charges to be fit instruments for his secret devices and purposes. Of this you speak not a word, but arrogantly defacing both Universities with looseness of life & slackness of study, you come in with your exact education, & holy conversation, as if the report of your own virtues from your own mouths were enough to avoid and prevent all objections.  Phi. 
That answer might serve, where nothing was proved, but only surmised against us.  Theo. 
You forget that a Prince did object it, to whom you were bound with all reverence and duty to make your full and sufficient answer.  Phi. 
So have we done.  Theo. 
Marry that you have in deed.  
The things misliked were these. 
What things were misliked in the Seminaries.  First, that by your means young boys were provoked and alured to forsake their parents, unstable wits their Studies, subjects their Prince without ask leave, no tyranny nor torment inflicted or offered to cause them to fly. Next, that your seminaries, as well for their direction as provision, do wholly depend on his pleasure & favour, that hath ever since the beginning professed & showed himself a mortal enemy to your sovereign; deposing her Person, invading her land, and pulling her subjects from her obedience. Thirdly, that your teachers & learners in either of your colleges, do not only nourish this traitorous position in their own breasts, that her highness neither is, nor aught to be taken for lawful Queen of England longer than the Pope shall permit: but also labour to poison her people with that devilish persuasion, under colour of religion. These points your Patron cunningly skippeth, and falleth to the commending and preferring the manners, orders, & virtues of your two Colleges before our two universities, which comparison is neither seemly to be published, nor easy to be credited.  Phi. 
Concerning his holiness intentions, 
Apolog. cap. 3.  if they be any other in the institution & entertainment of those Seminaries, than ours are, they by unknown to us, none being so presumptuous to search further into his secrets than standeth with his good pleasure & wisdom to utter of himself, nor any having just cause to deem worse or otherwise of his doings, than is agreeable to his high calling, approved good affection to our Country, his great virtue, and the evidence of the thing.  Theo. 

The Jesuits know not the Pope's intention, and yet they take part with him against their Prince.  In truth we seek for your founder's intentions, not for yours: and therefore this only sentence in all your third chapter maketh toward the matter in question, which you conclude with an ignoramus, protesting his holiness intentions to be unknown to you.  Phi. 
verily so are they.  Theo. 
You may wink at noon days & say you see nothing: yet this you know, that subjects should not leave their prince upon every dislike and flee the Country, much less link and join themselves with the Prince's foes: lest of all take the crown from the Prince's head, at the Pope's beck. His secrets though you search not, these doings you may soon discern.  Phi. 
We be far from any such dealings.  Theo. 
As far as water from the Thames.  
Do none flee the realm to come to your Seminaries?  Phi. 
They may flee that be persecuted.  Theo. 
Doth the prince persecute children in Grammar schools?  Phi. 

Apol. Cap. 3. jesuits drawers of children from their Parents, and subjects from their Prince. Apolog. Cap. 3.  That in conscience were too much.  Theo. 
Yet you confess, Grammar scholars from all parts of the realm have yielded you many youths, & many (gentlemen's sons specially) adventure over to you without their parents consent, and sometimes much against their wills. And think you this lawful to entice children from their parents, & subjects from their Prince, to be infected by you before they can judge of you?  Phi. 
We do not entice them to come, but instruct them when they come.  Theo. 
Remember you not, your third purpose was to draw into these Colleges the best wits out of England? So that your own words convince you to be drawers, which is all one with enticers of boys from their schools, of children from their parents, and this I win, you can hardly defend to be Catholic. Besides, your purpose was to draw (for this is your term) those that were desirous of exact education, 
Apolog. Cap. 3.  or had scruple of conscience to take the oath of the Queen's supremacy, or that misliked to be forced to the ministery, or that were doubtful whether of the two religions were true. So that your Seminaries be not only receipts for such as be lightly touched by the laws of this Realm, but harbours for all that be desirous, scrupulous, dislykers or doubters: that is in effect, baits for all men's appetites, & marts for all men's purposes, that be any way grieved with the State, or affect novelties.  

What is it to be the slaves of men if this be not? Campion in his 2. article.  Next that you be fed and clothed at the Pope's expenses, and in such thraldom to the Pope's agent, your superior as you call him, that you will and must accept his voice, as a warrant from heaven and an oracle of Christ, since you proclaim it, we need not prove it. And this is to be right of the Pope's fold and family, whose hatred and hostility to the Prince and this Realm how deadly and daily it hath been and is, England, Ireland, yea Rome itself can witness; and if you would dissemble never so deeply, you neither are nor can be ignorant.  

Campion & Parsons did ask leave of the Pope to agnise her majesty for lawful Queen, until the Bull might be put in execution: Or if these be not sufficient, the late defence will serve for all. In his 40. motive.  Lastly what you think and teach of her majesties right to the Crown since Pius the fift gave forth his Bull to deprive her of the same, if Sanders monarchy, Bristoes' motives, Campions & Parson's dispensation did not fully convince, the answer of your fellows upon their examinations & at their araignements, your refusal to speak when you be required, and ambiguous manner of speaking when you be thereto pressed, do plainly show you that you think that which you dare not utter, & teach more than you would have known. Or if that which is passed be not proof enough, for your better discharge let us have your answer at this present: Is her Majesty right and lawful Queen of this Realm notwithstanding the Pope did or do depose her?  Phi. 
You now digress from our purpose.  Theo. 
Then belike obedience to the magistrate doth not stand with your purpose.  Phi. 
Your question is very dangerous.  Theo. 
No danger at all if you be good subjects.  Phi. 
As good subjects as you for your lives.  Theo. 
And, as Bristol saith, better; save that cracks be common with Jesuits. But this is a shrewd sign of an ill subject, to refuse to confess your rightful Prince.  Phi. 
We be not judges between the Pope and the Queen.  Theo. 
So said Campion at the king's bench, but till you make us some director answer, give us leave to take your seminaries, if not for schools of treason, yet at least for nurseries of disobedience. Your opinion in this point if it be good, why do you not confess it? If it be nought, why do you not revoke it? Your Apology should have either defied it as no part of your meaning, 
And that your defence of English Catholics expressly doth.  or else defended it as honest and lawful. You do neither in this place; but flattering the Pope you believe it, and fearing the Prince you conceal it. And lest your dissembling should be suspected, you fill this chapter with needless vagaries, from yourselves to your adversaries, from doctrine to manners, from England to Scotland, avouching what you list, defaming whom you can, presuming all that you dream to be true without care, without cause; without shame, without sense.  Phi. 
You rail Theophilus. 
Apol. Cap. 3.   Theo. 
And what do you Philander; when you say, The fruits of the Protestants doctrine, their profane life and manners, their restless contentions, debates, and dissensions among themselves, their scandals more in those few days of their felicity, than was given of the true Clergy in a thousand years before, though all the adversaries slanderous reports of them were Gospel, as many of them be more false than Esop's Fables. 
apollo. chap. 3.  And again of Scotland you say, The Caluinists' horrible infamous murdering of his highness father, and more than barbarous villainy and misuse of his dearest mother whiles she was among them, & the sundry detestable treasons contrived against his Royal person when he was yet in his mother's womb, as often since, as well otherwise by wont treacheries, as by infecting his tender age both with their damnable heresy, and with ill affection towards his dearest parents. What call you this, if it be not railing? What libel could be more lewd and infamous than this? Happy men are you that may thus disdain, reproach, bely and revile others and not be counted railers.  
Touching our lives, we will say little, we refer the judgement thereof to such as be sober; neither do we deny, but that among so great a number as this realm yieldeth, it is easy to find some that serve not God but their bellies, and seek not Christ but their own. And yet I see no cause why you should overlash so much in excusing yourselves and accusing others, as if our scandals (so it pleaseth you to speak) were more in these few days, 
Experiments of Popes and their clergy out of the reports of their own friends.  than yours in a thousand years before. For if those things be true, which not our favourers, but your own fellows have reported & lamented in no worse than the fountains of your faith, and heads of your Church; I will not say the refues of England, but even the Priests of Baal and Bacchus, were Saints in comparison of so lewd and intolerable monsters.  
Stephanus the sixth, 

Martin. Polo. in an. 898.907. Platina in Stepha. 6. & Sergio 3.  
Luitpr and▪ Ticinensis li 6. ca 6. & 7.   and Sergius the third pulled Formosus their predecessor out of his grave, the one cutting off his fingers, the other his head, and cast his carcase into Tibris. john the twelfth gave orders in a stable amongst his horses, abused his father's concubine, made his palace a stues, put out his Ghostly father's eyes, gelded one of his Cardinals, ran about in arms to set houses on fire, drank to the devil, and at dise called for help of jupiter and Venus.  

Martin. Polon. in anno 986. Platina in Bonifacio 7. Platina in Syluestro 2.  Boniface the seventh getting the Popedom by ill means, rob Saint Peter's church of all the jewels & precious things he could find, & ran his ways; & returning not long after, caught one of his Cardinals & put out his eyes.  
Sylvester the second, leaving his Monastery, betook himself wholly to the devil, by whose help he gate to be Pope; on this condition, that after his death he should be the devils both body and soul. Benedict the ninth sold his Popedom to Gregory the sixth, 
Platina in Benedicto 9  and was therefore worthily blamed of all men, and by God's judgement condemned. For it is certain that after his death he appeared in an ugly shape, 
Martin. Polon. in anno 1042.  (with the head and tail of an ass, & the body of a bear) and being asked what that horrible sight meant, because, saith he, whiles I was Pope, I lived like a beast, without law, without reason, defiling the Chair of Peter with all kind of lewdness.  

Beno Cardinalis de vita & gestis Hildebrand.  Of Gregory the seventh and his adherents Beno the cardinal writeth thus: Let these hypocrites hold their peace, that have disgraced & almost drowned the name of blessed Peter, by cloaking the flames of their malice, under a colour of Catholicism & pretence of justice. Let these false prophets be astonished that are courteous in show, scorpions in sting, wolves under lambs skins, killing the bodies & devouring the souls of men with the sword of their mouth, whose religion savoureth nothing but of traiterousnes and covetousness, entering the houses of widows, they lead women captives that be laden with sins; and by reason of our troublesome times give ear to spirits of error and doctrines of devils, which Hildebrand their captain learned of his masters Benedict the ninth, and Gregory the sixth.  

Abbas urspergensis in anno 1228.  Gregory the ninth, as Vrspergensis complaineth, taking occasion by the emperors absence (that was fight against the Turk,) sent a great army into Apulia, and invaded & subdued the emperors dominions being then in the service of Christ; a fact most heinous: and did his best both in Apulia and Lombardy to hinder such as were going that voyage from passing the Sea (seeking thereby to betray the Christian Emperor & his army to the Turk: 
Ibidem. ) Yea the men of Verona & Milan would suffer none to pass by their coasts, spoiling the very soldiers that were sent to fight against the Turk, and that by the commandment of the Pope as they affirmed: which alas is horrible to be spoken. Who rightly considering, will not lament and detest these things, as portending and foreshowing the ruin of the Church?  

Math. Paris in anno 1213.  matthew Paris giveth Innocentius the 3. this commendation. King john, saith he, knew and by often experience had tried, that the Pope above all mortal men was ambitious and proud, an unsatiable thirster after money, and easy to be drawn and induced to all wickedness by gifts or promises.  
Sixtus the fourth, made his playfelow Cardinal, who was wont to wear cloth of gold at home in his house, 

Baptist. fulgo. lib. 9  
Agrippa de Le●●●inio & orat. ad Lou●nienses.   to ease nature in stools of silver, and to deck his harlot Tiresia with shoes covered with pearl: as Agrippa reporteth, he built a sumptuous stews in Rome, appointing it to be both masculine and feminine, and making a gain of that beastly trade: As Vuesselus Gronnigensis saith, he gave the whole family of the Cardinal of S. Luce, 
Vuesselu● Gronnigensis tract. de Indulgen●ijs.  free leave in june, julie, & August, to use that which nature abhorreth, & God in Sodom revenged with fire and brimstone. One of your own side perceiving the loathsomeness of his life, maketh the devil give him this entertainment in hell: 
At tu implume caput, cui tanta licentia quondam, 
Baptist. Mant. Alphon. lib. 4.   
Femineos fuit in coitus; tua furta putabas  
Hic quoque praetextu mitrae impunita relinqui?  
Sic meruit tua faeda venus, sic prodigia in omnem  
Nequitiam, ad virtutis opus tua avara libido.   
But thou, thou bald pate, which hast so licentiously defiled thyself with women, didst thou think thy secret sins by reason of thy mitre should here go unpunished? Receive the reward of thy filthy pastimes, so hath thine outrageous lust to all lewdness, and void of all goodness, deserved.  
It is too shameful that johannes jovianus Pontanus writeth of Lucretia the daughter of Alexander the sixth. 
Pontan. tumulorum lib. 2. in tumulo Lucretiae Alexan. 6. filiae.  
Hoc tumulo dormit Lucretia nomine, sedre  
Thais, Alexandri filia, sponsa, nurus.   
Here lieth Lucretia in name, in deed a shameless whore; the daughter of [Pope] Alexander, her fathers & brother's harlot. The fact so horrible, that it were not credible, 
Acti Sannazar. epigram. lib. 1. & 2.  if others did not confirm the same.  
I will trouble chaste ears no longer with this unsavoury repetition. These disorders of Popes if you weigh them well be more than scandalous, & give you small cause to vaunt of your virtues.  Phi. 
These be the things that we told you, were more false than Esop's fables.  Theo. 
It were reason you should prove them false, before you reject them as fables: men of your own sect and side laying them down for truths in their writings, you may not now take upon you to pronounce them fables, lest your credit be called in question, & yourselves reputed to be worse than liars. These things, be they true, be they false, we report them as we find them in your own stories; not your adversaries but your well-willers were the first authors of them. And unless we see some surer ground than your bare denial, we may better charge you with open flattery, than you may them with wilful forgery.  Phi. 
The number is not great though the matters were true.  Theo. 
The rest of their outrages if I would reckon; namely their schisms, contentions & tumults for the Popedom, their ambition, presumption, oppression; bribery, perjury, tyranny; pride, craft, hypocrisy; to conclude their garboils, battles and bloodshed; an whole volume would not suffice.  
And where you make your Clergy so free from scandals, hear what men of former times and of your own side have spoken and written of your Bishops, Priests, Monks and others. Bernard of his age. 
* Bernard. supra Cant. serm. 33. The Jesuits promise high experiments of their Roman institution; the patterns whereof if any man will see, let him ●ead these complaints of their own fellows.  Behold, saith he, these times very much defiled with the work that walketh in darkness. Woe be to this generation because of the leaven of Pharisees, which is hypocrisy; If it may be called hypocrisy, which is now so rife, that it can not; and so shameless, that it seeketh not to be kept secret. A rotten contagion creepeth at this day through the whole body of the Church, the wider the desperater; the more inward, the more deadly. All friends, & all enemies: all familiar; & none peacemakers; they be the ministers of Christ, & serve Antichrist. Thence is it, as thou mayst daily see, that they be trimmed like whores, attired like players, served like Princes. Thence is it, that they wear gold in their bridles, saddles & spurs; yea their spurs shine brighter, than the Altars: thence are their banquets & drunkenness; thence their music & instruments; thence their wine presses running over, & stoarehouses stuffed with all variety; thence their barrels of ointments to paint themselves; thence their bags & bugets full. For these things are they, & seek they to be rulers of churches, Deans, Archdeacon's, Bishops, Archbishops. The wound of the Church is inward & incurable. Rest from infidels, rest from heretics, but not from children. They have despised & defiled [her] with their filthy life, with their filthy gain, with their filthy trade. 
Sermo. ad Clerum in council. Rh●mensi congregatum inter opera Bernardi.  Ye be called Pastors, when in deed ye be spoilers, and would God the milk & fleece did suffice ye, ye thirst for blood. The Archpriest visiteth his charge to fill his purse; he betrayeth innocent blood, he selleth murders, adultries, incests, fornications, sacrileges, perjuries, & filleth his pouch to the brim. And as for the ornament of chastity, how keep they that, which being delivered into a reprobate sense, do that which is not fit? It is a shame to name those things, which the bishops do in secret. But why should I be ashamed to speak that, which they are not ashamed to do? Yea the Apostle is not ashamed to write, men upon men work filthiness, receiving the reward of their error. With the patrimony of the cross of Christ you feed whores in your chambers, 
Idem sermo. ad pastors in Synodo congregatos.  you fat your flesh, you furnish your horses with pectorals & headstals of gold. For this you claw Princes and Powers of darkness, both men and devils. He that list to read more of your scandals, may in that place whence this is taken, have enough.  

Albert. in joh. Cap. 10.  Albertus Magnus of his time giveth this testimony: Those which now rule in the Church, be for the most part thieves & murderers, rather oppressors than feeders, rather spoilers than tutors, rather killers than keepers, rather perverters than teachers, rather seducers than leaders. These be the messengers of Antichrist, and underminers of the flock of Christ.  

Opusculi tripartiti part 3. Cap. 7. reperitur in tomo conciliorum 2.  The tripartite work that standeth next to the Council of Lateran under Innocentius the 3. long since complained of your Clergy in this sort: So great is the notorious uncleanness of lechery in many parts of the world, not in clerks only, but in Priests also, & that (which is horrible to hear) in the prelate's themselves. Again, they spend the goods of the Church so badly, in vanities, superfluities, setting up & advancing their kinsmen, and in many other riots & sins; yea there is such a number, & those no small ones, that do no good in the church, but spend their days in pleasures by reason of the wealth of the church, that it is much to be feared, lest God for these & other heinous offences [of the clergy] passing great, very many, & now inveterate; do overthrow, or cause the ecclesiastical state to be overthrown, as it came to pass in the jews first exalted by God, and after destroyed for ever.  
Holcot 20. years since. The Priests of our age, saith he, be like the Priests of Baal: 

Holcot in lib. Sapientiae lectio. 182.  
Platina in vita Marcellini.   they are wicked Angels: they resemble the Priests of Dagon: they are Priests of Priapus and Angels of hell.  
And lest you should dream that nearer our time your Clergy began to be better reform, Platina saith, What shall we think will become of our age, wherein our vices are grown to that height, that they scant have left us place with God for mercy? How great the covetousness of priests is, & especially of the rulers among them, how great their lechery of all sorts, how great their ambition & pomp, how great their pride & sloth, how gross their ignorance both of themselves & of christian doctrine, how small their devotion, & that rather feigned than true, how corrupt their manners, I need not speak.  
Friar Mantuan not long after him, 
Mantua. Calaemitatum lib. 3.  in that point agreeth with him. 
Petrique domus polluta fluenti  
Marcescit luxu, nulla hic arcana revelo,  
Non ignota loquor: liceat vulgata refer.  
Sic urbes populique ferunt, ea fama per omnem  
jam vetus Europam mores extirpat honest●s.  
Sanctus ager scurris, venerabilis ara Cynedis  
Seruit, honorandae diuum Ganimedibus edes.  
Quid miramur opes recidivaque surgere tecta?  
Venalia nobis  
Templa, sacerdotes, altaria, sacra, coronae,  
Ignes, thura, preces, celum est venale deusque.   
The house of Peter defiled with excessive riot is quite decayed; I reveal here no secrets, neither speak I things unknown: I may utter that which is in every man's mouth. Cities & Countries talk of it, & the very bruit thereof scattered long since over all Europe hath quenched all care of virtue. The church lands are given to common jesters: the sacred altar allotted to wantoness: the temples of saints to boys provided for filthy lust. Why wonder we to see wealth flow, and houses that were fallen to be stately built? We sell temples, Priests, Altars, sacrifices, garlands, fire, frankincense, prayers, we sell heaven and God himself. Of your Priests he saith, 
Ibidem.  
Inuisi superis faedaque libidine olentes  
Heu frustra incestis iterant sacra orgia dextris.  
Irritant, irasque movent, non numina flectunt.  
Nil adiutoribus istis  
Auxilij sperate, novis date templa ministris;  
Sacrilegum genus ex adytis templisque Deorum  
Pellite, nec longos scelera haec vertantur in usus.   
Hateful to heaven, & loathsome with unclean lust, alas in vain attempt they sacred rites with incestuous hands. They rather kindle and provoke God, than appease him: never hope for help as long as such pray for you: give the Churches to new ministers, and chase this sacrilegious generation from the divine places; neither let their heinous sins grow to a custom. By him we may learn what fruits to look for of your Romish Seminary. 
Mantuan. ec●oga 5.  
Heu Romae nunc sola pecunia regnat,  
Exilium virtus patitur.  

* Idem factorum lib. 2. de carnisprivij consuetud.  Vrbs est iam tota lupanar.  

* Idem Syluarum, lib. 1.  Roma quid insanis toties? quid sanguine gauds?  
Quid geris imbelli spicula tanta manu?  
Si foris arma tacent, tu bella domestica tentas,  
Nec feritas requiem far superba potest.  
Tu fratres in bella vocas, in pignora patres,  
Et scelus omne audes, & paris omne nefas.  
Fas & iura negas, homines & numina fallis,  
Nec iovis imperium, nec Phlegethonta times.   
Alas at Rome now nothing but money doth reign, virtue is quite banished: the whole City is a stews. Rome why art thou so often mad? why delightest thou in blood? Why with weak hands dost thou assay so mighty weapons? If peace be abroad, thou makest war at home; neither can thy fierce pride away with rest. Thou settest brother against brother, father against son, thou venterest on all mischief & hatchest all villainy: thou regardest neither right nor law: thou beguilest both God & man: thou fearest neither heaven nor hell.  

aventinus annalium Bolorum lib. 6. praefat.  aventinus a man likewise of your side and not long since alive complaineth not without cause. Since [the Bishop of Rome] hath so great power, why doth he not use it? since the harvest is so great, why doth he not reap? why doth he not feed when he seethe so many sheep die for hunger? Why doth he set over the flock, goats, wolves, libidinous, adulterous persons, abusers of virgins and Nuns, cooks, Mulettors, thieves, banckers, usurers drones, hunters after gain, luxurious, perfidious, forsworn, ignorant asses? I speak not by hearsay; I writ that I see with these eyes. Why doth he commit sheep to wolves? why doth he suffer his flock to be in subjection to most pernicious hypocrites, providing only for their own bellies? nay why doth he let boys & wantoness rule his lambs? I am ashamed to say what manner of Bishops we have. With the revenues of the poor they feed hounds, horses; I need not say whores; they quaff, they make love, & flee all learning as infection. Such is the misery of these times, we may not speak that we think, nor think that we speak. As for the sheep committed to their charge; to sheer them, strip them, and kill them, as every man list, under a pretence of devotion, is now an ancient custom.  
If one witness be not sufficient, you shall have more, & those of your not our religion, to confess the same. Palingenius an Italian suppliant to the Church of Rome describeth at large the monstruous corruption of your Roman Clergy. 
Marcel. Palin. Zodiaci vitae lib. 5. in Leone.  
Sed tua praecipue non intret limina quisquam  
Frater vel Monachus, vel quavis lege sacerdos.  
Hos fuge, pestis enim nulla hac immanior. Hi sunt  
Faex hominum, fons stultitiae, sentina malorum.  
Agnorum sub pelle lupi, mercede colentes,  
Non p●etate Deum: falsa sub imagine recti  
Decipiunt stolidos, ac relligionis in umbra,  
mill actus vetitos, & mill piacula condunt.  
Raptores, moechi, puerorum corruptores  
Luxuriae atque gulae famuli celestia vendunt.  
Hos impostores igitur, vulpesque dolosas  
Pelle procul.  
Mystae vafrique cuculli 
Idem lib. 6. in Virgin.   
Quos castos decet esse, palam cum pellicibus vel  
Furtim cum pueris, matronis, virginibusque  
Nocte dieque subant: sunt qui consanguiniarum  
Inguinibus gaudent: ineunt pecudes quoque multi:  
Prô pudor, hos tolerare potest ecclesia porcos 
Idem lib. 9 in Sagittario.   
Duntaxat ventri, veneri somnoque vacantes?   
Let no Friar, Monk or any Priest come within thy doors. Take heed of them; no greater mischief. These are the dregs of men, the fountains of folly, the sinks of sin, wolves under lambs skins, saruing God for reward, not devotion; deceiving the simple with a false show of honesty; and under the shadow of religion hiding a thousand unlawful acts, a thousand heinous offences: committers of rapes, fornicators, abusers of boys, slaves of gluttony and luxury, they sell heavenly things. These impostors & crafty foxes chase far from thee. The Priests and Monks that should be chaste, spend night and day either openly with whores or closely with boys, matrons and maids. Some spare neither blood, nor beast. O shame! Can the Church endure such hogs given only to feed their bellies, satisfy their lusts, and take their ease?  
Cornelius one of the bishops that were present at your late council of Trent in the midst of your assembly doth acknowledge that to be true which aventinus and Palingenius before complained of. 
Oratio Cornelij Epi. Bitonti. 3. Dominica advent. in council. Triden habits.  With what monsters of filthiness, saith he, with what canel of uncleanness, with what pestiferous contagion are not both people and priests defiled and corrupted in the holy church of God? I make yourselves judges, and begin at the sanctuary of God; if there were any shamefastness, any chastity, any hope or help of honest conversation left: if there were not lust unbridled and untamed, singular boldness, and incredible wickedness. For those two bloodsuckers, which always cry bring, bring; one the mother, the other the nurse of all evil; I mean covetousness & ambition, either a secret and subtle mischief, poison, plague, and monster of the world (whiles learning and virtue are despised, and in their places ignorance & vice highly advanced by those whom we should take for quick and living laws) have brought to pass that edification is changed to destruction, examples to offences, custom to corruption, regard of laws to contempt thereof, 
Experiments confessed in the late Councils of Trent.  severity to slackness, mercy to impunity, piety to hypocrisy, preaching to contention, solemn days to filthy Mar●es, and that which is most unhappy, the savour of life to the savour of death. Would god they were not fallen with one consent from religion to superstition, from faith to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist, yea from God to Epicurism, saying with their wicked hearts and shameless faces, there is no God. The Turks proud with the victories, and rich with the spoils that they have gotten from Christians; grew not by their own strength, but by our corrupt manners; they were not so much enemies, as scourges from God; their weapons assaulted us, but our sins prevailed against us; they showed their fierceness, we suffered for our iniquities. And would God we alone had suffered, & that the sacred & admirable name of Christ jesus had not been a jest & fable among the faithless jews and Gentiles by reason of us, whose slothfulness & wickedness is bruited over all the world with a most shameful report.  Phi. 
You need not reproach us so bitterly, yourselves be not free from all faults.  Theo. 
I never said we were. I know these be the later times, when iniquity shall abound, 
Mat. 24. 2. Tim. 3.  and the charity of many wax cold, yea when men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, cursed speakers, ungrateful, unholy, unkind, unfaithful slanderers, intemperate, fierce, heady, high minded, preferring their pleasures before God, as the holy Ghost foretold us they should. Of this soil many no doubt on either side, yours and ours, have a taste at this day: but in unshamefastness you pass all others; that the wide world crying shame on the manifold corruption of your clergy & that City, you only step forth without any blushing to deny that which your nearest friends have confessed, 
apollo. chap. 2.  & with insolent words to promise this land high experiments & innumerable examples of virtue & devotion, as if that sink of sin were lately become a fountain of grace, or the famous whore of Babylon newly changed into chaste jerusalem.  

The main drift of their Apology was to flatter the Pope, to magnify themselves, and to dissemble their wickedness against the Prince with colourable pretences and speeches, which they have fully performed.  But you must be borne with; your purpose was to lift & extol Gregory the 13. above the skies, thereby to kindle his love and devotion towards your Colleges, as very zealous for his highness & holiness, which you could not well do but by dejecting and disgracing those that utterly refused him, as lewd & light persons. And this maketh you so falsely without all truth, so boldly without all shame, so desperately without all fear to bely both England & Scotland, as if our disorders in twenty years were more than yours in a thousand: and the 
* Apol. Cap. 3. The Jesuits have a commission to belly whom they list without controlment.  treacheries, treasons, murders, & villainies done in Scotland, were the protestants doings: which virulent & impudent reproaches uttered against two Christian Common weals without any manner or colour of truth, show what liquor boileth in your hearts, and what humour reigneth in your heads.  Phi. 
And what salt seasoneth your mouth when you rail at Rome so fast as you do?  Theo. 
If I report any thing of Rome which your own fellows do not witness, let it go for a slander: but what proof bring you, that in scotland the professors of the Gospel murdered the kings father, or sought to destroy their Prince when he was yet in his mother's womb?  Phi. 
Sure it is, the king's father was horribly murdered amongst them.  Theo. 
Can you tell by whom?  Phi. 
I can not tell: but he lost his life.  Theo. 
No doubt of that, but who did the deed?  Phi. 
It was secretly done in the night season, we know not by whom; of likelihood by enemies.  Theo. 
It could be no friendship to murder him in his bed: never heard you, 
Mat. 10.  A man's enemies shallbe they of his own household? But since you know not the doer, is it not mere malice in you to charge your enemies, and not his with it; especially those, that did hazard their lives to revenge his death?  Phi. 
A fair revenge, to displace their Queen for other men's faults.  Theo. 
If the Nobles of Scotland did any thing against their Queen, which the laws of that land did not warrant, we defend them not: you were best object it to them, they can answer for themselves. Yet are you not ignorant whom they deeply charge with the death of that Earl: but I will not meddle with other men's matters: I return to this land, 
Apolog. Cap. 3.  where you say you have wrought great alteration of minds throughout the whole Realm, & wonderful increase of courage in all sorts, not only to think well in heart, but openly and boldly to profess their faith and religion, and refuse all acts contrary to the same.  Phi. 
And this have we done only by the power of priesthood in spiritual, 
Apolog. Cap. 3.  silent and peaceable manner, & not with riots, tumults or warlike concourse: we have done it as the Apostles & other holy men did in the primative church, by travels, watchings, fastings, perils at the Ports, perils in the Sea, perils on the Land, perils of open enemies, perils of false brethren, fears of the laws, fears of hurting our friends, fears for scandalising the weak: by contumelies, disgraces, poverties, prisonments, fetters, dungeons, racks, deaths. And this the omnipotent God, because it is his own work, enterprised by order and authority of his chief Minister in earth, hath prospered exceedingly: though it seemed at the beginning a thing hard or impossible, you having so many years, the laws, the sword, the pulpits, and all human helps for you.  Theo. 
Never vaunt of your victories, 
An ignorant boy with a whispering report mig soon work this conversion.  unless they were greater. Papists that before dissembled are now by your means encouraged to profess your religion against a day: this was no such conquest. The privy report of a foreign power to be landed in this realm was enough to turn them al. For they which twenty years together perished their consciences to save their goods, would they now rather hazard their lands & life, which you threatened; & hinder that action, which they long desired; than show themselves? The rest of your converts be fearful women, 
Such teachers such converts.  hungry craftsmen, idle apprentices, seely wenches, and peevish boys, for the most part void of all reason & sense, desirous of novelties by nature, and soon enticed to any thing: & all the religion you have taught them, is to name the catholic church as parats, & to pretend their consciences when they lack all understanding of god & godliness. Such in some places for want of good order, have been of late inveigled by you, to mislike those with whom they live, & to fancy that they never saw: which was no mastery, considering the mildness of our discipline, the manner of your whispering, & the rudeness of those simple souls whom you perverted.  Phi. 
We did nothing but in spiritual, silent & peaceable manner, as the Apostles & other holy men did in the primative Church.  Theo. 
We know you can commend yourselves: but a man may soon discern the fierbrands of Rome, from the disciples of Christ. Throckmortons' calendar was the chiefest end of your running over, which was to sound, 
See Throckmortons' confession.  whether your pretended catholics' would not back any such force as should be sent, to invade the land. This no Apostle nor any other holy man in the primative Church did: they never made religion a cloak for rebellion.  Phi. 
God is our witness we knew no such thing when we were sent over.  Theo. 
But they which sent you, knew what they did.  Phi. 
That was counsel to us: 
〈…〉 own 〈…〉 they 〈…〉 superior 〈…〉 voice 〈…〉 oracle 〈◊〉 heaven 〈◊〉 them.  we are bound to obey our superior that sent us.  Theo. 
To rebel against your Prince, and to procure others to do the like, if the Pope command you?  Phi. 
We say not so.  Theo. 
But you must do so.  Phi. 
Can you prove that?  Theo. 
We need no plainer proof than your silence. For how say you, will you take her majesty for lawful and rightful Queen of this Realm, notwithstanding the Pope deprive her?  Phi. 
You still ask me that question.  Theo. 
We must still ask it till you answer it. One word of your mouth would suffice us and discharge you from all suspicion: which you would never refrain if it were not against you.  Phi. 
Remove the danger of your laws, and I will quickly tell you what I think.  Theo. 
That speech is enough to bewray your affection. Our Laws be not dangerous unless you say the Pope may take the crown from the Prince's head, 
These two 〈◊〉 they 〈…〉.  & licence her subjects to rebel against her, which is the treason we charge you with.  Phi. 
Is that so traitorous a position that Popes may depose Princes?  Theo. 
That point you should either freely defend or flatly deny. By that we shall see what the bent and drift was of your late persuading & reconciling so many to the Church of Rome. For if this be your doctrine, that such as will be Catholics must obey the Pope deposing the prince, then is it evident, that you sow religion, but intent to reap treason; and make your first entrance with preaching, that afterward you may prepare the people to rebelling. 
  Phi. 
This is your false surmise, not our meaning.  Theo. 
Then answer me, What if the Pope publish a Bull to deprive the Queen, which part will you teach the people to follow? The Popes or the Queens?  Phi. 
We will tell you that, when the Pope doth attempt it.  Theo. 
Well said Philander, you play sure to muscer no men till your captain be ready, lest you lose your labour as the Rebels of the North did. Is this the faith and allegiance your Sovereign Lady shall look for at your hands, when strangers invade, then to resolve which side you will take? Go to masters; if this be subjection, I marvel what is rebellion.  Phi. 
His holiness doth the like things, for almost every other Nation in distress, & none so ill, 
 so suspicious, or so ungrateful as to mistrust his benefits to be their destruction, not the Germans, not the Hungarians, not the Greeks, not any other Provinces, for all which his holiness hath erected Colleges even as for our Country, of which though all take not so much good as they might do, yet none fear hurt nor make laws against his holy and charitable actions but we.  Theo. 

 Offer that wrong to other Princes even of your own religion, which your h●●ly father hath done to her majesty, and see which of them will doubt to make sharper and sorer laws against you than her highness hath yet made. Pronounce them no Princes, invade their lands, convert hostilities abroad and at ●●●ne to thrust them from their thrones, and then tell us how they will reward you. These wicked and devilish attempts against your Sovereign you call holy and charitable actions, and such is your madness, that you blame the State for preventing and repressing this heinous injury with wholesome laws.  Phi. 
Call you that preventing of injury to put innocents to death? 

The Jesuits wil●e innocents though they teach it to be lawful for subjects to resist and murder their Princes.  
The dispensation of Campion and Fashions hath those express words.    Theo. 
You refuse to confess that her Highness is rightful Queen of this Realm, and yet would be counted innocentes?  Phi. 
You say not well. We confess her Majesty to be true Queen of this Realm.  Theo. 
And aught to be so taken of all her Subjects, though the Pope depose her?  Phi. 
Why do you pose us with the Pope's authority? That which we spoke was plain enough.  Theo. 
Not so. You be licensed from Rome to agnise her Grace for true Queen of England for a time, until the Bull of Pius the 5. may be put in public execution, that is, until she may by force of arms be violently driven from the Crown.  Phi. 
Is it not strange that you report these things of us, and can not prove them?  Theo. 
Is it not stranger that you know these things to be true, and yet deny them?  Phi. 
I protest for my part, I know them not.  Theo. 
We will reason farther thereof in an other place. I hasten now to your fourth chapter.  Phi. 
Will you leave S. Hierom unanswered?  Theo. 
This whole chapter hath neither Scripture nor Father with you, nor against us, but only one poor allegation, and therefore we may not skip that in any case; but what saith S. Hierom? 
Epist. 8. ad Deme●riadem.   Phi. 
This one thing I think good of charitable piety and affection to forewarn thee, that thou hold fast the faith of holy Innocentius who is successor and son of the apostolic chair, and of the forenamed Anastasius, & that thou receive not a strange doctrine, though thou seem to thyself never so wise and subtle.  Theo. 
This proveth that Innocentius and Anastasius in the days of S. Hierom held the true Christian faith; & that the Romans, (for Demetriades, to whom S. Hierom gave this counsel, dwelled in Rome) should rather follow the Bishop of their own City teaching sound and apostolic doctrine, than embrace strange errors upon presumption of wit: What doth this help you?  Phi. 
Gregory the 13. that lately lived was their successor & son in Seat & belief.  Theo. 
Doth S. Hierom say so?  Phi. 
Nay we say so.  Theo. 
Prove that, and set up your Mass.  Phi. 
In Seat you grant.  Theo. 
Scant enough.  Phi. 
What not in Seat?  Theo. 
No not in Seat.  Phi. 
Why so?  Theo. 
First, Atheists, heretics, sorcerers, and women have been Popes, and that interrupteth your succession. 
Their succession interrupted.  Next, the plenty of Popes during the two and twenty schisms in the Church of Rome, whereof the last dured 40. years, and was so doubtful, that the best learned and most religious of your side, could not tell which to cleave to. I say, this plurality of Popes at one time confoundeth your reckoning. Thirdly, discontinuance shaketh your seat in pieces; as when Peter's chair was empty threescore and fourteen years, six Popes sitting one after an other, not at Rome but in Auinion in France. Last of all, the most part of your Popes for these 600. years entered not by lawful and Canonical election, neither expected the consent of the Roman Prince and people, as they should and were wont to do; but by violence, sedition, corruption and bribery invaded the Seat of Peter. Which fault was so common, that your best friends could not choose, but find it. The Popedom, saith Platina, 
Platina in Syluestro 3.  was come to that pass, (500 years ago) that he which could do most with ambition and bribery, he only obtained the Papal dignity, good men oppressed and rejected: which manner would God our times had not kept: but this is nothing; we shall see worse, if God prevent it not. In the days of Damasus the 2. he saith, This fashion was now so ri●e, that every ambitious Merchant might catch up Peter's seat. 
Idem in Damaso 2. Idem in Benedicto 4.  And an hundred years before that in the time of Benedict the fourth, As soon as the Church, saith he, was endued with riches, and waxed lascivious; the worshippers of God turning from severity to wantonness; the great impunity of sin, no Prince then repressing the lewdness of men, bred us these monsters and mischiefs, who by corruption & ambition rather invaded than possessed the most holy Seat of Peter. 
Idem in joan. 10.  And for a conclusion he saith, The Popes were clean departed from Peter's steps.  Phi. 
These be trifles, they bar not succession.  Theo. 
They be just and true exceptions, but for this present I say with S. Hierom, They be not the sons of the Saints, 
Distinct. 40. c. Non est facile.  that occupy their places, but that exercise their works. If Gregory the 13. taught Peter's faith, let him be Peter's successor: if he did set forth any other doctrine, he succeeded S. Peter at Rome, no more than the Turk doth S. james at jerusalem, or the Scribes & Pharisees did Moses, in whose chair they sat, when they crucified the Son of God. But we spend time, which might be better employed.  Phi. 
Then go to the fourth chapter which I looked for all this while, that the sight of our proofs and sound of our places, which here we bring against the Prince's supremacy, might even discredit and confound your new doctrine.  Theo. 
The impertinent vagaries and plausible colours of your Apology do but hinder the seriousness of the matter, & fullness of the proof that in this case were requisite; since therefore we be come to the main foundation of all your doings, omit your flourishing, and fall to a stricter and exacter kind of reasoning.  Phil. 
Agreed.   

THE SECOND PART PROVETH THE PRINCE'S SUPREME POWER TO command for truth within her Realm: and the Pope to have been a dutiful Subject to the Roman Emperors Ecclesiastical Laws for 800. years and upward: answereth the jesuits authorities and absurdities heaped against the Prince's regiment: searcheth the safest way for the Prince's direction in matters of Religion, and concludeth the Pope in doubts of doctrine to be no sufficient nor superior judge.  Phi. 
FIRST than whereas in the Proclamation we be charged to live contrary to the laws of God & the Realm, 
Apoc. cap. 4. sect. 1.  etc. We answer that if the laws of God & the laws of the Realm did always consent & concur in deed, as in this clause & other common writings & speeches proceeding from authority, they be lightly in words couched together against us: hardly could we defend our doctrines and doings from error & undutifulness towards our prince. But seeing the laws of kings and Countries are not ever consonant but may be contrary to God's commandments, we may justly mislike the one without disloyalty to the other. When Emperors (saith Augustine) be in error, 
Aug. Epist. 166.  they make laws for their error against the truth, by which just men are tried & crowned, for not doing that which they command, because God forbiddeth it.  Theo. 
That some princes have made laws against God & his truth is a case so clear that it needed no proof; as also that we must rather obey God than men, when their laws do serve from his: & again on the other side that princes have made laws for the true service & worship of God, & did rightly judge it to be a part of their charge: & that all they which resist those laws, shallbe grievously punished at God's hands: though you craftily dissemble, you can not deny: S. Austen in this very place, which you bring for your defence, & the very next words will tell you so much. Quando autem Imperatores veritatem tenent, pro ipsa veritate contra errorem iubent, 
Aug. epist. 166.  quod quisquis contempserit, ipse sibi judicium acquirit. When Emperors hold the truth they command for truth against error, which [commandment] whosoever despiseth he purchaseth to himself judgement. 
Prince's commanding for truth must be obeyed.  For he shallbe punished by men, & have no part with God, for not doing that, which truth itself by the king's hart commanded him. These words you did well to cut off, they were enough to mar your market.  Phi. 
Not ours.  The. 
Will you then confess that princes may command for truth & against error, & that whosoever despiseth their commandment in those cases shall incur judgement. So saith S. Austen in plain words.  Phi. 
They may command, marry the Church must appoint them what they shall command. 
The Jesuits play with the name of the church.   Theo. 
What mean you by the Church?  Phi. 
What should I mean by the Church, but the church?  Theo. 
You love to play with words. Mean you laymen or priests, or both?  Phi. 
Ever heard you the church taken for laymen?  The. 
When S. Paul sent for the elders of Ephesus, & willed them to take heed to themselves & the whole flock, over which the holy Ghost had placed them to rule, 
Act. 20. The Church of God is the people of God.  or feed the Church of God, what meant he by the Church; the Priests to whom he spoke, or the people?  Phi. 
There you see the Priests are to rule the Church.  Theo. 
There also you may see, the Church is not to rule the Prince.  Phi. 
How doth that follow?  Theo. 
The Church is there taken for the people, which must not rule, but obey the Prince.  Phi. 
By the Church in my first answer I meant the Priests and not the people.  Theo. 
Can you show where the Church in all the Scriptures is taken for the Priests without the people?  Phi. 
We call them only Churchmen.  Theo. 
We respect not your abuse, 
The Church never taken in the Scriptures for the Priest alone.  but the right use of the word. The Church is never taken in the new nor old Testament for the Priests alone, but generally for the whole congregation of the faithful. And therefore when you say the Prince must be ruled by the Church, you dally with a doubtful word, and put a fair colour upon a foul cause; but you must distinctly tell us what persons you mean, when you say the Church must appoint, what the Prince shall command.  Phi. 
I mean Churchmen, that is, Priests, and Bishops.  Theo. 
And what if Churchmen do not agree which is truth, 
The Jesuits steals from the Church to Churchmen and from them to the Pope.  as in our days they do not; may Princes make their choice what Churchmen they will follow?  Phi. 
No: the chief ruler of the Church and head Bishop on earth must appoint them, what faith they shall embrace.  Theo. 
That chief ruler of the Church you take to be the Pope.  Phi. 
We do.  Theo. 
We like you well for your plainness. Then Princes may command that which the Church, 
By the jesuits divinity the Prince shall command what pleaseth the Pope.  you mean Churchmen; or if they agree not, the chief Churchman, which is the Pope, shall appoint. This is your assertion, is it not?  Phi. 
It is.  Theo. 
What you say Princes must do for the Pope, we say princes may do for Christ: that is, they may plant and establish the Christian faith in their Realms by their Princely power though the Pope say nay. This is our doctrine, can you reprove it?  Phi. 
Who shall be judge, which is the true Christian faith?  Theo. 
You slip now to an other question. 
They be two distinct questions who shall command for truth, and who shall direct unto truth.  It is one thing, who may command for truth, & another who shall direct unto truth. We say, Princes may command for truth & punish the refusers; this no Bishop may challenge, but only the Prince that beareth the sword. This is the first part of our question: And touching the second, which is the safest way for princes to be guided unto the truth, though we differ about the means: you reserving it as a special privilege to the Pope, we referring it as a common duty to the Preacher; yet this is evident that Princes must be directed unto truth the same way that all other Christians are, to wit, by persuasion and not by coaction. For no Prelate, nor Pope hath authority from Christ to compel private men, much less princes to the profession of faith, but only to teach and instruct them. These be the two points we stand on, disprove them if you can.  Phi. 
This is not al. You would have Our faith and salvation so to hang on the Princes will and Laws, 
The Jesuits would make men believe that we teach the Prince's will to be the rule of faith. Never man of our side affirmed any such thing.  that there could be imagined no nearer way to religion, than to believe what our temporal Lord and Master list.  Theo. 
It is a cunning, when you can not confute your adversaries, at least to beelie them, that you may seem to say somewhat against them. In deed your fourth chapter is wholly spent in refelling this position, which we detest more than you.  Phi. 
You begin to shrink from your former teaching.  Theo. 
You will never shrink from your former facing. Did ever any man on our side affirm the princes will to be the rule of faith? Have we not earnestly written, and openly taught that Religion must not depend upon the pleasures of men? Have not thousands of us here in England and elsewhere given our lives for the witness and confession of God's truth, against prince's laws and Pope's decrees? In Spain, 
If the world can witness thus much for us, then is this a cold cavil of the Jesuits.  France, Italy, and other places at this day, do we not endure all the torments you can devise, because we will not believe what temporal Lords and Masters list? Your own conscience knoweth it is true that we say. Why then do you charge us with this wicked assertion, from the which we be farther off than you? For you hold opinion of Popes, that they cannot err, we do not of Princes. Why do you father your own fancies upon us? Why dye you purposely pervert the question, heaping absurdities, and alleging authorities against that which we do not defend?  Phi. 
The oath, 
Mark how the Jesuits play with the oath.  which you take yourselves and exact of others, induceth us thus to think of you. For there you make Princes the only supreme Governors of all persons, in all causes, as well spiritual as temporal: utterly renouncing all foreign jurisdictions, superiorities and authorities. Upon which words mark what an horrible confusion of all faith and Religion ensueth. If Princes be the only Governors in Ecclesiastical matters, 
The right extract of the Jesuits absurdities. Apolog. cap. 4. Apolog. chap. 4. Apolog. cap. 4.  then in vain did the holy Ghost appoint Pastors and Bishops to govern the Church. If they be supreme, then are they superior to Christ himself, and in effect Christ's Masters. If in all things and causes spiritual, than they may prescribe to the priests and Bishops what to preach, which way to worship and serve God, how & in what form to minister the Sacraments, and generally how men shall be governed in soul. If all foreign jurisdiction must be renounced, than Christ & his Apostles (because they were & are foreigners) have no jurisdiction nor authority over England. A thousand other absurdities are consequent to this oath which anon you shall hear.  Theo. 
Wake you or dream you Philander, 
Their absurdities are no way consequent to our doctrine.  that in matters of no less weight than your duty to God and the Prince, you fall to these childish and pelting sophisms? What kind of concluding call you this? Princes only bear the sword to command and punish, ergo Bishops may not teach and exhort. Princes be not subject to the Pope, ergo superiors to Christ. They may by their laws establish those things that Christ hath commanded, ergo they may change both Scriptures and Sacraments. No foreigner at this day hath any jurisdiction over this Land, ergo Christ and his Apostles fifteen hundred years ago might not preach the Gospel.  Phi. 
We make no such fond reasons.  Theo. 
The former propositions are the true contens of the oath, which we take; the later are those very absurdities which you infer upon us for taking that oath.  Phi. 
You would slip from your words which we know, to your meaning which we know not; 
This is the right supposal of their Apology.  but that you shall not. We grounded our absurdities upon the words of your oath. For if princes be supreme governors in all spiritual things & causes, ergo they be supreme judges of faith, deciders of controversies, interpreters of scriptures, devisers of ceremonies, appointers of sacraments, & what not?  The. 
You might even as well have concluded: princes be supreme governors in all temporal things & causes; ergo they be supreme guiders of grammar, moderators of Logik, directors of Rhetorik, appointers of Music, prescribers of Medicines, resoluers of all doubts, & judges of all matters incident any way to reason, art, or action. If this be lewd & irreverent jesting, yours is no better.  Ph. 
I promise you we jest not.  The. 
The more shame for you, if you be in earnest, to conclude so loosely.  Phi. 

Princes be supreme governors of the persons, not of the things in the church  Do you make princes supreme governors of all spiritual things?  Theo. 
You reason as if we did; but our words, since you will needs rest upon words, are not so.  Phi. 
What are they then?  The. 
We confess them to be supreme governors of their Realms & Dominions.  Phi. 
And that in all spriritual things & causes.  The. 
Not of all spiritual things & causes.  Ph. 
What difference between those two speeches?  Theo. 
Just as much as excludeth your wrangling. We make them not governors of the things themselves, 
The words of the oath.  but of all their subjects, which I trust you dare not withstand.  Phi. 
I grant they be governors of their subjects, but not in Ecclesiastical things or causes. 
The Jesuits lack neither cracks nor words.  They must leave those matters for Bishops, whom Christ hath appointed to be the ruler's of his church. And therefore your oath yielding that power to princes, which is proper to Bishops; is repugnant to the laws of God, the church & nature: Yea it is an evident error reprovable by all human & divine learning, that the sovereignty or supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical is by nature or by christian laws implied in the right & title of a temporal king, 
Apolog. cap. 4.  or that it ever was due, or can be due, to any temporal governor, heathen or christian in the world. And if you will but give ear, you shall hear what a number of absurdities we will fasten upon you.  The. 
This oath is a great eye sore with you, and I remember I promised to discuss the same in this chapter. I will therefore first examine the chief parts of it, and after you shall object against it what you can.  
Where we profess that her Highness is the only governor of this Realm, the word governor doth sever the magistrate from the minister, 
The parts of the oath examined.  & showeth a manifest difference between their office. For Bishops be no governors of countries; princes be: that is, Bishops bear not the sword to reward & revenge; princes do: Bishops have no power to command & punish; princes have. This appeareth by the words of our Saviour expressly forbidding his Apostles to be rulers of nations, 
What is meant by Governor  & leaving it to princes. The kings of nations rule over [their people] and they that be great ones, exercise authority. With you it shall not be so: that is, you shall neither bear rule, 
Matth. 20. & Mark. 10. Christ by that word distinguisheth the minister from the magistrate.  nor exercise authority over your brethren.  Phi. 
The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: they overrule their subjects with injustice & violence; you shall not do so.  Theo. 
So your new translation over ruleth the word: howbeit Christ in that place doth not traduce the power of princes as unjust or outrageous, but distinguisheth the calling of his Apostles from the manner of regiment which God hath allowed the magistrate. Christ ●aith not, princes be tyrants, you shall deal more courteously than they do; 
Luk. 22.  but he saith, Princes be Lords and rulers over their people, 
Luk. 22.  by God's ordinance you shall not be so. Again the word which S. Luke hath is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any composition. They be Lords and masters; & S. Paul confesseth of himself & other Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
2. Corinth. 1.  Not that we be Lords or Masters of your faith: yea the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with power & force to rule men whether they will or no, not with wrong & injury to oppress them; & therefore the conclusion is inevitable, that princes may lawfully compel & punish their subjects which Bishops may not. 
Public government is by correction and compulsion. Rom. 13. Matth. 26. 1. Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. Matth. 24. 2. Tim. 2. Bishop's forbidden to use violence. 2. Timoth. 3. & 4.   
This distinction between them is evident by their several commissions which God hath signed. The prince, not the priest, beareth the sword; ergo the prince, not the priest is Gods minister to revenge male factors. Peter himself was sharply rebuked by Christ for using the sword, & in Peter all Pastors & Bishops are straightly charged not to meddle with it. All that take the sword shall perish with the sword. And of all men a Bishop must be no striker. For if he that should feed his master's household fall to striking, he shall have his portion with hypocrites. The servants of God must be gentle towards all, instructing those that resist, with mildness, not compelling any with sharpness. Their function is limited to the preaching of the word & dispensing the sacraments, which have no kind of compulsion in them, but invite men only by sober persuasions to believe & embrace the promises of God. To conclude, pastors may teach, exhort, & reprove, not force, command or revenge: only princes be governors that is public magistrates to prescribe by their laws, and punish with the sword such as resist them within their dominions, which Bishops may not do: speak we truth or no?  Phi. 
We grant Bishops be no magistrates, 
Bishops no Magistrates to bear the sword but only charged with cure of souls, which the sword can not touch.  neither have they to do with the bodies or goods of men, which god hath permitted to the prince's power; but yet they be governors of souls which princes be not.  Theo. 
No better reason, to warrant our opinion. The Bishop's charge concerneth the souls of men, but the soul of man can neither be forced, nor punished by man; ergo Bishops be no commanders nor punishers, but only directors & instructors of the flock of Christ.  Phi. 
That we know.  The. 
Then since by governors we mean rulers, such as God hath authorized to bear the sword, why do you fond cavil that the prince's power to command & punish, excludeth the Bishop's vocation to teach & exhort, which is nothing so?  Phi. 
You say princes may command and punish as well Bishops as others.  Theo. 
If they be subjects no less than others, why should they not obey the prince or abide the sword as well as others? 
Prince's may command & punish as well bishops as others. Rom. 13. Rom. 13. Bern. ad Senonensum archiepiscopum epist. 42.   Phi. 
Do you make them mere subjects?  Theo. 
Not I, but he that said, You must be subject, not only for [fear of] wrath, but also for conscience sake.  Phi. 
Doth he speak that of clergymen?  Theo. 
He that speaketh of all, exempteth none. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, etc. In these words clergymen be not excepted, ergo comprised.  
Out of this place Bernard reasoneth thus with an archbishop of France: Let every soul be subject. If every, then yours. Who doth except you (that be bishops) from this general speech? He that bringeth an exception, useth but a delusion. For these things, 
Chrysost. homil. 23. in Epist. ad Romanos.  saith Chrysostom, are commanded to all, as well Priests and Monks as secular men: which appeareth by the first sentence, Let every soul be subject to the superior powers; yea though thou be an Apostle, an Evangelist, a Prophet, or what soever thou be. So Theodorete. Whether he be Priest, 
Theo. in cap. 13 epist. ad Romanos.  Bishop or Monk, let them be subject to Magistrates. This doctrine dured in the Church a thousand years before your exemption of Clerks from secular powers, as you call them, was known. Paul teacheth every soul, 
Theo. in cap. 13. ad Romanos. Oecumen. in Epist. ad Rom. Greg. Epistol. lib. 3. cap. 100  saith Theophilact, whether he be Priest, Monk, or Apostle, to be subject and obey Princes. He teacheth every soul, saith Oecumenius, whether he be Priest, Monk, or Apostle, to submit themselves to Magistrates. Gregory the first, perceived and yielded this exposition to be true. Power, saith he, over all men is given to my Lord [the Emperor] from heaven. And lest you should think priests exempted, in the person of Christ he speaketh thus to Mauritius the Emperor, 
Ibidem.  Sacerdotes meos tuae manui commisi, I have put my Priests into thy hands, and dost thou withhold thy soldiers from my service? And elsewhere writing of the same prince, 
Greg. Epistol. lib. 3. cap. 103.  Christ hath granted him to be ruler, not over soldiers only but over Priests also.  
This is evident by the whole course of the Scripture. Whom did our Saviour charge to give to Caesar that which was Caesar's? Not Scribes and high Priests, 
Luke 20.  as well as others? Christ himself was a priest and a prophet, and yet he not only submitted himself to the Roman Magistrate, but confessed the precedents power over him to be from heaven. 
john. 19 Act. 25. Jude Epist.  S. Paul appealed unto Caesar & appeared before Caesar as his lawful governor. S. Jude detested them for false prophets that despised government or spoke evil of rulers. It is no Religion, it is rebellion against God & his word for clergy men to exempt themselves from the prince's power. The commandment is general: Let every soul be subiect● the punishment is eternal, Whosoever resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God, 
Rom. 13.  and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.  Phi. 
Yet reason the clergy be favoured above the laity.  Theo. 
Tush, we talk not what favour princes may do well to show, but whether Clergy men by God's law may challenge an exemption from earthly powers or no?  Phi. 
Not, except princes command against God. And if they do so, whom must lay men obey? God or man?  Phi. 
No doubt God.  Theo. 
Then the prince commanding against God, all men are bound, be they lay men or clerks, to prefer the will of God before the prince's laws: but when the prince joineth with God, 
The Clergy must be to the people an example of obedience to Princes.  and commandeth for truth, may the clergy resist the prince more than the people may?  Phi. 
They may not.  Theo. 
You say well. Of the twain they must rather obey, that they may be teachers of obedience, not in words only, but in deeds also. For if they must admonish others to be subject to principalities and obedient to Magistrates, then must they not hinder their doctrine by their doings, nor lead the rest by their example to contemn or resist powers, which they should reverence and obey.  Phi. 
By no means.  Theo. 
And in case the prince be repugnant to God, may priests or people be violent withstanders, or must they rather be patiented indurers of the sword?  Phi. 
They must not resist, but in patience possess their souls: 
Luke 21. Rom. 13.  They that resist shall receive judgement.  Theo. 
Ergo whether princes be with God or against God, Priests & Bishops must with gladness obey, 

He that must suffer is a subject, as well as he that must obey.  
Prince's governors of all persons.   or with meekness abide the sword.  Phi. 
They must.  Theo. 
And he that suffereth is a subject as well as he that obeyeth. For if they be rulers that command & punish; certainly they be subjects that must obey the commandment, or abide the punishment.  Phi. 
I think so.  Theo. 
Then monks, Priests & Bishops by God's law be subjects as well as others, and consequently Princes be Governors of all persons within their dominions, be they Prelates, Prophets, Apostles, or whatsoever they be.  Phi. 
In temporal things we grant, but not in spiritual.  Theo. 
Where Princes may lawfully command, all subjects of duty must obey.  Phi. 
True: but in Ecclesiastical causes Princes may not meddle.  Theo. 
So say you: but if I prove that the Prince's power and charge, by God's law reacheth as well unto matters of religion as other things, will you bethink yourselves better, and acknowledge your error?  Phi. 
When you prove that we may do this, which will never be.  Theo. 
Mark first what we reath, and next what we prove, that you be not deceived.  
We teach that God in delivering the sword to Princes, 
And that in causes Ecclesiastical as well as in temporal.  hath given them this direct charge to provide that as well true religion be maintained in their Realms, as civil justice ministered: and hath to this end allowed Princes full power to forbid, prevent, and punish in all their subjects, be they laymen, Clercks', or Bishops, not only murders, thefts, adulteries, perjuries, and such like breaches of the second table; but also schisms, heresies, Idolatries, and all other offences against the first table pertaining only to the service of God and matters of religion. 
The Prince charged with both tables.  We do not imagine this of our own heads, we find it annexed to the crown by God himself: who when he first gave the children of Israel leave to choose them a king, withal appointed, that the Law truly copied out of the Levites original (which was kept in the tabernacle) should be delivered the king sitting on his royal seat with this charge: 
Deut. 17.  That book shall remain with the king, he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, & observe all the words of the law [there written] and these statutes to do them. This was not done till he was placed in his throne, so saith the text: therefore this touched not the kings private conversation as a man; but his Princely function as a magistrate; which will you, nill you, stood in commanding others, not in guiding his own person. For no man is a king in respect of himself, but in ruling his subjects. 
Aug. Epist. 50.  As a man he served God one way, saith Austen, as a king an other way. As a man by faithful living, as a king in setting forth laws to command that which is good and remove the contrary. So that kings, as kings, serve God in doing that for his service, which none but kings can do. Then if the whole Law were committed to the king, as a king, at his coronation; that is, to command it others; which none but kings could do within their Realms; ergo the publishing, preserving and executing of the first table touching the sincere worship of God, was the chiefest part of the Prince's charge.  
To make my conclusion the stronger, let us see what the godly kings of Israel & judah did in matters of religion, having no farther nor other commission from God, than this which I last repeated. 
How the godly kings of judah did interpret their charge.  The diligent execution of their office will serve for an evident exposition, what God required at their hamnds. We can look for no plainer declaration of God's meaning in this point, than Gods own commendation of their acts in this case. The lawmaker is the best interpreter: if they by their princely power removed idols, 
2. Kings 23. 2. Kings 18. 2. Chro. 34. & 35.  razed hilalters, slew false prophets, purged the land from all abominations, not sparing the brazen serpent (made by Moses) when they saw it abused: if again by the same power they caused the temple to be cleansed, the law to be read, the covenant to be renewed with God, the passover to be kept, the levites to minister in their courses invented by David: 
1. Kings 2.  if to conclude, the prince deposed the chief bishop placing a fit in his steed, & forced all [prophets, priests & people] that were found in Israel (sincerely) to serve the Lord their God; if I say they did all this (as the scripture beareth record they did) & their zealous proceed in these cases were liked, accepted, & praised by Gods own mouth: who besides jesuits is either so blind that he seethe not, or so froward that he confesseth not, that princes were charged by God himself to plant & establish his true service in their dominions, & with their Princely power to prohibit & punish all offences & abuses, be they temporal or spiritual, against the second or first part of this heavenly law?  Phi. 
This charge concerned none but the kings of Israel & judah.  The. 
That refuge doth rather manifest your folly, 
The same charge extendeth to the kings of the new testament.  than satisfy my reason: did, I pray you Sir, the coming of Christ abolish the vocation of princes? I trow not. Then their office remaining as before, per consequent, both the same precept of God to them still dureth, & also the like power to force their subjects to serve God & Christ his son, standeth in as full strength under the gospel as ever it did under the law. For princes in the new testament be God's ministers to revenge malefactors, as they were in the old, & the greater the wickedness, 

Rom. 13.  
They be gods ministers to revenge all evil.  
Rom. 15.  
How kings must serve the Lord and Christ his son.  
Psalm. 2. Aug. contra literas Petilia. lib. 2. cap. 92.   the rather to be punished, ergo the greatest (as heresies, idolatries & blasphemies) are soonest of all other vices to be repressed by christian magistrates: whose zeal for Christ's glory, must not decrease, Christ's care for their sceptres being increased; and those monuments of former kings left written for their instruction.  
Were not this sufficient, as in truth it is to refute your evasion: yet king David foreseeing in spirit the heathen kings would band themselves & assemble together against the Lord & his Christ, extendeth the same charge to the gentiles which the kings of jury received before, & warneth them all at once, Be wife ye kings, understand ye judges of the world: serve the Lord. Upon which words S. Aug. inferreth thus: All men ought to serve God: in one sort, by common condition as men; in an other sort, by several gifts (& offices) by the which some do this, some that. No private person could command idols to be banished clean from among men, which was so long before prophesied. Therefore kings (besides their duty, to serve God common with all other men) have, 
Idem contra Cresconium lib. ●. cap. 51.  in that they be kings, how to serve the Lord in such sort, as none can do which are not kings. For in this kings (in respect they be kings) serve the Lord (as God by David enjoineth them) if in their kingdoms they command that which is good, & prohibit that which is ill, not in civil affairs only, but in matters also concerning divine religion.  
With this endeavour of christian princes, God comforteth his church by the mouth of Esay. 
The church shall suck the breasts of kings.  Thou shalt suck the breasts of princes, kings shallbe thy foster fathers, and Queens thy nurcing mothers. What Esay saith princes shall do, that I conclude princes must do, because God would not promise they should usurp an other man's office but discharge their own. Then if you from Rheims, or your brethren from Rome tell us that the nurcing of christs church is no part of the prince's duty, we detest your insolent negative: God is truth, who saith it, & you be liars. If you take the milk of princes for temporal honours, lands & goods (which your church in deed hath greedily swallowed) the very children will laugh you to scorn. 
The milk of princes is not temporal wealth.  The church of Christ is no wanton, she lusteth for no worldly wealth, which is rather hurtful poison, than wholesome food: God's provision for her, is spiritual, not carnal; her delights are not outward in flesh, but inward in grace: the prophet, good man, had no leisure to think on your farms, demeans & revenues: This promise must be common to the faithful, not private to your cloisterers, which in earthly things plied the bottle so fast, that they sucked their nurses dry. No remedy, you must needs yield us, that christian princes in respect of their office, not of their riches, have received an express commandment from God to show themselves nurses to his church. Now nurses by nature must provide food for their infants, & defend them from danger, ergo kings & queens in the new testament are bound to tender the church of Christ, & by their princely power & public laws to defend the same from infection of heresies, invasion of schisms, & all other apparent corruptions of faith & good manners.  
Who, 
August. epi. 50.  saith S. Aug. being in his right wits, will say to (christian) kings, take you no care who defendeth or impugneth in your realms the church of (christ) your master? Let it not pertain to you, who lift to be religious, or sacrilegious within your kingdoms? And left he should seem scant resolved in this opinion, he biddeth open defiance to the Donatists in these words: 
Idem contra 2. Gaudenij epist. lib. 2. cap. 11. Idem contrae Epist. Parmen. lib. 1. cap. 7. The Prince charged to punish false and corrupt religion.  Cry thus if you dare, let murders be punished, let adulteries be punished, let other degrees of lust & sin be punished; only sacrileges (that is contempt of God his truth, or his church) we will not have punished by prince's laws. And again, Will (the Donatists) though they were convinced of a sacrilegious schism, say that it belongeth not to the prince's power to correct or punish such things? Is it because such powers do not stretch to corrupt & false religion? But (christian) emperors persecute the Pagans': doth that displease them? The works of the flesh Paul numbereth these; fornication, uncleanness, strife, dissension, heresy, drunkenness & such other. What think these men, may the crime of idolatry be justly revenged by the magistrate? well, if that like them not, why confess they that witches be rightly punished by the rigour of (princes) laws, & will not agnise that heretics & schismatics may be repressed by the same, seeing Paul doth rehearse them together with other fruits of iniquity? Will they reply that earthly powers are not to meddle with such matters (of religion?) To what end then beareth he the sword, which is called Gods minister, serving to punish malefactors? Certainly Princes, 
* Read on the place, contra epist. Parmen. lib. 1. cap. 7.  etc.  

Compel them to come in; spoken to the magistrates.  If this learned father can not fray you from reviving the frantic error of the Donatists against the Prince's power in matters of religion, I trust you will somewhat reverence the precept which our Saviour in his Gospel gave the magistrate, when he had the first sort of guests to be brought to the great supper, the second to be forced: 
Luke 14. Aug. contra 2. Gaudent. Epist. lib. 2. cap. 17. Mat. 21. 1. Corinth. 10.  Go, saith he, forth into the ways and hedges: Compel them to come in, that mine house may be filled. We take ways, saith Austen, for heresies, hedges for schisms; because ways in this place signify the diversenes, and hedges the perverseness of opinions. House, God hath none, but his house of prayer, neither table beside the Lord's table. So that this servant is expressly charged to Compel them from heresies, and schisms to the confession of truth, consent of prayer, and communion of the lords table. To perform this, Christ hath left no servant but the minister or the magistrate: no means save the word or the sword. To compel heretics and schismatics, neither is it possible for the preacher if he would, nor lawful if he could: he lacketh both means and leave to constrain them. His calling is with patience to teach, 
2. Tim. 2. Mat. 24. Tit. 1. Mat. 20. 2. Pet. 5.  not with violence to force; to feed, not to strike; to reprove with tongue, not to subdue with hand. Only the Prince beareth the sword, which can and may compel recusants: and therefore Bishops since they be flatly forbidden to Rain, must not meddle with the material sword being the chiefest part & strength of an earthly kingdom: neither ought any to draw the sword, but he that holdeth it in God's stead to reward and revenge. Ergo, these words, 
Luke 14.  Compel them to come in, that mine house may be filled, were spoken to Christian Princes, and are to them both a warrant and a charge to repress schisms and heresies with their Princely power, which they received from above; chiefly to maintain God's glory, by causing the bands of unity to be preserved in the Church, and the rules of faith observed.  

August. Ep. 50.  To the same purpose S. Austen in many places allegeth this parable. The Lord himself, saith he, willed the guests first to be brought, then to be forced. What meaneth he by this, Compel them to come, when as he said of the first, bring them? If he meant they should be compelled by terror of miracles, than might the first sort of guests which saw many divine wonders be rather thought to be forced: (but) if by the power, which the Church received at God's hand in due time through the religion & faith of kings, those that are found in high ways & hedges, that is in heresies & schisms (must) be compelled to come, let them not mislike that they be forced. This commanding by Princely power occasioneth many to be saved, 
Idem contra 2. Gaundentij epist. lib. 2. cap. 17.  which though they be violently brought to the feast of the great householder, and compelled to come, yet being within they find cause to rejoice that they did enter: for both [sorts of comers as well violently forced, as willingly brought] the Lord foretold & hath fulfilled. 
Idem Epist. 48. Idem Epist. 50. Idem Epist. 48.  Therefore let earthly princes serve Christ, in making Laws for Christ, whereby men [may] be forced to come to the (great &) holy banquet, yea by banishments & other losses let [their subjects] begin to weigh with themselves what & why they suffer, & learn to prefer the Scriptures which they read, before the reports and cavils of men.  
I think it superfluous to stay longer in confirming so manifest a truth. He that is of God, heareth the words of God: he that impugneth them, quarreleth not with Princes, which yet is no small offence, but with him by whom Princes reign, 
The Prince's charge, as the scriptures do express it.  whose wisdom may not easily be neglected, nor will resisted. If you deny that this is the Princes charge to see the law of God fully executed, his Son rightly served, his spouse safely nourced, his house timely filled, his enemies duly punished, you must countervail that which Moses prescribed, David required, Esay prophesied, Paul witnessed, & Christ commanded with some better & sounder authority than theirs is: If you grant so much, we will ask no more: the Prince's duty to God once confessed, the rest shall quickly be concluded.  Phi. 
In a sense, it is true that you say.  Theo. 
It is simply true that I say: for in your own judgement may the Christian faith be freely permitted, & publicly received in kingdoms & common wealths?  Phi. 
No doubt.  Theo. 
May godly discipline be likewise planted and preserved amongst men, 
All these things must be done in every christian common wealth; and who shall do them but the Prince?  and the disturbers and neglecters of it repressed and ordered?  Phi. 
It may.  Theo. 
Should corrupt & false Religion be displaced & banished, and the spredders of it dispersed & scattered?  Phi. 
In any case.  Theo. 
Ought malefactors against God, as heretics, blasphemers, sorcerers, idolaters & such other transgressors of the first table, to be revenged and punished, as well as offenders against men, and the breakers of the second table?  Phi. 
What else?  Theo. 
Can any man freely permit, safely defend, generally restrain and externally punish, within a realm, but only the Prince?  Phi. 
None.  Theo. 
Then if these things needfully must and lawfully may be done for Christ and his Church, & none can do them but Magistrates, it is evident that the Prince's power & charge doth stretch unto things & causes that be spiritual as well as temporal. 
August. contra Cresconium lib. 3. cap. 51.  Or if S. Austin's words do better please you, that Princes may command that which is good, and prohibit that which is evil within their kingdoms, not in civil affairs only, but in matters also that concern divine Religion.  Phi. 
Did the Christian Princes in the primative Church since the coming of Christ command & punish in matters Ecclesiastical? 
Christian Princes from the beginning have dealt in causes ecclesiastical.   Theo. 
If their examples do not concur with my former proofs, good leave have you to believe neither: if they do, take heed you withstand not a manifest truth. And here you shall choose whether you will have a short report or a large rehearsal of their doings. Socrates touching them all, saith: 
Socrat. in prooemio lib. 5.  We therefore make mention of Emperors throughout this history, for that since they became Christians, Ecclesiastical matters depend on them, & the greatest Synods have been, and are yet called by their appointment. And Alciat a man of your own side: Nemim dubium est, 
Alciatus incodicem rubric. de sacrosanct. ecclesijs tomo 3. pag. 198.  quin in primativa ecclesia de rebus & personis ecclesiast. etc. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT saith he, but in the primative Church Emperors had the jurisdiction (that is the ruling and governing) of persons and causes Ecclesiastical.  
Ius dicere referred to Princes, is not to decide matters in question by law, for so did judges & not Princes, but to make laws: and between lawmakers & governors you can find little difference: for by public laws commanding good & punishing evil princes do chief govern. Then if christian monarchs in the primative church guided ecclesiastical matters & persons by their imperial laws, as this learned & famous lawyer putteth us out of doubt they did; you must show when & how they forfeited this power. If it were then lawful & usual, how can it be now strange & usurped? If there be no doubt of this, with what conscience do you, not doubt, but deny this? Perhaps you disdain the witness. Alciat in every respect was well learned, & in his faculty, which was law, deserveth more credit than the best of you: yet lest I should seem to press you with names & not with proofs, let us view the proceed of some Christian Emperors, and judge you whether they be not both ancient and evident.  

Constantine's example. Euseb. hist. lib. 10. cap. 5.  What power Constantine claimed & used in causes ecclesiastical, the four books of Eusebius & other church stories describing the laws, letters & acts of Constantine, bear witness sufficient. First, he gave the christians free liberty to profess their religion, built them places of prayer at his own charges, & entreated their bishops with all possible favour & honour. Next he prohibited the gentiles their ancient & usual idolatries, divinations, oracles, images & sacrifices. Heretics he debarred not only churches & secret convents, but excluded them also from the privileges which himself had provided for Catholic persons. If Constantine's example deserve to be praised & followed, which no man, except he be void of common sense, will gainsay, then may christian Princes in the right of their sceptre & sword, I mean their public vocation & charge, without seeking any farther warrant from Rome, forbidden wicked and idolatrous superstition, admit and assist to the best of their power the preaching of the truth, sequester heretics from the dignities and liberties granted to good and religious subjects: for so did Constantine, whose godly virtues and happy pains all nations then embraced, all ages since confessed, all Princes now should imitate.  
Besides this he did many things both for spreading the faith & guiding the church of Christ worthy great commendation. 
Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 2. cap. 28. Socrat. lib. 10. cap. 34.  By my ministry (saith this good Emperor) mankind is brought to the keeping & observing of the most sacred law: by the service which I perform to God, all things every where (directly speaking of things ecclesiastical) are settled in order, yea the barbarous nations, which till this time knew not the truth, now praise the name of God sincerely, whom they reverence for dread of us. 
Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 1. cap. 37.  Towards the church of Christ he showed an excellent & special care: calling counsels of bishops when any dissension sprang, as a common bishop & overseer appointed by God, not disdaining to be present & confer with them (the rather) to keep than all in christian peace. 
Ibidem lib. 3. cap. 13.  For his manner was in their synods not to sit idle, but to mark advisedly what every man said, to help their either side disputing, to temper such as kindled too fast, to reason mildly with each part, & undertake jointly with them to search out the truth: confirming their decrees with his seal, lest other (temporal) judges & rulers should infringe them. When occasion served him not to gather a council, 
Ibidem lib. 3. cap. 22.  he did by writing advertise the parties dissenting of his opinion & judgement, interposing himself as an arbiter in their controversies: sometimes Prescribing the bishops what was profitable for the church of God, 
Ibidem. lib. 3. cap. 23.  sometimes the people: to which end he wrote many letters, emitting neither rebukes nor threats, when need so required. 
Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 28.  When the council of Tyrus was gathered by his edict, he commanded them first to discuss the truth of such crimes, as were pretended against Athan. who was loath to come before them, save that he feared the threatening letters of Const. written to this effect. 
Euseb. de vita Constan. lib. 4. cap. 42.  If any, which I think not, in contempt of our mandate, fail to come before you, we will send a warrant from our royal authority, that he shallbe banished, to teach him, what it is (for bishops & clerks) to withstand the precept of the chief ruler defending the truth. Athan. & the bishops of his part appeared; but finding the council very partial, protested against them & appealed from them in these words: 

Athanas. Apol. 2. cap. Quum multas.  
Athanasius and his side appeal from the council to the prince.   Because we see many things spitefully contrived against us, & much wrong offered the catholic church under our names, we be forced to request, that the debating of our matters may be kept for the princes most excellent person: we can not bear the drifts & injuries of our enemies, & therefore require the cause to be referred to the most religious & devout emperor, before whom we shallbe suffered to stand in our own defences, & plead the right of the church. Yet to prevent the worst Athan. himself fled to Constant. beseeching him to send for the bishops & examine their acts. Upon whose complaint the good prince wrote this to the whole council: 
Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 34.  Your synod hath decreed, I know not what in a tumult & uproar, whiles you seek to pervert truth by your pestilent disorder, for hatred against your fellow (bishops:) but the divine providence will (I doubt not) scatter the mischief of your contention & make it plain in our sight, whether your convent had any regard of truth or no. You must therefore all of you resort hither to show the reason of your doings: for so doth it seem good & expedient to me: 

The Council of Tyrus commanded to come before the Prince & give account of their doings.  
What Constantine did in Athanasius his cause.   to which end I willed this rescript to be sent you, that as many of you, as were present at the council of Tyrus, without delay repair to the place of our abode, there to give account, how sincerely, & sound you have judged: and that before me, whom yourselves shall not deny to be the sincere minister of God (in these cases.) The prince summoned, the council prescribed them what they should handle, gave charge to the parties accused to come before them, sharply rebuked the bishops assembled in this synod, commanded them to come coram nobis, & tender a reason of their tumultuous judgement, assured them that he would in his own person examine their doings whether they were good & substantial or no. This power he challenged over churchmen & church-matters, not as a violent usurper, but as gods minister ordained to the intent: which the catholic bishops, that took part with Athan. confessed to be true by their appeal, the rest that deposed him, neither did nor durst deny. So the Const. was both an orderly refuge for Athan. & a lawful controller of the council of Tyrus, notwithstanding the crimes objected there to Macarius & Atha. were spiritual, to wit, 
Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 27.  the striking of a priest overthrowing the lords table, dashing in pieces the mystical cup, burning the sacred books, using a dead man's hand to sorcery, with many such heinous offences lewdly devised by their accusers, not any way proved against them, yet taken by their adversaries, than judges, for just matter to condemn them.  
In restoring Arius, 
The restoring of Arius.  the mildness of Constantine was somewhat abused by the crafty dissembling of heretics: yet thereby may well appear what authority this Prince claimed to command Bishops & release the rigour of their ecclesiastical censures. Thus stood the case. The Princes was often told that Arius held no such opinion as the world misdouted in him. 
Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 25.  If Arius, saith he, consent to the Nicene council, I will admit him to my sight, & send him home with honour. Arius & his adherents accepting the condition, were willed to put their faith in writing; & with their wily submission so pleased Constantine (very glad to see them yield to the Nicene creed) that he sent them with his letters towards Alexandria to be received. At their coming Athanasius the Bishop of those parts refused to communicate with them, advertising his Majesty by writing, the heretics once deposed might not be restored to their former estate. Constantine took this exception in such ill part, that he fell to commanding Athanasius in short & sharp terms. 

Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 27.  
Constantine threateneth Athanasius for not receiving Arius.   Knowing our pleasure, WE CHARGE YOU, that you suffer freely those that will, to return to the church. For if I learn, that you forbidden, or exclude such as would gladly be partakers of the church, I WILL PRESENTLY SEND ONE, THAT SHALL BY COMMISSION from me DEPOSE YOU.  
This, saith Socrates, he wrote minding to profit the church, & end all dissension: but it fell out otherwise: for the citizens of Alexandria were so troubled with the boldness of Arius, & lack of Athanasius then banished, that Constantine doubting the perverse mind of Arius sent for him, 
Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 37. & 31.  & asked him whether he would subscribe to the Nicene faith: which he did there in presence very readily, but slily. The Prince musing at it, exacted an oath: that he took likewise. 
Ibidem lib. 1. cap. 38.  Then the christian Emperor finding no cause to suspect him farther, COMMANDED ALEXANDER BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE TO RECEIVE HIM (the next day) TO THE COMMUNION, 
The Prince commandeth the Patriarch to receive Arius to the communion.  which God prevented with a sudden & shameful death in detestation both of his heresy so long defended, & perjury then freshly committed. Now chose whether you will affirm, that Constantine was over presumptuous & imperious in the church of Christ against all reason & good order: or else agnise that Princes had then authority to require the subscriptions & oaths of such as they suspected in religion, to restore those that were deposed, to their ancient places upon their submission, and command the chief Bishops (for so were both these, the first of Alexandria, the second of Constantinople) to receive such as had purged themselves, in the Prince's judgement and presence, to the communion.  Phi. 
Vengeance from heaven, decided the case with Athanasius against Arius.  Th. 
No doubt Arius was worthly plagued for his false swearing, & wicked meaning to trouble the church of God worse with his secret dissembling, than he did before with his open rebelling: but what is this to Constantine, whose zeal to preserve truth was never doubted, whose care to procure concord in the church can not be blamed, whose diligence to sift Arius with an oath could not be bettered? We propose not the lewd fact of Arius blaspheming God, & juggling with man, we detest that monster as much as you: but we lay forth the steps of Constantine seeking & hoping his reformation, & to the end commanding the very patriarchs themselves, & threatening due punishment if his princely will were not obeyed.  
justinian in his Code repeateth the laws of former Emperors not only touching the Christian faith, 
Codi. lib. 1. tit. 1.6.2.3. Tit. 5.7.9.11.  baptism, Churches and bishops, but also, touching heretics, Apostates, jews, and Infidels. In his Authentikes he maketh many new constitutions in which he disposeth OF SACRAMENTS, 
Novel. constitut. 57.37. & 42.123. Novel. constit. 123.131. Novel. constit. 5. & 131.3.67.79. Novel. constit. 123.133. Novel. con. 6. & 123. Novel. constitutione, 123.  in what places, by what persons, with what loudness of voice they shallbe ministered: OF SYNODS, when they shall be kept, what things shallbe reform in them according to the sacred Canons, and his Princely laws; also what Canons of Counsels shall stand in the same strength with his Laws: OF CHURCHES AND abbeys, guiding the manner of their erection, the number of their Clerks, their expenses, suits and privileges: OF MONKS, who shall elect their Abbate what time shall suffice for their trial; what rules they shall keep for prayer, diet, rest, and such like duties of life; to whom the correction and oversight of them shall belong: OF PRIESTS, DEACONS, AND OTHER SERVITOR'S in the Church, limiting their age, condition, learning and good report before they shall be received to this charge; their diligent, sober and chaste behaviour afterward: OF BISHOPS, how they shall be chosen, in what sort their soundness in faith, skill in common prayer, and clearness from all just accusations, prohibited by the sacred rules, or laws imperial, shallbe thoroughly sifted, before they may be confirmed; what causes they shall meddle with in their Consistories, what superior judges they themselves shall have, from whom they shall not appeal; what punishment they shall endure for Simony, non residence, wrongful excommunication, playing at tables, resorting to spectacles, ordering any Clerk without diligent examination, or contrary to the Princes ecclesiastical laws: in which cases justinian commandeth them to be SUSPENDED, EXCOMMUNICATED, DEPOSED, as the fault meriteth, and his edict appointeth.  
It was then no news for a Prince to say: 

Novel. constit. 123.  
The prince receiveth information & commandeth correction.  
Novel. constitutione 6.  
The doctrine & discipline of the church must be the Prince's chiefest care.  
The Bishops & patriarchs of every diocese commanded and threatened.   divers complaints have been brought us against Clerks, Monks and many Bishops, that some lead not their lives according to the sacred Canons, others can not the public prayers which should be said at the sacred oblation and baptism: we therefore recounting the judgement of God with ourselves, HAVE COMMANDED THAT IN EVERY MATTER THUS DETECTED, LAWFUL INQVISITION AND CORRECTION PROCEED, comprising in this edict those things that were before scattered in sundry constitutions touching the most religious Bishops, Clerks and Monks, with such punishments added, as we rhought expedient. And again, OUR CHIEFEST CARE IS FOR THE TRVETH OF GOD'S DOCTRINE, AND SEEMLY CONVERSATION OF THE CLERGY. THE THINGS THAN WHICH WE HAVE DECREED AND MAKE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED ORDER AND STATE, CONSONANT TO THE TENOR OF HOLY RULES, LET THE MOST GODLY patriarchs OF EVERY DIOCESE, THE metropolitans AND RIGHT REVEREND BISHOPS AND CLERKS KEEP FOR EVER HEREAFTER INVYOLABLE: THE BREAKER OF THEM shallBE SURE TO BE SEQVESTRED UTTERLY FROM GOD AND EXCLUDED FROM HIS PRIESTLY FUNCTION: licensing all men, of what sort or calling soever they be, that perceive the least point of these our Laws transgressed, to denounce and inform the same to our highness, that we, which following the sacred rules and apostolic tradition have commanded these things, may revenge such offenders as they well deserve.  

Novel. Constitut. 5.  Farther he saith, Our purpose in this present Law is next after those matters which we have disposed of the most holy Bishops and reverend Clerks to set a good order in monastical discipline: for so much as there is no kind of thing exempted from the Prince's inquisition, 
Novel. Constitut. 133. The Prince sovereign over all men, and that in things concerning God which must be preserved from corruption by the prelate's, but most of all by the Prince.  which hath received from God a common regiment, and sovereignty over all men: and these things which concern God must be preserved from corruption by the sacred Prelates and [civil] Magistrates, but most of all by our Majesty, which use not to neglect any divine causes, but labour by all means, that our common wealth (by the favour of the great God, and our Saviour Christ towards men) may reap the fruit of that pureness and integrity, which Clerks, Monks and Bishops from the highest to the lowest, shall show forth in keeping the sacred Canons, & our laws provided in that behalf: which constitutions, by this our decree, we strengthen a fresh and ratify. Put on your spectakles, and see whether justinian do not take upon him to govern the doctrine and discipline of the Church, the conversation of Clerks, Monks and Priests: and to command Prelates and patriarchs in the celebration of sacraments, convocation of Synods, election and confirmation of Bishops, ordering of Clerks, and such like functions (except our eyesight fail us) wholly spiritual, and in the judgement of your nearest friends acknowledged for causes ecclesiastical.  
I will omit what justinian enacted touching marriages, divorces, legacies, funerals, incests, adulteries, and such like: 
The things were then in the Princes charge which the Pope now tieth to spiritual courts.  then pertinent to the Prince's power and sword, now claimed by your holy father for a surplusage to causes ecclesiastical; and with that silly shift conveyed out of Prince's hands, who first upon favour and opinion of holiness and wisdom in Bishops, gave them leave to meddle with such matters: I will omit, I say, that; and descend to the Laws of Charles the great, Emperor of the West parts, eight hundredth years after Christ, which Ansegisus gathered together within thirteen years of the death of the said Charles. In his preface of those Laws thus speaketh that wise Prince.  

Careli praefa. in leges Franciae. The preface of Charles to his laws directing commissioners to reform the Church in his name and by virtue of his authority.  Considering the passing goodness of Christ our Lord towards us and our people, and how needful it is, not only to give thanks to God incessantly with heart and mouth, but also with good endeavours continually to set forth his (honour and) praise etc. Therefore (O you Pastors of Christ's Church, and teachers of his flock,) Have we directed Commissioners unto you that shall join with you to redress those things, which need reformation, in our name and by virtue of our authority: and (to this end) we have here annexed certain brief chapters of Canonical (or ecclesiastical) institutions, such as we thought meetest. Let no man judge this our admonition to godliness to be presumptuous, Whereby we seek to correct things amiss, to cut off superfluities and lead men to that which is right, but rather receive it with a charitable mind. For in the book of kings we read what pains godly josias took to bring the kingdom given him of GOD to the true worship of the (same) God, by visiting, correcting and instructing them; not that we compare ourselves with his sanctity, but that we should always imitate such examples of the godly. We see the reason why these Laws were published, and commissioners sent from the Prince to put them in execution: now let us examine the Laws themselves, and mark what causes they chiefly concern. Peruse the book: you will (on my word) expect no farther proof, that Princes had then to do with persons and causes ecclesiastical. If your leisure serve you not, by these few, which I will report, you may conjecture the rest. The first seven and fifty Canons are borrowed out of such general, and provincial Counsels as Charles best liked: for example.  
That no man excommunicated in one place shall be taken to the communion in an other place: 
Legun Franciae li. 1. Cap. 1.2.3.  That when any Clerk is ordered, his faith and life be first exactly tried: That no strange Clerk be received or ordered without letters of commendation, and licence from his own Bishop: 
Cap. 23.  That no servant be made Clerk or Monk without his master's consent: 
Chap. 49.25.  That no man be made Priest under thirty years of age: neither then at random, but appointed and fastened to a certain cure: 
Cap. 11.  That no Bishop meddle with giving orders in an other man's diocese: 
Cap. 57.45.  That no Bishop veele any widoes at all, 
Cap. 13.  nor maidens under the age of twenty and five: That the Bishop of each Province, and the Metropolitan meet yearly twice in Council, for causes of the Church: 
Cap. 6.  That Priests when they say their masses shall also communicate: 
Cap. 20.  That only the books canonical shall be read in the Church: 
Cap. 41.  That the false names of Martyrs and uncertain memories of Saints be not observed: 
Cap. 15.  That Sunday be kept from evening on (Saturday) till evening (the next day:) with other such constitutions prescribing a direct order to Bishops, Priests, and Monks, for ecclesiastical causes.  Phi. 
These be Canons of former Counsels.  Theo. 
True, but selected and delivered by Charles to those visitors which he sent with his authority to reform the Church: and the rest that follow, to the number of an hundred and five chapters, did Charles frame by conference with learned and godly men at his discretion. Which yet concern the regiment of the Church no less than these do. You must bear with the length of them, they be matters profitable to be known (I speak for the most part of them) & greatly pertinent to this question. You shall thereby resolve yourself how far Princes then lawfully might, and carefully did meddle with guiding and ruling the Church of God: and see both a worthy memorial and a right precedent of a Prince's visitation and reformation of all states, aswell in matters of faith, as good order and discipline.  

These be the Laws.  

Cap. 160. Chap. 76.  The Priests, every man in his calling, shall preach, and teach the people committed to their charge: The Bishops shall not suffer any man under them, to propose to the people newe fangled opinions, or not Canonical, of their own devising, not agreeable to the scriptures: but shall themselves preach fruitful & good doctrine, tending to life everlasting, and instruct others to do the like. And first they shall teach all men generally to believe the father, the son and the holy Ghost to be one omnipotent, eternal and invisible God, creator of heaven and earth and all things in them, and that there is but one Godhead, substance & majesty in these three persons, the father, the son and the holy ghost.  

Cap. 76.  ITEM they shall preach, that the son of God, through the working of the holy spirit, took flesh of Marie (she remaining still a virgin) for the salvation and redemption of mankind, his death, burial, rising the third day from the dead, his ascending into heaven, and how he shall come again in divine glory to judge all men according to their deserts, the wicked (for their unrighteousness) to be cast into perpetual flames of fire with the Devil: the just to be taken to Christ and his elect angels into [blessed] life for ever.  

Ibidem.  ITEM they shall diligently set forth the resurrection of the dead, that men may know and believe they shall have their reward [good or evil] in the same bodies which they now bear about them.  

Ibidem.  ITEM they shall admonish all men with all industry, for what offences they shallbe condemned to pains everlasting: Paul telling us, that the works of the flesh are manifest, which are, fornication, uncleanness, wantonness, hatred, debate, emulation, wrath strife, sedition, heresy, sects, spite, murder, drunkenness, gluttony, and such other, of which I warn you now, as I did before, that they which commit these things shall not inherit the kingdom of God: these things therefore, which the great Preacher of the Church of God reckoneth by name, let them be with all care prohibited, remembering how terrible that saying is, They which do these things, shall never come to the kingdom of God.  

Ibidem.  BESIDES, you shall earnestly teach them the love of God, and their neighbour, faith and hope in God, humility and patience, charity and continency, liberality and mercy, to give alms, to acknowledge their sins, and forgive such as trespass against them according to the lords prayer: assuring them that they, which follow these things, shall enter the kingdom of God. THIS WE CHARGE AND ENJOIN YOU THE MORE PRECISELY, because WE KNOW, THAT FALSE TEACHERS SHALL COME IN THE LATER DAYS, as the Lord in the Gospel foretold, and his Apostle Paul to Timothy witnesseth.  

Cap. 66.  ITEM the Bishops shall diligently discuss in every parish the faith of the Priests, their manner of baptizing, and saying mass: that their faith may be sound, their baptism Catholic, and themselves well conceive the prayers of their mass, and sing the psalms by the distinction of verses. They must well understand the lords prayer themselves, and teach that all others must understand the same [to this end] that every man may know what he asketh at god's hand. This verse, Glory be to the father & the son (etc.) shall be song of all with great devotion: & the Priests together with the people shall sing with one voice, holy, holy, holy (Lord God of hosts) and all the faithful shall communicate, and provide at the time of mass so to do, 
Cap. 132.  without any other calling or warning. No Priest shall admit an other man's parishioner to the mass, 
Cap. 147.  except he be a wayfaring man, or one that is tied there with some matter in law.  
ITEM that false and suspected legends or such as be repugnant to the Catholic faith (as that vile and erroneous epistle, which some deceived themselves, 
Cap. 73.  and deceiving others, pretended a year past to fall from heaven) be neither believed, nor read, but burnt, lest the people be seduced by such Pamphlets: & only the canonical books, Catholic treaties, and sentences of holy writers be read, and taught.  
ITEM the Priests shall have always in readiness the sacred Eucharist, 
Cap. 155.  that when any falleth sick, or an infant be in danger of death, he may minister the communion to him, lest he die without a communion.  
ITEM we decree, that as God hath commanded, 
Cap. 75.  no servile work to be taken in hand on the Lord's day, as also the Prince my father of blessed memory gave charge by his Synodal Edict, to wit, no kind of husbandry, neither cutting of vines, nor tilling the ground, neither reaping, nor mowing, nor hedging, neither rooting or felling of trees, nor digging in rocks, nor building, nor gardening, no not keeping of courts, or hunting [the women likewise to forbear all kind of manual works] but that all people resort to the Church and praise God for all his blessings. 
Cap. 139.  On the Sunday shall no market nor fair be kept in any place.  
ITEM the holy days, that shallbe kept throughout the year, are these: 
Cap. 158.  the birth of Christ, S. Steevens, S. john's, the Innocents day, the octaves of our Lord, the epiphany & octaves thereof, the purification of the virgin Marie, eight days of Easter, the time of [the solemn procession or] greater Litany, the ascension of the Lord, Whitsuntide, S. john Baptist, S. Peter and Paul, S. Martin, S. Andrew. The assumption of our Lady I leave in doubt.  
ITEM the Monks shall perfectly learn the manner of the Roman tunes like as our father king Pipine decreed they should, 
Cap. 74.  when he did abrogate the french kind of singing.  
ITEM that Bishops be chosen by the consent of the clergy and people out of the same dioces, 
Cap. 78.  according to the Canons, without respect of persons, or rewards: and that they train up their Priests in sobriety and chastity: 
Cap. 103.  and see them have the books of their masses and lessons well corrected: and that they repair their Churches decayed to their ability, & instruct the (Church) widoes how they should be conversant after the apostolic precept, & root out the superstitions that are in many places about the exequys of the dead, and wholly bend themselves to do their duties in all things concerning the Church of God: and this that they may the more freely do, we will be ready to assist them by all means possible.  

Cap. 129. Cap. 128. Cap. 130. Cap. 131. Cap. 141. Cap. 136. Cap. 86. Cap. 67.  ITEM that in one City be not two Bishops, nor one province divided between two metropolitans: and that the confirming of Bishops be not long differed, neither any Bishop remove from his diocese, without the decree of other Bishops. That no lay man presume to place or displace Clerks, but by the Bishop's Consent. That excommunications be not over rife and for trifling causes. That every Church have a Priest as soon as the Bishop can provide. Item the Bishop shall look that the Church of God have due honour: no secular business, nor vain jangling shallbe suffered in the Church, because the house of God is the house of prayer, but that all men have their minds attentively bend to God, when they come to mass, and not departed before the Priest have ended his blessing.  

Cap. 79.  Because Canonical profession partly for ignorance, partly for sloth, was very much defaced, we took pains at our sacred session to gather as it were certain sweet flowers out of the monuments of blessed writers, and proportion a rule both for women and men of Canonical conversation: which the whole assembly so well liked of, that they thought it worthy to be kept without alteration: and therefore we decree, that all of that sort hold it without failing, and in any case hereafter observe the same.  

Cap. 81.  How we have disposed touching monks, and given them leave to choose an Abbot of themselves, and ordered their purpose of life, we have caused to be drawn in an other schedule, and confirmed it, 
Cap. 110.  that it might stand good and inviolable with (the Princes) our successors, (Provided always) that laymen be neither overseers of Monks, nor Archdeacon's.  

Cap. 71.  We hear say that certain Abbesses, against the manner of the Church of God, give blessing with laying their hands, and making the sign of the Cross on the heads of men. Know you, sacred fathers, that this must be utterly forbidden in your diocese.  

Cap. 62.  We have a precept in Deuteronomie, No man shall consult a southsaier, observe dreams or respect divinations: there shall be no sorcerer, no enchanter, no conjuror. Therefore we command that none calculate, practise charms, or take upon them to Prophesy what weather shall come: but wheresoever such be found, either to be reformed or condemned. Likewise for trees, rocks, springs, where some fools make their observations, we give strait charge that this wicked use, detected of GOD, be banished every where and destroyed.  

Cap. 163.  Of marriage your demand, whether a man may take to wife a maid that is espoused to an other. In any case we forbidden it: because that blessing, which the Priest giveth her that is betrothed, is to the faithful in manner of a sacrilege if it any way be violated.  

Cap. 116. The Prince visiteth and commandeth for ecclesiastical rules and discipline.  THAT our visitors look diligently in every City, Monastery, and Nunnery, how the buildings and ornaments of the Church be kept, and make diligent inquiry for the conversation of all persons there, and how that which we commanded, is reformed in their reading, singing, and other disciplines pertaining to the rules of eccelsiasticall order.  
Certain Chapters, 

Cap. 104.  
The Prince promiseth by the advise of his faithful determination for such ecclesiastical matters as were not expressed in his chapters.   as of incestuous marriages, Churches that lack their right honour or have been lately spoiled, and if there be any other ecclesiastical, or common wealth matters worthy to be redressed, which for shortness of time we could not now finish, we think good to differre them, until by God's help, and the advise of our faithful [Counsellors,] opportunity serve us to determine the same.   
There be six score chapters besides these, recorded by the same writer of the laws, that Charles made touching ecclesiastical Persons and causes, which I for brevity sake omit, leaving you to consider of them when you see your time.  
Charles, 
Charles by his laws rectified all ecclesiastical things and causes.  by these public laws, appointed what doctrine should be preached, what abuses in the Lord's supper amended, what parts of divine service pronounced by the Priest and people together with one voice, what books should be read in the Church, what holy days observed, what memories of Saints abolished, what works on Sunday prohibited: he prescribed the Bishops their duties, the Priests their charge, the Monks their rules: he directed thee keeping of Synods, electing and translating of Bishops, ordering and placing of Clerks, paying and employing of Tithes: decided what should become of their marriages that were taken away by force, or affianced before to others: forbade the burying of dead corpses in the Church, banished Sorcery, Simony, Usury, Perjury: last of all undertook, that if any thing were wanting, which needed reformation in causes ecclesiastical, it should be supplied of him at his leisure. If Charles had the regiment of monastical profession, episcopal jurisdiction, canonical conversation: if he did, I say, meddle with redressing errors in faith, abuses in sacraments, disorders in divine service, superstition in funerals, oaths, charms, and such other matters, as by the purport of these chapters it is evident he did, what causes can you devise more spiritual than these? Will you permit these things of most importance to the Prince's power, and except other of less moment? That were notorious folly. You must either invest them with all, or exclude them first from the weightiest. For if they be governors of the greatest ecclesiastical affairs, much more doth their authority stretch to the smallest.  
Again, these Laws of Charles, which amount to the number of eight score and three, 
If any wanted he promised at his leisure to supply that defect.  what do they lack of a full direction for all matters needing reformation in the Church of God? Any thing or nothing? If nothing, than this prince governed & ordered all ecclesiastical causes. If any thing, that Charles himself assureth us he would determine, when occasion served. Choose whether you will, Charles either way showed the lawful power of Princes to direct & establish all things requisite to the faith and Church of Christ. For what he promised advisedly to do; no doubt, he meant it should, and thought it might, be justly performed.  

His son & his nephew followed his steps and executed his laws.  So did Ludovike his son, and Lotharius his nephew the next Emperors after him, whose proceed declare what account they made of these chapters, and with what diligence they put them in execution. The monuments of so good Princes I may not overslip with silence, their deeds did then profit the Church of God, their words will now profit us. Thus did Ludovic, and Lotharius his son write to the Bishops and magistrates of their Empire.  

Legion franciae lib. 2. Cap. 1.  You have all I doubt not either seen or heard, that our father and our progenitors, after they were chosen by God to this place, MADE THIS THEIR PRINCIPAL STUDY, 
Cap. 2.  how the honour of God's holy Church, and the state of their kingdom might be decently kept: and we for our part, following their example, since it hath pleased God to appoint us that we should have the care of his holy church, and this Realm, are very desirous, so long as we live, to labour earnestly for three special points, I mean to defend, exalt and honour Gods holy Church and his ministers in such sort as is fit, to preserve peace, and do justice among the people.  


Cap. 3.  
The chief of this ministery consisteth in the prince's person to whom the Bishops are coadjutors.  
Cap. 12. Cap. 11.  
The Prince willeth all without exception to observe his commandments in all things as well ecclesiastical as temporal.  
Cap. 26.  
Bishop's to be reform by the King's visitors.  
Cap. 27.  
The king's decrees touching all things and causes to be observed of all men.   AND THOUGH THE CHIEF OF THIS ministery CONSIST IN OUR PERSON, yet by Gods and man's ordinance it is so divided, that every one of you in his order and calling hath a part of our charge, in so much that I should be your admonisher, and you all my coadjutors. For which respect our intent is by other good means, and by commissioners appointed for this purpose, to learn and try how well our lieutenant's favour and execute justice, and how religiously our Bishops live and preach: WILLING TOV ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION TO OBSERVE OUR COMMANDMENT IN ALL THINGS AND HONOUR SUCH AS WE SEND FOR ANY OCCASION OR BUSINESS EITHER ECCLESIASTICAL OR TEMPORAL, AND IN RESPECT OF OUR AUTHORITY NOT TO fail BUT PERFORM THOSE THINGS WHICH WE HAVE ENJOINED YOU BY THEM.  
Now the charge that we give our visitors is this. First they shall indict assemblies in two or three places, whither all within the limits of their commission shall resort, and there make it known to all men what is the sum and effect of their message, to wit, that we have appointed them for this cause, that IF ANY BISHOP or Lieutenant can not do his duty by reason of any impediment, he should have recourse to them, and by their help discharge his duty: and if the matter be such as by their industry can not be redressed, then shall it be brought by them to our knowledge: and again, IF ANY BISHOP or Lieutenant BE FOUND NEGLIGENT IN HIS OFFICE, by their monition he shallbe reformed.  
We charge them likewise to make known to all men the Chapters or Laws, QVAE GENERALITER DE QVIBUSCUNQVE CAUSIS STATVIMUS, WHICH WE HAVE DECREED GENERALLY CONCERNING ALL MANNER OF CAUSES, and do their best to see them thoroughly kept of all men. And if any of the things which we have ordained and commanded be found imperfect by some defect happily which they can not amend, then shall they with speed make relation thereof to us that we may correct that which they cannot.  
And because the last year our expectation was not satisfied in such sort as we looked for, 
Chap. 28.  we will that this present (year) our visitors whom we have allotted to this service, have (better) respect and care how every man that we have preferred to the governance of our people in his calling dischargeth his duty to God's pleasure, our honour, & the benefit of our subjects: and this shall be the very course of their inquiry, whether the things contained in our Capitular, which we delivered them this year past, be kept and observed according to Gods will & our commandment. Therefore about the midst of May next shall they assemble, I mean our visitors every man in his division with all the Bishops, abbots, Lieutenants, our fee men and advocates (the Abbesses and such as cannot come to send their proxies the lieutenant to bring with him his under officers and hundreders) and in that convent shall they first confer touching Christian religion and ecclesiastical order, 
The first part of the Prince's commission concerned religion and ecclesiastical order.  next they shall inquire of our officers how they do their duties, last of our people in what concord and peace they live. And this inquisition shall they make so diligently and exactly, that we may be truly certified by them of all these points. And if any such cause be brought before them which needeth their help according to the condition of the causes specified in the short rehearsal of our laws, than our will is they shall go to the place and redress it by the warrant of our authority.  
You can neither be so simple but you may see, 
Legun Franciae Cap. 12.  nor so partial but you must grant that Ludovic and Lotharius behaved themselves as rightful supervisors of the Bishops in their Empire, 
Cap. 26.  how they lived and preached: aiding those that were hindered, correcting those that were negligent in their ministries: 
Cap. 28.  and sent visitors to inquire and redress by their Princely power any cause that needed reformation in Christian religion or ecclesiastical order: 

Cap. 11.  
What lacketh this of governing all men in all matters both ecclesiastical and civil?   commanding all men generally to reverence and obey them as well in ecclesiastical as common wealth matters in respect of their royal authority. What more than this doth that oath impart, which you so much declaim against? Or what less than this did Ludovic and Lotharius execute? Can their proceed please you, and our words expressing the selfsame right offend you? You must either reject both or admit both: they be so near linked, you can not dissever them.  
I now make yourself judge, whether these Christian and Catholic Princes were not commanders and punishers (those we call governors) of Bishops, Priests, and Monks, in matters and causes ecclesiastical.  Phi. 
I see they were, but yet not supreme, which is the chiefest thing that we mislike in your oath.  Theo. 
I believe you well; for by that word we deny Princes to be subject to the Pope's consistory, which is the chiefest thing you respect.  Phi. 
That word maketh them superiors to God himself: for supreme is superior to all, neither Christ's own person, nor his Church excepted.  Theo. 
Can you make such merriments when you be disposed?  Phi. 
Doth not the word infer superior to all, or at least subject to none?  Theo. 
Was it in question, when this oath was made, whether God should be superior to man, or whether Princes should be subject to the Pope? 
Supreme is not superior to Christ, but not subject to the Pope.   Phi. 
It skilleth not what was then in question, these be now your words.  Theo. 
By this cunning you may conclude all that ever wrote with pen or spoke with tongue to be wicked blasphemers.  Phi. 
Why so?  Theo. 
Where the superlative is used, by your rule, God himself is not excepted. And so these phrases, a most wise teacher, a most holy Bishop, a most mighty prince, and ten thousand such like, which we find in all men's books and speeches, be mere impieties. For they import that many be wiser, holier, and mightier than Christ himself, or at lest as wise, holy and mighty as he, which is open & inexcusable blasphemy. Name me what father or writer you will, and see by this art of yours whether I prove him not a blasphemer.  Phi. 

The superlative includeth not God, because God with man is not compared.  That is no right understanding but a foolish carping at men's words. For when we give these titles to men, sanctissimus, potentissimus, beatissimus, the most holy father, the most puissant king, the most blessed Martyr, we mean amongst men; we compare them not with God.  Theo. 
And since all men even yourselves speak so, why do you take that foolish advantage at the word supreme, which we use; as if we meant not amongst men, but exalted Princes above God?  Phi. 
But the Church of Christ is not excepted, and that consisteth of men.  Theo. 
If by the Church of Christ you mean the faithful living on earth, certainly Princes be not subject, but superiors to all Christian men. Peter spoke to the chosen and elect of God when he said, 
1. Pet. 2. Tit. 3. Rom. 1. Cap. & 13. Cap.  Be subject to the king as to the chief; Paul willed Titus to warn not the miscreants but the believers in Creta, to be subject to principalities and powers: and wrote himself to all the Saints at Rome, You must be subject for conscience sake. If the Saints must be subject to Princes, ergo the Church; for the Church on earth is nothing else but the collection of saints. And if every soul, that is every man, must be subject, 
The saints on earth are subject to the Prince's sword the graces of God are not.  how can the Church consisting of men be exempted? But if by the Church you mean the precepts and promises, gifts and graces of God preached in the Church and poured on the Church, Princes must humbly obey them and reverently receive them as well as other private men. So that Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists and all other builders of Christ's Church, as touching their Persons, be subject to the Prince's power; marry the word of truth in their mouths, and the Seals of grace in their hands, because they are of God, not of themselves, they be far above the Prince's calling and regiment, and in those cases, kings and Queens, if they will be saved, must submit themselves to God's everlasting truth and testament, as well as the meanest of their people: but this neither abateth the power which God hath given them over all men, nor maketh them thrall to the Pope's judicial process to be forced and punished at his pleasure: and therefore, this notwithstanding, Princes be supreme, that is superior to all, and subject to none but only to God.  Phi. 
Who ever taught before you that Princes were subject only to God? 

The Church confessed princes to be subject to none but to God. Tertul. ad Scapulam. Idem in Apologetico.  
Contra Parmenian. lib. 3. Ad Populun antioch homil. 2.    Theo. 
The Church of Christ from the beginning, Colimus Imperatorem, ut hominem a Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem: We reverence the Emperor, saith Tertullian, as a man next unto God, and inferior only to God. Again, Deum esse solum in cuius solius potestate sunt, a quo sunt secundi, post quem primi, ante omnes & super omnes Deos & hommes: It is only God in whose power alone (Princes) are: in comparison with him they be second, and after him first, afore all and over all both Gods and men. So likewise Optatus: Super Imperatorem non (est) nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem: Above the Emperor is none but only GOD, who made the Emperor. And chrysostom: Parem ullum super terram non habet: (The Emperor) hath no peer on earth, much less any superior.  
And that Princes are above all, 

Superior to all, is subject to none.  
Ad popu Ant. homil. 2.  
Novel. con 133.  
De obitu Theodosij. Greg. epist. li. 3. ca 100 & cap. 103.   Saint Paul is clear. Let every soul be subject to the Superior powers. All must be subject to them, ergo they be superior to all; and superior to all, is supreme. chrysostom calleth the Emperor, The highest and head of all men upon earth. justinian, saith the Emperor, hath received a common government and Principality over all men. Ambrose saith of Theodosius, that he had power over all men. And Gregory, as you heard, affirmeth that Power is given to Princes from heaven over all men, not only Soldiers but also Priests. And since I before concluded and you confessed all men, were they Monks, Priests, Bishops, or whatsoever, to be subject to the Prince's power and authority both in causes ecclesiastical and temporal, why should that now be revoked or doubted?  Phi. 
I never did nor will confess Princes to be supreme. For he that judgeth on earth in Christ's stead is above them all.  Theo. 
You come now to the quick. 
The word supreme was added to set Princes at liberty from the Pope, and that is it that so much offendeth the Jesuits.  This very claim was the cause why the word supreme was added to the oath: for that the Bishop of Rome taketh upon him to command and depose Princes as their lawful and superior judge. To exclude this wicked presumption, we teach that Princes be supreme rulers, we mean, subject to no superior judge to give a reason of their doings but only to God.  Phi. 
This you teach, but this you can not prove.  Theo. 
It forceth not what we can do. The burden in this case to prove is yours and not ours. You say Princes be subject to the Pope's Consistory, we say they be not. Must we prove the negative, or must you rather make good your affirmative? Again Saint Paul avoucheth with us that every soul is subject to their power: You contradict those words, and say the Pope is not subject but Superior to Princes. The general in precise terms concludeth for us; you except the Pope: must you not prove your exception?  Phi. 
You be loath to prove; 
They must prove Princes to be subject to the Pope: we need not prove them to be free.  you know the weakness of your side.  Theo. 
You cross the plain words of the holy Ghost, and would put us to refute your fancies.  Phi. 
We say Christ's vicar is not included in those words.  Theo. 
We say the general includeth every particular.  Phi. 
How could Paul make Peter a subject to Princes, when Peter was none?  Theo. 
Why should not Peter be subject to Princes, when God himself pronounced by the mouth of Paul that every soul was subject to them?  Phi. 
Who ever construed S. Paul's words so, besides you?  Theo. 
The Church of Christ never construed them otherwise. Peter and the Bishops of Rome for the first three hundred years, did they not patiently submit themselves as subjects to those punishments and torments which heathen Princes inflicted on other Christians?  Phi. 
In deed they were martyred for the most part by the rage of Infidels, that knew them not.  Theo. 
And the Christians that knew them, never took arms to defend them against the rage of Infidels, but thought them subject to higher powers by force of S. Paul's words, as well as all other Bishops were.  Phi. 
They might not resist though they were wrongfully vexed.  Theo. 
And why might they not, but because they were subject by God's ordinance to the Prince's power? Unlawful violence might well be resisted.  Phi. 

The Bishops of Rome for 300. years endured heathen Princes.  Christian Princes were never superiors to the Bishops of Rome.  Theo. 
Sir, your courage is more than your cunning. The Bishops of Rome for eight hundred and fifty years after Christ, that we can directly prove, were dutiful and obedient subjects to Christian Emperors.  Phi. 
Are you not ashamed to tell such a tale?  Theo. 
Will you be ashamed of your error, if I prove it a truth?  Phi. 
Show me that, and I will yield the rest.  Theo. 
The rest is already proved, 

Martin. Polon. in julio & Liberio. Platina in Bonifacio I. Martin. Polon. in Silver. Vigil. & Martino I. Caus. 2. quaest. 7. Cap. Nossi.  
The pope's submission to the Emperor.   and this shall be presently showed. I might allege that after the Roman Emperors began to profess the name of Christ, julius and Liberius were banished by Constantius; Bonifacius the first by Honorius; Syluerius and Vigilius by justinian; Martyne the first by Constantine the third; and divers other Popes by sundry Princes, but that I will skip, & come to the submission of Leo the fourth made to Ludovike the West Emperor with these words: If we have done any thing otherwise than well, and not dealt uprightly with those that are under us, we will amend all that is amiss by the judgement of your highness, beseeching your excellency to send, for the better trial of these surmises, such as in the fear of God may narrowly sift not only the matters informed, but all (our doings) great and small, as well as if your Majesty were present: so that by lawful examination all may be finished, and nothing left undiscussed or undetermined. In all things, great and small, the Pope submitteth himself to the Prince's commissioners, and offereth to amend all that is amiss by the prince's judgement. This lowly submission importeth an evident subjection. 
Ibidem Cap. Perrus. A lewd elusion of Gratian.   Phi. 
It was a dispensation of the Pope's humility, not any part of his bounden duty thus to do.  Theo. 
So Gratian the compiler of your decrees falueth the matter; which is as much as if you said, the Pope by right might have commanded the Prince, but in a merry mood, for once, to make sport, he would needs be judged and ordered by the Prince. Is not this a proper kind of divinity, when the Pope protesteth his obedience to the Prince's power and laws, to say the Pope speaketh in jest, his words are but a trick of voluntary, which he may recall or refuse when he will? If such unlearned, irreligious, and unsavoury shifts may serve for good answers, you may soon defend what religion you lift. It is a very short and easy method to be rid of all examples and histories, to say they did so: but it was more than needed or should have been done.  Phi. 
In temporal matters it might be the Pope was subject to the Prince's power, 
The Prince superior to the Pope even in causes ecclesiastical.  but not in spiritual.  Theo. 
No man can be both a subject and a superior to the Prince's power. A subject is always a subject, that is at all times to be commanded and punished by the magistrate: never to command or punish the Magistrate. Again Leo referreth himself in all things both great and small to the Prince's pleasure and censure: now a subject in all things, is superior in nothing: yet left you should cavil, that ecclesiastical causes are not expresty mentioned in this place, you shall see that the Bishops of Rome for eight hundred years and above, were suppliants and servants not of courtesy but of duty to Christian Emperors, and obeyed their ecclesiastical Laws and edicts, and were commanded and overruled by them in the regiment of the Church, as the stories that follow shall plainly declare.  
Donatus and his fellows pretending that Cecilianus could not be Bishop of Carthage for many crimes falsely surmised, 
The quarrel between Donatus & Cecilian.  and specially for that Felix, which laid hands on him had (as they said) betrayed or burnt the scriptures: not only refused his communion, and procured his condemnation in a Provincial Synod by lxx. African Bishops, but in a tumult erected an other Bishop besides him, divided the people from him, and offering a bill of complaint against him to the Proconsul of Africa, made a request to Constantine, that he would give them judges to decide the matter. The Prince careful to keep the Church in peace, did authorize Meltiades Bishop of Rome, Marcus a Clergieman of the same City, but as than no Bishop, Rheticius, Maternus, and Maximus three Bishops of France to consider their allegations and determine the strife: Where sentence passing with Cecilianus, the contrary part appealed from the commissioners to the Prince. This appeal Constantine might have justly rejected as made from his own delegates; but seeking all means to pacify the schism, commanded a greater number of their Bishops to meet together at Arle in France, there to sit in Council a fresh about the hearing and ending of this quarrel: from whom, for that they likewise concluded Cecilianus to be right Bishop of Carthage, the Donatists appealed as they had done from the first: adding now, that if Cecilianus himself were clear, yet so long as Felix was guilty, which ordered and confirmed him, his election must needs be void. The patiented and mild Emperor seeing them twice convicted and not contented, but still murmuring against the Bishops as partial, and daily molesting his ears with importunate suit, never troubled Bishop or Council with the clearing of Felix, but appointed Aelianus a civil Magistrate to search out the truth of these later accusations in a temporal Court, where Felix after diligent examination was judicially discharged and acquitted from all suspicion of that sacrilegious abusing the word of God. Then were both sides called before Constantine to receive judgement at his hands without appeal, who taking pains in his own Person to sit judge between them, and exactly weighing what either part could say, gave sentence with Cecilianus, against Donatus, making therewithal a most sharp Law to punish the Donatists (if they persisted in their wilfulness) as dissentious schismatics, from the Church of Christ: which rigour the Christian Emperors that followed, did rather increase than diminish. This I thought good to report out of Eusebius, 
Lib. 10. Cap. 5. Lib. 1. contra Parmenianum epist. 162.166. & alibi. This quarrel was forthings & causes spiritual.  Optatus and Austen somewhat the larger, that the circumstances being fully known, the conclusion might the better be perceived.  
I trust you will not deny but the strife between Cecilianus and Donatus consisted both of persons and causes ecclesiastical. The parties accused and accusing were Bishops; the faults objected, were just impediments of episcopal dignity; the matters in doubt were the committing and partaking of sacrilege, the right election of Bishops, the lawful deposing of them by Synods, the needful communion with them, or schismatical dissension from them. No causes can possibly touch the regiment of Christ's Church nearer than these: well then in these causes who was supreme, Meltiades or Constantine? 
Constantine superior to Meltiades.  The bishop of Rome or the Emperor? The prince sent commission to the Pope, joined other colleagues with him, received an appeal from him, gave second judges after him, and in his own person pronounced final sentence without him: the least of these facts proveth the prince superior to the Pope; and all these did that famous Emperor, and his doings in this case were very well liked and accepted in the Church of Christ.  
Which of these things will you now encounter? Did not Constantine authorise Meltiades? 
Euseb. lib. 10. Cap. 5. The Pope with others were authorized by the Prince to hear this cause. August. epist. 162.  His commission is yet extant to Meltiades Bishop of Rome and Marcus with these words: My pleasure is, that Cecilianus with ten Bishops of his accusers and other ten of his favourers come to Rome, there to be heard before you both, joining with you Rheticius, Maternus, and Marinus your colleagues, whom purposely for this matter I have willed with speed to repair unto you. S. Austen debating with the Donatists what just exceptions they could take to so many sentences given against them, moveth this doubt & maketh this answer, Should not (think you) Meltiades Bishop of Rome with his colleagues have usurped that judgement, which lxx. African Bishops had ended? What, that he did not usurp? For the Emperor upon motion made (by you) sent Bishops to sit with him as judges, and to rule that matter in every point as justice should lead them. This we prove by the Donatists supplication and the Princes own words. If S. Austen defend the Bishop of Rome from usurping in this case, by producing & urging a commission from the prince, then apparently, both the pope was authorized by the princes power to give judgement in a matter ecclesiastical, & had been, but for that warrant, an usurper.  Phi. 
S. Austen saith that Constantine durst not be judge of a Bishop's cause. 
Epist. 166.   Theo. 
At the first he was loath to sit judge in his own person, for that he was not acquainted with the Church Canons which were then brought in question: 
Constantine himself would not at first fit judge in the cause for want of skill.  but at length when he saw no remedy, himself sat in judgement both after the Pope and after the Council, and heard the whole matter, and ended it for ever. This inferreth that at the first when he refused he wanted not power to command, but skill to discern; more requisite in a judge than the former: Yea at the first when he durst not sit judge himself for lack of experience, he showed his sovereignty by making delegates to hear and order the cause. So saith S. Austen the very next words. 
August. epist. 166.  For that Constantine durst not be judge himself of a Bishop's cause, eam discutiendam at que finiendam Episcopis delegavit: he made delegates of the Bishops to discuss and determine the same. And again, causam Ceciliani iniunxit eis audiendam, he gave forth a precept (to the Bishop of Rome and others) for hearing of Cecilianus his matter. 
Cellatio. 3. dici cum Donatistis  Now to delegate the Bishop of Rome with others, and to give fresh judges after them, is an argument of greater authority, than if the Prince in Person had been judge in the cause.  
Did not Constantine receive that appeal which the Donatists made from Meltiades, 
The Prince received an appeal from the Pope. Euseb. li. 10. Cap. 5.  and assign them other judges? His Epistle to Chrestus Bishop of Siracusas in Sicily, whom he willed to be present at the Council of Arle for the ending of the same matter, is an evident proof that he did. At the first, saith Constantine, when this schism began, I wrote my letters and took this order: that certain Bishops coming from France, & the parties in strife called for out of Africa, the Bishop of Rome being also there, in their presence this quarrel should be thoroughly considered and pacified. Marry for so much as they will not agree to the sentence there given, but go forward in their outrageous dissension, I must take care that (the strife) which should have calmed of itself at the first decision, at least may now be composed by the meeting of many. Having therefore charged a great number of Bishops out of divers coasts to assemble by the kalends of August at Arle, I thought it not amiss by letters to require you, that you fail not to be with them at the time & place appointed: that by your uprightness with the good advise and full consent of the rest, which shall then & there meet you, upon diligent hearing what either side can say (whom we have commanded to be likewise present) they may be reduced from the schism yet during, to religion, faith, and brotherly concord, as in duty they be bound.  
When Meltiades and his colleagues (saith Austen to the Donatists) had 
August. epist. 166.  pronounced Cecilianus innocent and condemned Donatus as author of the schism raised at Carthage, your side came back to the Emperor, & complained of the judgement of the Bishops against them. The most patiented & mild Emperor the second time gave them other judges (namely) the Bishops (that met) at Arle in France. 
And gave them other judges after the Pope.  Certes the taking of an appeal made from the Bishop of Rome and appointing other judges after him, and besides him, strongly concludeth the Prince's authority to be far above the Popes, even in causes ecclesiastical, or as you term them spiritual.  


August. epist. 166.  
The Prince sat himself in judgement both after the Pope and after the Council.  
Idem epist. 162.  
Idem contra Crescon. lib. 3 Cap. 17.   Will you lastly say that Constantine sat not judge himself in this matter, as well after Meltiades, as after the Council of Arle? S. Austen is flat against you. Your men, saith he, speaking to the Donatists, appealed (from the Bishops at Arle) to the Princes own person, and never left till the Emperor himself took the hearing of the cause between them both, and pronounced Cicilianus innocent, and those (his accusers) to be malicious wranglers. And again: the Donatists appealed from ecclesiastical judgement that Constantine might hear the cause. Wither when they came, both parts standing before him, Cecilianus was adjudged to be innocent, & the Donatists overthrown. To prove this, I will bring you (saith Austen) the very words of Constantine taken out of his letters where he witnesseth that upon judicial hearing of both sides, he found Cecilianus to be clear. For first declaring how the parties were brought to his judgement, after two judgements of Bishops (already past,) there (saith Constantine) I fully perceived, that Cecilianus was a man most innocent, observing the duties of his religion, and following the same: neither could any crime be fastened on him as his adversaries had in his absence suggested.  


August. epist. 166.  
The Prince made a penal law to confirm his final decision.  
Ibidem.   And showing what followed upon this judgement: Then did Constantine saith he, first make a most sharp law to punish the Donatists. His sons continued the same: read what Valentinian; read, when you will, what Gratian and Theodosius decreed against you. Why wonder you then at the children of Theodosius, as if they should have followed any other precedent in this cause than the judgement of Constantine which so many Christian Emperors have kept inviolable? Though Constantine be dead, yet the judgement of Constantine given against you liveth. For when Emperors command that which is good, it is Christ and no man else that commandeth by them.  

The Prince in these four facts superior to the Pope.  Lay these things together, and mark the consequent. First the Bishop of Rome and his assessors were appointed by the Prince to meddle with this matter as his delegates. Next upon complaint of their partial dealing the Prince commanded others (leaving out the Bishop of Rome) to sit in France to conclude the same cause. Thirdly the Donatists still appealing, the Prince called for both sides, heard them in his own person, gave small judgement with Cecilianus, and discharged him as innocent, & therewith made a penal edict against the Donatists. Fourthly these princely proceedings of Constantine, the Church of God received with honour, and used with gladness; the Christian Emperors embraced as virtuous, and confirmed as religious; S. Austen allegeth them as substantial proofs for the Catholics, and effectual judgements against the Donatists: Now speak uprightly, whether in this case the Prince were not superior to the Pope, yea supreme governor of Ecclesiastical persons and causes.  
To Theodosius the elder Damasus, 

The Prince willeth Flavianus to keep his Church after four Popes had repelled him for no Bishop.  
Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 23.  
Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 28.  
Arcadius' denied the Pope a Council, & punished the Bishops that kept his communion.  
Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 30.   Siricius, & Anastasius, as I showed before, made grievous complaints one after an other, against Flavianus for entering and possessing the See of Antioch contrary to the Canons of the church. The prince sending for Flavianus, heard his answer, and admiring the courage and wisdom of the man, willed him to return to his country, and feed the flock committed to his charge, notwithstanding the Bishops of Rome for the space of seventeen years before would neither acknowledge him for a Bishop, nor communicate with him.  
Of Arcadius his son, Innocentius the Bishop of Rome requested a Council for the trial of Chrysostoms' cause: but his petition was denied, his messengers sent away with reproach as troublers of the West Empire, Chrysostom banished farther off, and this edict given forth by Arcadius the East Emperor against those that taking part with Innocentius, and favouring Chrysostom, refused to communicate with Theophilus his deposer and Atticus his successor. If any Bishop will not communicate with Theophilus & Atticus, let him be deprived of his church and his goods: if they be laymen they shall forfeit, the magistrates their dignities, the soldiers their girdle, the common sort let them be fined and exiled.  
By Honorius an other of his sons, ruling the West parts, 

Ex libro pontiff. in vita Bonifacij.  
Epist. Bonifacij ad Honorium Augustum.  
Rescript. Honor. ad Bonifac. tom. con. 1.   Bonifacius and Eulalius, chosen Bishops of Rome in a tumult, were both commanded to departed the City: and Bonifacius, after he was restored, put up 
* The Pope maketh a supplication to the Prince for a law to punish ambition in getting the Popedom.  a supplication to the prince for a decree that no man by suit or other unlawful means might be made Bishop of Rome: to whom Honorius sent back this rescript, By the mouth of your holiness we hill have this known to all Clergy men, that when you shall forego this life, which we wish not, they may learn to surcease from ambition. For if two striving be chosen, neither of them shall continue Bishop, but he only shall remain in the See apostolic, whom the divine judgement and general consent shall elect a fresh out of the clergy. This must therefore be kept, that all may put on quiet and contented minds by our gentle admonition, and not attempt any thing by seditious packing, since we be resolved that neither faction shall prevail.  
It was no strange thing in those days for the Bishop of Rome to be suppliant and subject in church matters to christian Princes. When Eutiches first broached his error, 

Leo epist. 9  
The Pope maketh supplication to the Prince for a Council, & miss his suit.   that the flesh of Christ in substance was not like this of ours: Leo then Bishop of Rome made this suit to Theodosius the younger: If it please (your Highness) to grant my supplication, & to command a Council of Bishops to be kept in Italy, speedily by God's help might all things be redressed, which now trouble the whole Church: but he did not obtain so much. For Theodosius appointed their meeting at Ephesus, and for haste prefixed so short a time, that the Bishops of Italy could not be provided for the journey: 
Leo. Epist. 12. Idem Epist. 13. Idem Epist. 17.  Yet Leo sending his Deputies excuseth his absence by writing in these words: Although to be present at the day which your godliness prescribed for the Council no possible means do permit, neither by former examples (is my presence required,) and urgent occasions at this time suffer me not to forsake this City, specially considering the point of faith (which Eutiches infringeth) is so clear that a Council might well have been spared: yet have I done my best, to obey your grace's precept in this, by dispatching thither such of my brethren as may suffice for this matter and shall supply mine absence.  
When this Council by the violent threatening and mischievous packing of Diosco us Bishop of Alexandria, there precedent, had allowed the cursed opinion of ʳ Eutiches, and deposed Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople for proceeding against him: Leo becometh a fresh suitor to Theodosius in most earnest and humble manner. 
Idem Epist. 24. The Pope with sighs & tears, sueth for a general Council to the Prince, & was repelled.  For so much as the Council of Bishops, which you commanded to be kept at Ephesus, concerning the matter of Flavianus, hath (in sight) hurt the faith, and wounded all churches: all the churches of these parts about us, all the Priests make supplication to your Majesty with sighs and tears, that it might please you to command a general council to be held within Italy: behold most christian and reverent Emperor, I with the rest of my fellow Bishops beseech you to command that all things may stand in the same state, in which they were before any of these judgements, until a greater number of Bishops may be gathered out of the whole world.  

Leo Epist. 26. The Pope desireth a gentle woman to further his suit to the Prince.  This request of his he besought the Princess Pulcheria to commend unto Theodosius her brother. I have written to the most glorious and christian Prince; that for the calling of a council within Italy, time might be set, & and place appointed; all quarrels and judgements passed on either side (for the mean while) suspended: which thing that we may the rather obtain (I beseech you) let your accustomed devotion, which never failed the church in her troubles, further our supplication with his Majesty.  

Idem Epist. 23. The Pope prayeth others to help him with putting up a supplication to the Prince for a Council.  The same Leo desireth the clergy, Nobles, & citizens of Constantinop. where Theodosius lay, to join with him, for the better prevailing in his suit: Put up an humble supplication (I pray you) with good advise, that the most gracious Emperor will vouchsafe to grant our petition which we make for a general council to be summoned: yet all the prayers & means that Leo could use notwithstanding, Theodosius persuaded to the contrary by Chrysaphius master of his palace (who was present at the said council of Ephesus & greatly favoured the faction of Dioscorus) would never incline to grant him any thing, but always refused his request.  

If the Bishop of Rome might then have commanded, why did he entreat with tears, & yet miss his purpose?  If the Bishop of Rome might have commanded thus much against the Princes will, and without the Prince's power, what needed such lowly supplications? Why did he make so great friends, fet so deep sighs, shed so many tears, and all in vain? What folly was it to waste so much labour and time to no purpose, when the least word of his mouth, as you pretend, might have commanded both Emperor and Council? But if, for restitution of the parties grieved on either side to their first estates, for suspension of all acts and proceed past in three Synods, for indiction of a general Council to debate their cause; the Pope were to sue, the Prince to grant; as appeareth by the plain confession and humble submission of Leo: than you see that in the primative Church of Christ the Pope was wont to come to the Prince with a supplicamus for matters Ecclesiastical, and not only besought him as his superior with all humility, but obeyed him in such cases as his Lord and Sovereign with all duty.  
After Theodosius succeeded Martian, who by the persuasion of the virtuous Lady Pulcheria joint Empress with him, was content to call a general Council: but as touching the time which Leo requested, and the place which he desired, 

Epist. 43. The Pope a fresh suitor to the next Emperor.  
Idem Epist. 50.   the prince refused the Pope's petition in them both. I besought your Grace (saith Leo) that the council which we made suit for, and you judged needful to pacify the East church, might by your commandment be differred till some better opportunity: but because you led with a devout respect prefer God's matters before man's, I labour not against that, which your Highness hath disposed: yea rather I did with so great gladness embrace your majesties travel to call a Synod for reducing the church to concord, that although myself were a suitor to have it kept within Italy, and a fit time to be chosen that more store of Bishops might be sent for from the farthest parts; yet so soon as your Grace's writ was delivered me, forthwith I directed (some) to supply my room.  
When this Council was assembled, Leo began to make farther suit to Martian in this wise: 
Epist. 43. The Pope beseecheth the Prince by his royal decree, to void the Council of Ephesus; and to command the Council of Chalcedon not to departed from the Nicene faith.  [The second council of Ephesus] can not rightly be called a council, which apparently subverted the faith, and which your Highness for very love to truth will make void, by your decree, to the contrary, most glorious Emperor. I therefore earnestly request and beseech your Majesty by the Lord jesus Christ the founder and guider of your kingdom, that in this council (of Chalcedon) which is presently to be kept, you will not suffer the faith to be called in question, which our blessed Fathers held, delivered them from the Apostles, neither permit such (errors) as have been long since condemned by them, to be now revived again: but that you will rather command the faith concluded in the first Nicene Council to stand in full force, removing all the (latter) devices of Heretics. Which request Martian accomplished, entering the Council in his own person, and there by word of mouth absolutely forbidding the Bishops to defend or avouch any thing of the flesh and birth of our Saviour otherwise than the Nicene creed did contain. 
Concil. Chalced. actio. 1.   
To this council of Chalcedon Leo willed by Martian to subscribe returned his answer in this suppliant & dutiful order: 
Leo ●pist. 59 The Pope must obey the Princes will in subscribing to the decrees of the Council.  Because I must by all means obey your sacred and religious will I have set down my consent (in writing) to those synodal constitutions which for the confirmation of the catholic faith, and condemnation of heretics pleased me very well. What better witness can we produce, that in causes Ecclesiastical the Prince was the Pope's superior than this, that for repealing the Council of Ephesus, for summoning the Council o● Chalcedon, for charging those 600. and 30. fathers not to decline from the Nicene faith, and requiring the Bishop of Rome to subscribe to their acts, Martian commandeth with authority, Leo with all readiness obeyeth: yea that Leo beseecheth Martian to command, and protesteth that for his part, he did and must obey the Princes will in those cases?  


Novel. constit. 123.  
justinian commandeth the patriarchs & namely the Bishop of Rome for Ecclesiastical affairs.   We COMMAUND (saith justinian) the blessed ARCHBISHOPS of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Theopolis, and jerusalem, to receive for ordering and instauling of Bishops only that which this present Law doth allow. And taxing the charges of every Bishop according to the yearly value of his Church: 
* Ibidem.  If any man (saith he) presume to take for installations or other duties above the rate which we prefix, we command that he repay thrice so much of his own to the church or bishop in that sort grieved. Neither doth he limit the Pope's receipt only, but also bindeth him with the rest by this general constitution: If any man be made Bishop contrary to the form which this law prescribeth, 
Ibidem.  the party confirmed shall lose his Bishopric, and the confirmer stand suspended from his Ecclesiastical function one whole year, and besides forfeit all his goods to the use of his own church: marry when a bishop is accused of any thing that doth by the (sacred) canons or (our) laws hinder his consecration; if any man order him before diligent examination had, 
The Prince inflicteth deprivation for the breach of his Ecclesiastical laws.  as well he that did order him, as he that is ordered, shall for ever be deprived. Thus could ancient Princes command in causes, and correct for offences Ecclesiastical, even the chiefest patriarchs, and namely the Bishop of Rome, who now taketh on him to depose Princes, and dispose kingdoms at his pleasure.  
This illation is more than evident by the words of Gregory the first, who writing to the Emperor Mauritius, 
Gregory's submission to Mauritius in causes Ecclesiastical.  useth every where this stile: My Lord, my most gracious Lord, I your servant, and subject to your commandment; and that not in temporal causes, but in things concerning the rules and orders of Christ's church, as by the special circumstances will appear. Mauritius, perceiving that many coveted to be Clergimen and Monks, some to prevent the danger of their accounts, others to decline the burden of warfare, made this decree, that no soldier, nor officer accountant to the Prince for any sums of money, should be received to sacred orders, or Monastical profession: charging the Bishop of Rome, to give notice thereof to the rest of his Province. Gregory though very much amazed and grieved at the strangeness of this law, yet durst not resist or refuse the same, but first with all diligence put the commandment of Mauritius in execution, and afterward fell to beseeching him to relent somewhat from the rigour of this hard and severe prohibition.  
My Lord hath given forth this edict, saith he, that no man entangled with service for the common weal should enter any ecclesiastical function, 
Greg. Epi. lib. 2. cap. 100  which I greatly praised; knowing that he which on the sudden steppeth from a secular trade to a spiritual charge, doth not mean to leave, but exchange the world. Where it is added that none such should be suffered in any Monastery; 

Ecclesiastical Laws made by the Prince without the Pope's knowledge & against his liking.  
How far was this man from deposing Princes?  
The Pope subject to the Prince's commandment sendeth the prince's precept throughout his province.  
The Pope of duty yieldeth obedience to his Prince. The Pope the Princes servant by public right.  
He confesseth the Prince to be Lord over all.  
Idem Epist. lib. 4. cap. 74.  
The Prince commanded the Bishop of Rome to be at peace with the Bishop of Constantinople.   this I marveled at, seeing the place doth not hinder the making of his accounts, nor the payment of his debts. It followeth in the same law; That no man once mustered as a soldier should convert (from that calling and become a Monk.) Which constitution, I confess to my Lord, did even astonish me: because the way to heaven is thereby shut up from many men, and that now prohibited as unlawful which hath hitherto been (frankly) permitted. And what am I that speak to my Lord but dust and a very worm? Yet for that this Edict tendeth against God the creator of all things, I can not conceal so much from my Lord. I therefore beseech you by the dreadful judge, that your holiness will either mitigate or abrogate this rigorous proclamation. I for my part as subject to your commandment, have sent your precept into sundry coasts: yet because your Law doth not stand with God's glory, Lo by letters I have acquainted my most glorious Lord therewithal. So that I have either way done my duty, which have both yielded obedience to my Prince, and in God's behalf disburdened my conscience. I your unworthy suppliant wax not thus bold, either in respect I am a Bishop, or in that I am your servant by public right, but resting on your (special) and private favour, for that most gracious Sovereign, you were my Lord (and master) when as yet you were not Lord (and chief) over all. If it be possible for a subject to show more submission and duty to the Prince's commandment, than the Bishop of Rome doth to Mauritius, restraining all Bishops by his princely power from admission of such Monks, and election of such Clerks as he disabled; let your Apology be had in some credit: but if greater obedience than these words import, neither God's law doth exact, nor Princes can expect; I trust Gregory's own confession shallbe taken without exception.  
The like submission upon like occasion is extant in other his Epistles: as when Mauritius willed him to grow to some concord with john Bishop of Constantinople, to whom or from whom Gregory would in no wise send or accept letters of communion & society, because the said john entitled him universal Patriarch. I have, saith he, received letters from my virtuous Lord, that I should be at peace with my brother and fellow Bishop john. In deed it well beseemeth a religious Prince to command Bishops in such things: marry this was heavy to me, that my Sovereign Lord did not rebuke him for his pride, but endeavour to bow me from my purpose, which in this cause stand with humility and sincerity to defend the Gospel and Canons. 
Idem Epist. lib. 4. cap. 76.  He rather is worthy to be threatened with your majesties commandment which refuseth to be subject to the Canons: he to be repressed, which offereth a wrong to the universal Church. Let my Lord (I beseech him) somewhat respect me being his own, whom he hath always favoured above others, which am also very desirous to yield him obedience, and yet am I loath to be convicted in that last & fearful judgement of (over much) negligence. Let my Sovereign Lord vouchsafe to sit judge in this matter himself, or else to make him to surcease his intent. I as obedient to my Lords precepts have gently written to my said fellow Bishop, & humbly warned him to forego that vain title. 
The Pope ready to obey the Prince's commandment.  As much as in me lieth I am ready to obey the commandment of your Majesty: yet for that the cause is not mine, but Gods, & not I alone, but the whole church is troubled, let my gracious Lord lance the right place where the wound is, and subdue the patiented that resisteth him with the strength of his imperial power.  
Again when Maximus was ordered Bishop of Salona within Gregory's Province, yet without Gregory's knowledge, thus he complaneth of him to Constantia then Empress. 
Idem Epist. lib. 4. cap. 78.  The Bishop of Salona was ordered, neither I, nor my responsarie witting thereof, which thing was never attempted under any of the Princes your predecessors. assoon as I understood thereof I sent him word, that he should not presume to celebrate divine service (that he meaneth by the name of Mass) until I heard from my Sovereign Lords, that it was their pleasure it should be so: 
The Pope submitting himself to the Prince's pleasure in causes ecclesiastical.  but he setting nought thereby & despising me (goeth on still) & will not resort unto me according as my Lords commanded him. Yet I obeying their grace's precept did from my hart remit unto the said Maximus this his presumption as freely as if he had been ordered Bishop by my consent. Only other offences of his, as fleshly wantonness, entrance by Simony, ministering the Lords supper after he was put from the communion, these things I can not skip unexamined for my duties sake to God: & before these things could be tried, 
The Pope overruled in his consistory with the prince's precept.  my sovereign Lord preventing me with his precept commanded that I should receive (the said Maximus) at his coming with all honour. This is a pitiful case that a man accused of so great crimes should be honoured, before he be cleared: & if the faults of those Bishops which be committed to my charge be born out with my gracious Lords (in this sort) by secret favourers, unhappy man that I am, what make I here in this church? Well, that mine own Bishops contemn me, & have a refuge against me to secular judges, I can not but thank God, & impute it to my sins.  
If the Bishop of Rome despised and overruled in his Episcopal jurisdiction, neither plead his own supremacy, nor once kick at the Prince's authority, but rather submit himself as a servant & subject of duty to the prince's pleasure, so far as he might, with a safe conscience to Godward: & besides the man so religious, the matter so serious, that in this case jesting were not excusable, lying intolerable, then may you be fully resolved that the primative church never heard of this lewd & arrogant presumption, which the Pope now claimeth & usurpeth, I mean to be master & deposer of Princes, but that contrariwise the Bishops of Rome themselves, even in causes Ecclesiastical, kept the laws and obeyed the precepts of Christian Emperors, as of their liege Lords & sovereign rulers. The words of Gregory be so vehement & evident to this effect, that no face can deny them, no cunning avoid them. You must needs seek farther for a new distinction: Your first is foolish, your second is false, neither of them coherent with the sacred Scriptures, or ancient histories.  
Neither was Gregory the last Bishop of Rome that yielded obedience to the prince's power in causes ecclesiastical. Agatho Bishop of that See 680. years after Christ, when Constantine the 1. sent for certain learned & skilful men of the West parts to treat & confer with the Grecians in the sixth general council about the truth of religion, returned this dutiful & effectual answer: Most gracious Lord (saith he to Constantine, 
Sextae Synod. act. 4.  joining with him Heraclius & Tiberius his brethren) your sacred letters encouraging us to show forth effectually our prompt & diligent service for performing that which your edict commanded, & for discharge of our duty, to choose the fittest that could be found in this decayed age, & wretched province; we have directed these our fellow servants according to the most godly precept of your Majesty in regard of obedience which we did owe, not for presumption of their knowledge, 

The Pope's obedience to the Emperor was no courtesy but duty. Sext. Synod. act. 4. Agathonis Epist. 2.  
All the Bishops of the North and West parts servants to the Emperor as well as they of the East.   for we waxed not bold upon their cunning, but your princely favour mildly commanding (so much) did incite us, & our baseness hath obediently fulfilled that which was (by you) commanded.  
And in his second epistle to the same Princess, he saith: All the Bishops of the North & West parts, servants of your christian Empire, give thanks to God for this your religious intent. The calling of general Counsels to debate matters of faith, is a point that precisely concerneth the regiment of Christ's church: & in that case, we see, the Bishop of Rome confesseth himself a servant, & showeth himself obedient to the prince's precept: assuring us by plain words and agreeable deeds that this humility proceeded not from any jesting humour or feigned submission, but from the singleness of his hart, & in respect of his bounden duty: which averreth our assertion & clearly convinceth that the Prince's authority was then superior to the Popes, even in causes Ecclesiastical, which you defend to be no way pertinent to the civil magistrate.  
I will end with Leo the 4. the selfsame that first submitted himself to Lodovik the father, 
Distinct. 10. ca de capitulis. The Pope professeth 850. years after Christ that he will inviolably keep the Prince's ecclesiastical chapters & laws.  & after confirmed his obedience to Lotharius the son in these words: As touching the chapters & imperial precepts of your Highness & the Princes your predecessors irrefragablely to be kept & obeyed, as much as in us did or dothly; we by all means profess that we will by Christ's help now and for ever observe the same: & if any man hath or shall inform otherwise, your Majesty may right well assure yourself it is an untrue tale. The chapters of Charles, Lodovic, and Lotharius, for persons and causes Ecclesiastical I repeated before: to those the Bishop of Rome eight hundred and fifty years after Christ promiseth and sweareth not only present but also perpetual obedience to the utmost of his power without all contradiction. It is easy to see which of these twain was superior: he that had power to make Laws, not he that was bound to keep them: he that might command, not he that must obey: Lotharius, not Leo.  
Can you look for stronger proofs or plainer words that the Prince was the Pope's superior in causes Ecclesiastical? If the Bishop of Rome were a SERVANT to christian Emperors, 
How far the Pope was them from the superiority which he now claimeth over Princes.  than was he not their ruler: If a SUBJECT under them, than no superior over them: If SUPPLIANT to their persons, and OBEDIENT to their laws, than no deposer of Princes, nor reseruer of their edicts: to be short, if they were correctors and judges of his demainour and doings, than his claim to punish and deprive them of their kingdoms is usurped and wicked: and so Princes having no superior but only God, are consequently supreme governors over all their subjects, be they laie-men or Clerks, to 
* August. contra Cresconium, lib. 3. cap. 51.  command that which is good, and prohibit that which is evil, not in civil affairs only, but in matters also concerning divine Religion.  Phi. 

The Jesuits cavils against the Prince's sovereignty.  I confess places somewhat move me, neither can I upon the sudden answer them; yet are there many both authorities and reasons that make with us for the contrary.  Theo. 
Show me but one Scripture, Father or Council all this while that proveth the Pope to be the Prince's superior, and I will ask no further answer.  Phi. 
God saith to jeremy, I have appointed thee this day over nations & kingdoms to pull up, to beat down, to disperse, to overthrow, to build and plant.  Theo. 

jeremies' words conclude nothing for the Pope.  Was jeremy ever Pope?  Phi. 
I do not say, he was.  Theo. 
Then that which God spoke to jeremy concludeth nothing for the Pope.  Phi. 
If a mean Prophet had that power to plant and remove kingdoms, how much more he, that is head of the universal church, and judge over the whole earth?  Theo. 
Your antecedent is false, and your consequent foolish. For jeremy had no such power as you dream of: he was appointed a Prophet to denounce the wrath of God against nations and Countries, not a Prince, to displace Rulers and translate kingdoms. It is a gross perverting of the Scriptures to wrest them to that sense. Next your consequent supposeth that the Pope is head of the universal Church and judge over the whole earth; which vain presumption, is no good illation; you must bring us better conclusions before they willbe currant.  Phi. 
The text is plain: I have appointed thee over nations and kingdoms.  Theo. 


jeremy appointed a Prophet over nations.  
jerem. 1.   I have appointed thee over them; not a Prince to subdue them, but a Prophet to warn them.  Phi. 
How prove you that exposition?  Theo. 
The text itself saith so. Prophetam Gentibus dedite: I have made thee a Prophet over nations. And the very next words before yours are these, Ecce posui verba mea in ore tuo; ecce constitui te hody super gentes & super regna, etc. 
jerem. 1.  Behold I have put my words in thy mouth, behold I have appointed thee over nations and kingdoms: that is a Prophet with my words in thy mouth, not a magistrate with the material sword in thine hand. This we likewise prove by the execution of his office. For he prophesied the captivity of the jews, the taking of the king and the city, the destruction of the Egyptians, Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, Idumeans, Persians, Damascus, Babylon and other kingdoms & nations; but he never deposed king, nor altered state: ergo his commission was to foreshow the ruins, overthrows, decay & changes of kingdoms, nations & commonwealths, not to practise them: he was the man that foretold them, he was not he means to work them.  
Theodorete saith of these words: I have appointed thee over nations & kingdoms, to pull up, 
Theodor. in 1. cap. jerem.  beat down, disperse, overthrow, build & plant:] for he prophesied not only the jews captivity, but their deliverance by Cyrus. He prophesied also to many other nations all kinds of calamities. And likewise Bernard, 
Bernard. considerate. lib. 2.  Rusticani sudoris quodam schemate labor spiritualis expressus est. Disce sarculo, non sceptro tibi opus esse, ut facias opus Prophetae. By a certain resemblance of the husbandman's pains the spiritual labour (of the Preacher) is expressed. Learn that thou must have an hook to weed, not a sceptre (to rule) if thou wilt do the work of a Prophet. Nicolaus de Lyra 1300. years after Christ could hit the right sense of this place. 
Lyra in 1. cap. jerem.  I have appointed thee to root up] that is, to denounce the inhabitants shallbe removed out of the land: to built & plant] that is, to denounce that the jews shallbe builded & planted again in their own country.  
This I take to be the right meaning of the text: if that please you not, but you will have the Prophet himself to be the workman, than jeremy was sent not to plant and pull up Pri●●es, not to build and beat down kingdoms, but as your own gloze saith, to root up vices, to beat down heresies, to build up virtues. 

Lyra in 1. cap. jerem.  
Hieron. in 1. ca jerem.   Every plant, saith Hierom upon those words, which the heavenly father hath not planted, shallbe rooted up; & the building which hath not his foundation on the rock but in the sand, is undermined & overthrown by the word of God. And Gregory: The Prophet is first willed to destroy, & after to build; 

Grego. Pastoral. part. 3. admonitio 35.  
Hieron. in 1. cap. jerem.   first to root up, & after to plant; because the foundation of truth is never well laid, except the frame of error be first subverted. Yea Many, saith Hieron, understand this place of the person of Christ, which destroyed the kingdom of the devil. Take which of these senses you like best, so you bestow not that on jeremy which is proper to Christ, 
1. Tim. 6. revel. 19  to be king of kings & Lord of lords, nor allow him the liberty that God reserveth to himself, to bear rule over the kingdom of men, & to give it to whom he will; which no Prophet before Christ, no Apostle since Christ, no mortal creature ever claimed or used, 

Dan. 4. Revel. 17. isaiah. 6.  
isaiah maketh not the prince subject to the Pope.  
Hieron. in 60. cap. isaiah.   but only the whore of Babylon that reigneth over the kings of the earth.  Phi. 
The nations and kings, saith God by isaiah, that will not serve thee, shall perish.  Theo. 
Whose translation is that?  Phi. 
The Septuagintes.  Theo. 
But the Hebrew is: That nation and kingdom which will not serve thee, shall perish. And so doth S. Hierom translate.  Phi. 
There is no great difference betwixt them.  Theo. 
As much as is between the Prince and the people.  Phi. 
Both Prince and people must serve the church, or else they shall perish.  Theo. 
We reason not what they must do, but what isaiah saith: and he saith, the kingdom must serve, the king must nurse the church, which is a word of more dignity than service is. 
isaiah. 60. isaiah. 49.  Thou shalt suck the breasts of kings. And again: Kings shall be thy foster fathers, and Queens thy nurcing mothers: but I stick not on this.  Phi. 
You need not: for in plain words it is said a little before: 
isaiah. 60.  Reges eorum ministrabunt tibi: Their kings shall serve thee.  Theo. 
Their kings shall attend thee, or minister unto thee. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth him that is next about a man to attend on his person.  Phi. 
And they be servants as well as others.  Theo. 
It may be so: neither do I deny that Princes must serve, but whom?  Phi. 
The church: so saith S. Hierom: The nations & kings, that will not serve the church, 
Hieron. in isaiah. cap. 60.  shall perish with that destruction which is prepared for the wicked.  Theo. 
You should show that Princes, which will not serve the Pope must lose their crowns.  Phi. 
Grant that Princes must serve the church, & for the rest we will do well enough.  Theo. 
First, grant you that Popes were subjects & servants to christian Princes 850. years after Christ, which I have proved & you have not answered, and for service to be done by Princes to the church of Christ, I will not long dissent.  Phi. 
How can they serve the church, & not serve the Pope, which is head of the church?  Theo. 
To whom were these words spoken, The kingdom that will not serve thee, 
Every member of Christ's church hath as good interest in Esaies' words as the Pope.  shall perish?  Phi. 
To the church.  Theo. 
To the whole church, or to some special members of the church?  Phi. 
To the whole.  Theo. 
Then may the poorest member of Christ's church, & every Parish-priest challenge to be the master of Princes & to be served at their hands as well as the Pope. That which is spoken to all must be common to all. Again, your own answer overthroweth your own assertion, for this was spoken, you say, to the church: but the Pope is not the church, ergo this was not spoken to the Pope.  Phi. 

Prince's shall serve thee, that is every part of thee, or the noblest part of thee: neither of which maketh for the Pope.  You go too far. It was spoken to the whole but not meant of the whole.  Theo. 
Of whom then was it meant?  Phi. 
Of the head, which is a part of the whole. The members of Christ's church are not bound to serve one an other, but all to serve the head. In respect of their head they be servants, in respect of themselves they be brethren.  Theo. 
Is the head a part of the body?  Phi. 
Though the head can not properly be called a member of the body, but the head; yet in the whole are contained both the head and the members: as in an Army sometimes the Captain and Soldiers; and a kingdom compriseth both the king and his subjects.  Theo. 
Then where isaiah saith to jerusalem, kingdoms shall serve thee; that is, not every member of thee, but the chiefest and noblest part of thee, which is the head, that all the members serve.  Phi. 
And that head is the Pope. 
Prince's may serve none but Christ.   Theo. 
When you prove the Pope to be head of the church, then call for Princes to do him service: In the mean time let Princes hear what David saith: Be wise ye kings, serve the Lord: and what our Saviour allegeth, 
Psalm. 2. Matth. 4. Philip. 2.  Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve. At the name of jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and of things on earth: Yea, 
Heb. 1. Colos. 1.  let (not only Princes, but) all the Angels of God worship him: he is the head to the church which is his body. Your holy father must stay for his service, till his headship may be found in some better records than in your bare supposals.  Phi. 
You infer this upon my confession, which I may change upon better advisement. The nation & kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish. No doubt these words bind Princes to do service to the church if not to the Pope.  Theo. 
You bond them before to serve the head, and not the body: now you will have them serve the body, and not the head. Well since there is no more hold in your word, I will take surer hold of Esaies' words. The text which you bring is allegorical, 
An allegorical text yieldeth no literal conclusion. isaiah. 60.  as the whole chap. besides is: & therefore you may draw no literal conclusion from these words, no more than from walls, gates, brass, iron, gold, silver, Sun, Moon, milk, teats, camels, rams, fir trees, & pine-trees, which also be reckoned and promised to jerusalem in this place.  Phi. 
Run you to allegories?  Theo. 
You cannot run from them, unless you run from this chapter: read it over and see whether I feign or no.  Phi. 
Shall then the promises of God be frustrate, because the speeches be figurative?  Theo. 
Did I say they should? No, they be greater and richer than man's tongue can express. But if you press the letter, they be false and absurd. 
isaiah. 60.  For example: All the sheep of Kedar shall be gathered unto thee, the rams of Nabaioth shall serve thee. For brass will I bring gold, and for iron silver; for wood brass, and for stones iron: Thou shalt have no more Sun to shine by day, neither shall the brightness of the Moon shine unto thee: These things be not literally true.  Phi. 
I know they be not.  Theo. 
The whole chapter goeth after the same sort, expressing by temporal and terrestrial things, the blessings of God upon his church which be celestial and eternal.  Phi. 
I mislike not this.  Theo. 
Even so the service which kings must do to the church, is not corporal nor external, such as serving-men yield to their masters, or subjects to their superiors; but an inward devotion and an humble submission to the graces and mercies of God, proposed & offered in his church. 
What it is for Princes to serve and submit themselves to the church.  In effect kings must become religious & faithful members of the church to serve God in holiness & righteousness all the days of their life. To believe the word that is preached, to frequent the sacraments that be ministered, to fear the Lord that is honoured in all & above all: this is the service which the church of Christ heartily wisheth & earnestly seeketh at all men's hands: other solemnities with cap and knee she neither liketh nor looketh for.  Phi. 
Kings in respect of their calling must serve the church, I mean with their princely power.  Theo. 
You say somewhat. In deed kings in that they be kings have to serve the Lord: 

Aug. contr. lit. Petilian. lib. 2. cap. 92.  
Idem. contr. 2. Gauden. Epist. lib. 2. cap. 26.   so as none can do which are not kings. For their power ought so to serve the Lord, that by their power they which refuse to be subject to the will of God should be punished: but this service you will not have them to busy with, & if happily they command against your liking, you not only discharge them of their service, but of their kingdoms also.  Phi. 
Not if they serve the church as isaiah saith they should.  Theo. 
The service that is done to Christ the church embraceth as done to herself, because she requireth no more but that Christ her Lord & master be served: and yet the service which I now speak of namely to preserve subjects in godliness & quietness, & with wholesome laws to fray men from vices & heresies, is done to Christ not in respect of himself, but of his church; & concerneth the profit & welfare of the whole church & every member thereof.  Phi. 
This is not to serve, but to rule the church.  Theo. 
Kings as kings, that is as public Magistrates, can not serve the church, but by defending her members, & repressing her enemies, & this is better service to God & his church, than that which your holy father hath taught kings & Emperors, to wait on his trencher, to hold his stirrup, and kiss his feet.  Phi. 
We would have Princes to serve, that is to obey the church, & so S. Paul willeth them. 
Heb. 13. Obey your rulers as well all, as one.  Obey your rulers & be subject to them, for they watch as being to give account for your souls. This is spoken as well to Princes as to private men.  Theo. 
You leap from one thing to an other, & never resolve certainly any thing. Can you show where S. Paul or isaiah, or any other Prophet or Apostle teacheth Princes to be the Pope's Bedels' & Bailiffs to execute his pleasure? The question betwixt us is not whether princes as well as others must be guided & directed by religious & godly Pastors the way to eternal life, which is S. Paul's meaning in this place, but whether the Pope clothing himself with the name of the church, may command the swords of Princes, & if he like not their doings, take their kingdoms from them. Do the places which you bring prove this that I mention? say yea or no.  Phi. 
Not expressly, but only because the Pope is Christ's vicar on earth, & head of the church.  Theo. 
Will you never understand how weak your proofs, & how wide they be from your intention?  

The Jesuits windlass to bring the Prince in subjection to the Pope.  First, you still presume & we still deny that your holy father is the head of the church, and Christ's vicar general upon the face of the earth. On that false foundation, what God promiseth to the church in respect of her head which is Christ, you closely convey to the Bishop of Rome, as heir apparent to that honour and excellency which Christ hath in his church; a frivolous but a blasphemous imagination. Next, what submission & obedience God requireth at all men's, even at Prince's hands, for the reverencing of his word & observing of his law, that you wittingly confound with the temporal jurisdiction & dominion, that the church of Rome claimeth over Princes to command their sceptres, & if they resist, to depose their persons, which is a wicked & wilful error. If you love truth deal plainly, let this cunning go.  Phi. 
I seek for truth, let truth prevail.  Theo. 
Would God you were so minded.  Phi. 
I am.  Theo. 
That shall we see by your proceeding.  Phi. 
What say you by the words of S. Paul, Obey your rulers.  Theo 

Heb. 13.  I say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth leaders as well as rulers, & in this place standeth rather for leaders than rulers, because S. Paul in this very chap. using the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Remember your leaders; addeth Beholding the end of their conversation, 
Heb. 13. The words of S. Paul, obey your rulers, make nothing for the Pope. Heb. 13.  imitate their faith, that is, follow their steps. If we must mark them and imitate them, then surely must they be leaders to direct us and not rulers to master us. Secondly by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be leaders or rulers, are meant not the Pope and his Cardinals, but all that be christian and godly Preachers; this is S. Paul's own construction. Remember your leaders, which have spoken to you the word of God. We be not bound to their fancies or pleasures, but only to the word of truth proceeding from their mouths. Lastly obedience here required is no corporal subjection to their persons, but an inward liking and embracing of their doctrine. For as touching their persons, whom it pleaseth you to call rulers in this place, S. Paul maketh servants in other places. 
2. Cor. 4.  We preach not ourselves, saith he, but Christ jesus (to be) the Lord; & ourselves your servants. And again, 
2. Corin. 1.  Not that we have dominion (or rule) over your faith, but we are helpers of your joy. And that was our saviours charge to them al. Kings of nations rule: 
Mark. 10.  with you it shall not be so, but whosoever will be chief among you, shallbe the servant of all. Their function is, as you see, TO SERVE, not to rule their brethren; I mean to feed, not to master the flock of Christ.  Phi. 
The Apostle saith, God hath placed them To rule the Church. Attend to yourself & to your whole flock over which the holy Ghost hath put you to rule the church. 
Act. 20. Bishops are set in the Church by the holy ghost to feed, not to rule.   Theo 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not, To rule the church, but to feed the church: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be no rulers, but Shepherds. Are you not very desirous of rule, when you thus wrest the Scriptures to make yourselves rulers?  Phi. 
S. hierom's translation hath Regere ecclesiam, to rule the church. That we follow.  The. 
You follow the old corrupt translation where it maketh for you, and where you list you leave it. S. Hierom upon the first chapter to Tite, saith, In quo posuit vos spiritus sanctus Episcopos, pascere ecclesiam Dei, not regere: And yet regere is to lead & guide with counsel, as well as to rule or force with authority, as you may perceive by dirigere the compound, which is to direct any man what way he shall go, 
Regère applied to Bishops is to rule ang govern with advise & council, not with power and dominion.  what things he shall do, what words he shall speak, & yet these be no rulers, nor have any judicial power over the parties so directed. The english word that you abuse hath the same sense. In many matters men are ruled by their friends, in sickness they are ruled by their Physician, in traveling they be ruled by their guides; and yet neither friends, Physicians nor guides have any jurisdiction over the persons that are ruled by them. Why then do you trouble the world with such ambiguities & perplexities of words? why speak you not distinctly? why conclude you not directly?  
The Bishops of Ephesus were set by the holy Ghost to attend their flock, & feed the church. 
S. Paul's words have no relation to the Pope's person, nor to that kind of rule which he claimeth.  If by this you collect that they were placed by God to teach & instruct the faithful how to walk in his ways, that we grant & that we know to be most true so long as they do their message from God sincerely, without adding, altering or diminishing: but if by colour of those words to rule the church, you seek to give the Pope judicial power to compel and punish Princes as a Superior judge, which is the point we strive for, see what shameful violence you offer the Scriptures. First you falsify the Text by putting ruling for feeding the church: Next you daw the word ruling from instructing and exhorting, which is apostolic; to commanding and forcing, which our Saviour forbiddeth all his Disciples: thirdly that which was spoken to the Elders of Ephesus and is common to all Pastors, you present the Bishop of Rome with, as his peculiar charge, though he neither feed, nor lead the flock. And so where S. Paul meant the Bishops of Ephesus were set to teach and instruct their brethren, you conclude, the Pope must overrule Princes, and take their crowns from them, if they yield not the sooner.  Phi. 
You mistake me, I do not bring these places to that end.  Theo. 
To that end you should bring them; for that is the doubt betwixt us, & that was my demand. I required you to show Scripture, Father, or Council for 800. years that proveth the Pope superior to the Prince. Bring somewhat to that end, 
They pretend the Church when they mean the Pope.  or else say you can not, and I am answered.  Phi.. 
I prove the church superior to the Prince, which is enough to confute the supreme power that you give to Princes.  Theo. 
And what for the Pope? Shall he be superior to Princes or no?  Phi. 
We will talk of that an other time, we be now reasoning of the church; which I trust you will grant to be superior to Princes. God said to the Church, The nation and kingdom, that will not serve thee shall perish. And, 
isaiah. 60. Ibidem.  kings shall serve thee.  Theo. 
This is right the trade of your Apology, to pretend the church, and mean the Pope. You saw you were never able to prove the Pope's usurped power over Princes, and therefore you thought it best to put a visard of the Church upon the Pope's face, and to bring him in that sort disguised to the stage; to deceive the simple with the sound and show of the Church. 

The cunning of their Apology.  
Apolog. cap. 4.   And for that cause your fourth chapter never nameth the Pope, but still urgeth The regiment of the church, The judgement of the church, The church's tribunal, converted kingdoms must serve the church; and every where the church, the church; and when the Church is confessed to be superior to Princes, you set up the Pope as head of the Church to take from her all the superiority, power and authority, which before you claimed for her: and so you make the Church but a cloak-bag to carry the Pope's titles after him: but stay your wisdoms, the Church may be superior, and yet the Pope subject to Princes; Kings may serve the Church, and yet command your holy father and his gymmoes, the parish Priests of Rome, for their turning & winding every way, justly called Cardinals.  Phi. 

The Prince is supreme, though the Church be superior.  Can Princes be supreme and the church their superior?  Theo. 
Why not?  Phi. 
If any thing be superior, Princes be not supreme.  Theo. 
That I deny. The Scriptures be superior to Princes, and yet they supreme; the Sacraments be likewise above them, and yet that hindereth not their supremacy. Truth, Grace, Faith, Prayer and other Ghostly virtues be higher than all earthly states, and all this notwithstanding Princes may be supreme governors of their kingdoms and Countries.  Phi. 
You cavil now, you should compare persons with persons, and not things with persons; there may be things above Princes, and yet they supreme; but if any persons be superior, then can they not be supreme.  Theo. 
No? The Saints in heaven and Angels of God be persons superior to Princes, and yet may Princes be supreme.  Phi. 
Why Theophilus, these be wrangling quiddities, for shame leave them. The Saints be superior in perfection and dignity, but not in external vocation and authority. 
How the Church is superior to the Prince.   Theo. 
I like that you say: but if you look back you shall see Philander that you give judgement against yourself.  Phi. 
Against myself? Why so?  Theo. 
The Church is superior to Princes for those very respects, which I now repeated. First, because the Saints in heaven, which are part of the church, in happiness, perfection and dignity be many degrees above worldly states. Secondly, though the members of the Church be subject and obedient to Princes, yet the things contained in the Church and bestowed on the Church by God himself, I mean, the light of his word, the working of his Sacraments, the gifts of his grace and fruits of his spirit be far superior to all Princes. Now view your consequent. The Church in respect of her members in heaven, and graces on earth, is above the Prince, ergo the Prince is not supreme but subject to the Pope. This is worse than wrangling. You confound things and persons, heaven and earth, God and man, to bear out the Pope's pride.  Phi. 
You stretch the name of the church whither you list.  Theo. 
I may better stretch it to these things which I specify, than you restrain it to one only man as you do: 
The Saints in heaven be part of the church.  But why do I stretch the church farther than I should? The Saints in heaven be they not members of the church?  Phi. 
They be membees of the church, which is in heaven.  Theo. 
And the church in heaven is it an other church from this on earth, or the same with it?  Phi. 
I think it be the same.  Theo. 
You must not go by thoughts. Saint Paul saith, 
Ephe. 2. Galat. 4. Aug. de civit. Dei lib. 10. cap. 7.  You are of the same city with the Saints, and jerusalem which is above, (is no stranger to us but) the mother of us all. Cum ipsis (Angelis) sumus una civitas Dei, cuius pars in nobis, peregrinatur, pars in illis opitulatur. We, saith Austen, are one and the same city of God with the (Angels) whereof part wandereth (on earth) in us, part in them assisteth us. And again, 
Aug. in Psalm. 149.  The true Zion and true jerusalem is everlasting in heaven, which is the mother of us all. She hath begotten us, she hath nurced us, in part a stranger (on earth) in a greater part remaining in heaven. 

Idem de civit. Dei lib. 20. cap. 9  
1. Cor. 10.   For the souls of the godly that be dead be not severed from the church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Certainly Christ hath but one body which is his church, and of that body since the Saints be the greater and worthier part, they must be counted of the same Church with us.  Phi. 
I stick not at that so much as at the next, where you make the word and Sacraments together with their effects and fruits to be parts of the church.  Theo. 

In the name of the Church are many things contained.  I do not say they be members of the Church, but things required in the church, without the which we can neither become, nor continue the members of Christ. In a natural body the spirits and faculties be no members, & yet without them the members have neither life, motion, sense nor action. So in the mystical body of Christ, the members be men, but the means and helps, to make us and keep us the members of Christ, are the word and Sacraments, without the which we can neither be planted, quickened, nor nourished in Christ. For the members be dead if they live not by faith, if they grow not by grace, if they cleave not by love to their head, and move at his will by obedience. And therefore these things though they be not members, yet they be joints and sinews, veins and vessels that give life, groeth, strength, and state to the body of Christ, which is his church, and may justly be called the principal powers or parts of his body.  Phi. 
Powers if you will, but not parts.  Theo. 
As though the powers of the soul were not parts of the soul.  Phi. 
Not properly parts, but powers and faculties.  Theo. 
What call you parts?  Phi. 
Whereof the whole consisteth.  Theo. 
And since without these there can be no Church, ergo these be parts of the church.  Phi. 
You take parts very largely.  Theo. 
No larger than I should. The foundation of the house, is it not a part of the house? 

Ambros. de incarnate. Domin. sacra. cap. 5.  
August. quaest. super levit. lib. 3. cap. 57  
Idem de catechizan. rudibus cap. 3.  
Persons are not the church without other things annexed to them.    Phi. 
Yes a chief part.  Theo. 
Faith is the foundation of the church, why then should not faith be a part of the church?  Phi. 
The Church consisteth of persons, not of things. Men are the church saith S. Augustine. Again, The church, that is, the people of God throughout all nations.  Theo. 
I do not deny the church to be many times taken for the faithful on earth, but I add that the graces, mysteries, and word of God be contained in the Church, and without them the Persons are no Church. Our bodies and souls do not make us members of Christ, but our faith and obedience. By Baptism, not by birth do we 
* Galat. 3. Hebre 13. Rom. 8. Rom. 8.  Put on Christ, and grace not meats establish our hearts. They be the sons of God that he led by the spirit of God. And if any man have not the spirit of Christ, the same is no member of his.  Phi. 
All this is true.  Theo. 
The church than consisteth not of men, but of faithful men; and they be the Church not in respect of flesh and blood, which came from earth, but of truth and grace which came from heaven.  Phi. 
I grant.  Theo. 
Ergo the perfection of God's gifts, the communion of his graces and direction of his word are the very life and soul of his Church, & so within the compass of the church are comprised not only the persons that be earthly, but also the things that be heavenly: 
Ambro. Epist. lib. 5. oratio contra Auxentium.  whereby God gathereth, preserveth, and sanctifieth his Church.  Phi. 
What doth this help you?  Theo. 
That when we say with S. Ambrose, Imperator bonus intra Ecclesiam, non supra Ecclesiam est: A good Emperor is within the Church, not above the Church, you can conclude nothing out of these words against us.  Phi. 
Can we not? If good Princes be not above the church, ergo they be not above the prelates & pillours of the church.  Theo. 
That is no consequent.  Phi. 
Why not? 

August epist. 157.  
The Church is sometimes taken for the place.  
Idem quaest. sup. Leuit● ●●. 3. cap 57  
Idem in psal. 137.  
Sometimes for the people.  
Idem in Euchivid. Cap. 56.  
The Church of all the chosen men and Angels.  
Ibidem. August. de Catechiz. vudibus, Cap. 3.  
Idem in Psal. 62.  
The Church is the number of the faithful that ever were, a●e, or shallbe.    Theo. 
By the Church are meant sometimes the places, sometimes the persons, sometime the things, that be chiefly required in the Church. Of the place S. Austen saith, We call the Church the temple; where the people, which are truly called the Church are contained, that by the name of the Church, I mean, the people which is contained; we may signify the place which containeth. And again, The Church is the place where the Church is assembled, for men are the Church.  
The Church as it is taken for persons hath a triple distinction. First the Church of glorious and elect Angels and men. Ecclesia deorsum, ecclesia sursum. Ecclesia deorsum in omnibus fidelibus, ecclesia sursum in omnibus Angelis. There is a Church beneath, there is a Church above. The Church beneath in all the faithful: the Church above in all the Angels. And again, The right order of confession required that (in our creed) next to the (three persons in) Trinity should stand the Church; as next to the owner his house, to God his temple, to the builder his city: which must here be taken for the whole; not only that part which is a pilgrim on earth, but also for that part which abiding in heaven hath ever since it was created, cleaven unto God. This part in the holy Angels persisteth in blessedness, and helpeth as it ought, her other part wandering in earth. The temple of God therefore is the holy Church, I mean, the universal in heaven and earth.  
Secondly the Church is the people of God through out all nations, joining & reckoning all the Saints, which before his coming lived in this world. The 
* 
Idem in Psal. 90. concio. 2. The church is the number of particular men in several times and places.  
August. de unitate eccles. cap. 11.  
Idem in Psal. 64 & 121.   whole Church every where diffused is the body (of Christ) and he is the head of it. Not only the faithful which are now, but also they that were before us, and they that shall be after us to the end of the world, they all pertain to his body. The Church is the body (of Christ) not the church which is here or there, but that which is here and every where throughout the world: neither that Church which is at this time, but from Abel unto those which shall hereafter be borne and believe in Christ even till the end, the whole company of saints belonging to one City, which is the body of Christ, and whereof he is the head.  
Thirdly the Church may be limited by time and place, as the particular Churches of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus and such like. Behold, saith Austen, in the Church there be Churches, which be members of that one Church, dispersed throughout the world. There be many Churches & yet one Church, and in that sort many that there is but one.  
Sometimes the church importeth, besides the persons, the things in which those persons must communicate before they can be members of the Church; as when the church is called the kingdom, city and house of God: whereby we learn that it is furnished not only with persons, but with all things needful for the servants, citizens and people of God, to the converting and saving of their souls. 
Rom. 14.  In that sense saith S. Paul, The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the holy Ghost, meaning these be fruits and effects of God's kingdom: which our Saviour threatened to take from the jews. The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation that shall bring forth the fruits thereof; 
Mat. 21.  showing, that when the word of truth and seals of grace are taken from us, we cease to be the people and Church of God. Christ reigneth in his Church by his word and spirit, without these men are not the Church. An earthly city must have unity, society, regiment, & sufficiency for an earthly state: the number of men doth not make a city if these things want. How much more must the city of God have abundance of all things profiting to eternal life? 
1. Tim. 3. August. de verbis Apostoli sermo. 22.  S. Austen saith of the house of God, which is the Church, It is founded by believing, erected by hoping, perfected by loving: noting these three to be the main parts in the building of God's house.  

That which entereth the definition must needs be contained in the appellation of the Church.  It is plainer than that longer proof shall need. If we would define the Church we must comprehend not only men, but other things also which may sever the Church from those that are not the Church, and those things that are required to the explication, are we say contained in the appellation of the Church. The Church is not simply a number of men; for Infidels, heretics and hypocrites are not the Church, but of men regenerate by the word and Sacraments, truly serving God according to the Gospel of his son, and sealed by the spirit of grace against the day of redemption. Men thus qualified are the Church, and the gifts and graces of GOD that so qualify them, be not only the jewels and ornaments wherewith the spouse of Christ is decked, but even the seed and milk, whereby like a mother she conceiveth and nurseth her children.  


August. epist. 38.  
Idem de baptis. lib. 1. cap. 10.  
Idem in Psal. 57 & 30.  
Idem epist. 203. Ambros. in psal. 118. sermo. 15.  
Idem in psal. 36.  
1. Tim. 3.   The church our mother, saith Austen, conceived us of Christ, & nourished yea nourisheth us with the milk of faith. She conceiveth by the Sacraments as by the seed of her husband. Thou wast conceived, in that thou receivedst the name of Christ; and the Lord to make his wisdom milk for us, came clothed with flesh unto us. She is a most true mother which openeth her bosom to all nations when they shall be new borne, and offereth her teats when they are new borne. The teeth, cheeks, and lips of (this) spouse we understand, saith Ambrose, to be the virtues of the soul. Yea the Church is life, and as Paul saith, the Pillour of truth. These speeches and others that might be alleged show the Church to be resembled to a woman, and truth, saith, life, grace and such like gifts of God● be counted not only the garments, but even the bowels and parts of the Church. And therefore the name of the Church sometimes employeth as well the things that be in the Church as the persons that be of the Church, which was the third point that I noted.  Phi. 
These speeches be figurative.  Theo. 
I did not seek for the propriety, but the use of the word; and yet in proper speech persons without these things are not the Church, and in the very definition of the Church, as well things as persons be comprised.  Phi. 
In deed persons enduen with those gifts and graces of God, that be needful for eternal life; are properly the Church: but things without Persons are not the Church.  Theo. 
I do not exclude Persons, but include those things which cause the Persons to be members of the Church.  Phi. 
I will not much impugn that.  Theo. 
Return then to the words of Ambrose, which occasioned me to make this distinction.  
A good Emperor is not above the church. 
Ambros. oratio contra Auxent. The Prince not above the Church, though superior to all persons in the Church.  Not above the Church universal, for that consisteth of men & Angels, above whom princes be not. Neither above the Church militant in earth, for that containeth all the faithful of all ages and Countries, over whom there can be no Prince but only Christ.  Phi. 
And what? For the Church dispersed through the Roman Empire in the time of S. Ambrose, was the Prince above it, or no?  Theo. 
You must here distinguish the things proposed in the Church, from the Persons that were members of the Church. The Persons both Laymen and Clerks by God's law were the Prince's subjects: the things comprised in the Church, and by God himself committed to the Church, because they were Gods, could be subject to the power and will of no mortal creature, Pope nor Prince.  Phi. 
Say that again.  Theo. 
In shorter terms the Prince was above the Persons in the Church, but not above the things in the Church.  Phi. 
Above the Persons but not above the things in the Church? What things mean you?  Theo. 
Those things which God commandeth in his Church, and requireth of his Church.  Phi. 
I understand you not.  Theo. 
understand you our saviour when he saith, 
Mat. 22.  Give unto God the things which be Gods?  Phi. 
He meaneth as I take it, faith, devotion, holiness, 
What things Princes have neither right to command nor power to rule.  repentance, patience, obedience, and such like christian duties and virtues.  Theo. 
You say well: these be things which Princes have no right to claim, nor power to rule. They belong only to God. To these I add the means, whereby God worketh these things in his church; to wit, the word and Sacraments; over these things we grant Princes have no power.  Phi. 
S. Ambrose saith, not over the Church.  Theo. 
That is, not over the things which God hath settled in his church, but over the Persons, Princes have power.  Phi. 
What a shift of descant that is?  Theo. 
Call you that a shift which I before confirmed, and you confessed to be true?  Phi. 
What did you confirm?  Theo. 
That Princes have power by God's appointment over all men. I brought you Tertullian, chrysostom, 
See fol. 147.  justinian, Gregory and Ambrose himself witnessing that Princes had power over all men. S. Paul avoucheth the same, Let every soul be subject to their power. It is no shift, it is truth that our saviour saith, kings of nations bear rule over them, 
Mat. 20.  that is, over their subjects. You must either take the names of Princes and Governors from them, or else yield them Countries and people to be subject under them.  Phi. 
I do so.  Theo. 
Then Princes have power over all men, that is over all Persons.  Phi. 
Over all persons, but not over the Church. 
Princes are above all persons, but not above the Church, Ergo the Church is taken for more than for persons. Ambros. lib. 5. Cap. 33.   Theo. 
What do you now but make the same distinction yourself, which before you refused at my hands? Over all persons they have power; over the Church they have not; ergo the Church is not here taken for persons. And it must needs be taken either for the persons, or things: for the persons it is not, ergo for the things; and so by your confession mine answer standeth good, that Princes have power over the persons, but not over the things in the Church.  
And so saith S. Ambrose, Ea quae divina, imperatoriae potestati non esse subiecta; The things that be Gods be not subject to the emperors power, though the Emperor had power over all Persons, as Ambrose himself affirmeth.  Phi. 

Ambros. de obitu Theodosij.  Shall S. Ambrose strike the stroke in this case?  Theo. 
The stroke is already given by the sacred scriptures, by the public Laws, and ancient stories of the primative Church: 
Apolog. Cap. 4. sect. 30.  and yet in this point we reject not the judgement of S. Ambrose,  Phi. 
S. Ambrose is clean against your opinion that Princes should be governors in causes ecclesiastical. To the younger Valentinian the Emperor, 
Epist. 33. ad Sororem.  thus he answereth: Vex not thyself so far, O Emperor, to think that thy Imperial right pertaineth to divine things, exalt not thyself above thy measure. For it is written, Give to Cesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which belongeth unto God. The Palace for the Emperor, but the Churches are for the Priest. 
Ibidem.  Again the same holy Doctor, When didst thou ever hear, most clement Prince, that Lay men have judged Bishops? Shall we bend by flattery so far, that forgetting the right of our Priesthood we should yield up to others that which God hath commended unto us? And recounting the whole course of holy scriptures and all times past, who can deny but that in the cause of faith, in the cause of faith I say, Bishops have judged of Emperors and not Emperors of Bishops?  Theo. 
Omit the circumstances and causes that moved Ambrose thus to write, which be the words you take most hold of?  Phi. 
These, Thy Imperial right pertaineth not to divine things. The Palace for the Emperor, but the Churches are for the Priest. In a cause of faith Bishops have judged of Emperors, and not Emperors of Bishops.  Theo. 

The jesuits nip saint Ambroses words.  You help the matter forward with false translating and nipping the words, and yet they prove nothing against us. In steed of ut putes te in ea quae divina sunt, imperiale aliquod ius habere; Do not think thyself, to have an Imperial right over those things which be Gods, (or over divine things) you say cunningly, Do not think thy Imperial right pertaineth to divine things. For, Noli te extollere, sed esto Deo subditus, exalt not thyself, but be subject to God, you say, Exalt not thyself above thy measure, and suppress the rest which should declare when a Prince exalteth himself above his measure; to wit, when he is not subject to God. The next words which you bring, When didst thou ever hear most, clement Prince, that Lay men have judged Bishops? are not found Ibidem as you quote them, that is Epistola 33 ad sororem, but Epistola 32 ad Valentinianum Imperatorem. And In causa fider, In a matter of faith, which Ambrose addeth, you leave out in the first sentence, though you double it at the latter end. These escapes I will wink at and come to the words themselves.  
Think not thyself to have any Imperial right over divine things. Neither do we say Princes have, for an imperial right is to command, altar and abrogate what they think good; which is lawful neither for men, nor Angels in divine matters.  
Palaces are for Princes and Churches for Priests, this was truly said, & if you know not the reason, Churches were first appointed for public prayer and preaching; which belong to the Priests and not to the Prince's function. And for that cause Bishops were to teach Princes which was the right faith, Princes were not to teach the Bishops, much less to profess themselves judges of truth, as Valentinian did, when he said, Ego debeo judicare, I ought to be judge, 
Ambros. lib. 1. epist 32.  whether Christ be God or no; for that was the question between the Arrians and Ambrose, and that was the word which S. Ambrose stoutly but wisely refused. When we say that Princes be judges of faith, bring S. Ambrose against us and spare not: but we be farther off from that impiety to make men judges over God, than you be.  
Do you not make the Prince judge of faith?  Theo. 
You know we do not.  Phi. 
Produce not us for witnesses, we know no such thing.  Theo. 
Your own acts shall depose for us if your mouths will not. If we make Princes to be judges of faith, why were so many of us consumed not long since in England with fire and faggot for disliking that which the Prince and the Pope affirmed to be faith? Why at this day do you kill and murder elsewhere so many thousands of us for rejecting that as false religion, which the kings & princes of your side profess for true? 
We make no Prince judge of faith.  If we make Princes judges, why do we rather lose our lives than stand to their judgements? Your stakes that yet be warm, your swords that yet be bloody, do witness for us and against you that in matters of faith we make neither Prince nor Pope to be judge. God is not subject to the judgement of man, no more is his truth.  Phi. 
What power then do you give to Princes?  Theo. 
What power so ever we give them, we give them no power to pronounce which is truth.  Phi. 
What do you then?  Theo. 
Never ask that you know. Have we spent so many words, and you now to seek what we defend? But you see S. Ambrose maketh nothing for you. And therefore you pick a quarrel to the question.  Phi. 
S. Ambrose would not yield Valentinian the Emperor so much as a Church in Milan: 
Wherein Saint Ambrose withstood Valentinian.  and when he was willed to appear before the Emperor in his consistory or else depart the City, he would do neither.  Theo. 
You care not, to fit your purpose, though you make S. Ambrose a sturdy rebel. You would fain find a precedent to colour your headynes against the Prince; but in Ambrose you can not, his answer to Valentinian was stout, but lawful; constant, but Christian; as the circumstances of the facts will declare.  
Valentinian a young Prince incensed by justina his mother and other eunuchs about him, willed Ambrose to come and dispute with Auxentius the Arrian in his consistory before him, and he would be judge whether of their two religions were truest and which of them twain should be Bishop of Milan, Auxentius or Ambrose, otherwise to departed whither he would. To this Ambrose made a sober and dutiful answer in defence of himself and his cause, and gave it in writing to Valentinian, 
The reasons why S. Ambr. refused Valentinians judgement as neither fit nor indifferent.  showing him amongst other things that he was young in years, a novice in faith not yet baptized, & rather to learn, than to judge of bishops: that the consistory was no fit place for a priest to dispute in, where the hearers should be Jews on gentiles & so scoff at Christ, & the Emperor himself partial as appeared by his Law published before that time to impugn the truth. As for departing, if he were forced, he would not resist; but with his consent he could not relinquish his church to save his life, without great sin.  
And because Auxentius & his companions urged this, that the Emperor ought to be judge in matters of faith, Saint Ambrose followeth and refelleth that word as repugnant not only to the divine Scriptures, but also to the Roman laws. Conclusus undique ad versutiam patrum suorum confugit, de Imperatore vult invidiam commovere, 
Ambros. lib. 5. orat. contra Auxentium.  dicens judicare debere adolescentem, catechumenum, sacrae lectionis ignarum, & in consistorio judicare. Auxentius driven to his shifts hath recourse to the craft of his forefathers, seeking to procure us envy by the emperors name, and saith the Prince ought to be judge, though he be young, not yet baptised and ignorant of the Scriptures, and that in the Consistory. 
Idem lib. 5. epist. 32.  And to the Emperor himself, Your father, a man of riper years said; It is not for me to be judge between Bishops, doth your clemency now (at these years) say, I ought to be judge? And he baptised in Christ, thought himself unable for the weight of so great a judgement: doth your clemency, that hath not yet obtained to the Sacrament of baptism, challenge the judgement of faith, whereas yet you know not the mysteries of faith? No man should think me stubborn, when I stand on this, which your father of famous memory not only pronounced in words, but also confirmed by his Laws that in a cause of faith or ecclesiastical order he should be judge, that was both like in function, and ruled by the same kind of right. For those be the words of the Rescript: his meaning was he would have Priests to be judges of Priests. 
Ibidem.  Then follow the words which you cite. When ever didst thou hear most clement Emperor, in a cause of faith that Laymen judged of bishops? Shall we so bend for flattery, that we should forget the right (or duty) of Priests; and what God hath bequeathed to me, I should commit to others? If a Bishop must be taught by a Layman what to follow, let a Lay man then dispute (or speak in the Church,) and a Bishop be an auditor, let the Bishop learn of a Layman. But surely if we survey the course of the divine Scriptures or ancient times, who is there, that can deny, but in a cause of faith, in a cause I say of faith Bishops are wont to judge of Christian Emperors, not Emperors of Bishops?  
And where Valentinian required Ambrose to yield his Church, 

Ambros. lib. 5. epist. 33.  
Ambrose would not yield his consent to let the Arrians have his Church.  
Idem orat. contra Auxent. Ibidem. Ibidem. epist. 32. Ibidem orat. contra Auxent.  
Ambrose resisted not the Prince but denied his consent to part stakes with the Arrians.  
Ibidem epist. 33. He submitted himself to the punishment, for that he could not with a good conscience obey the commandment.  
Ibidem. epist. 32. Ambrose meant to obey the Prince but not to fly for fear thereby to save his life. Ibidem oratio. contra Auxentium.  
Ibidem epist. 33. Ibidem oratio. Contra Auxen.   & depart whither he would; for yielding his Church, his answer was, Nec mihi fas est tradere, nec tibi accipere Imperator expedit. Domum privati nullo potes iure temerare; domum dei existimas auferendam? Allegatur, imperatori licere omnia, ipsius esse universa. Respondeo. It is neither lawful for me to yield it, nor expedient for you, O Emperor, to take it. The house of a private man you can not by right invade: do you think you may take away the house of God by violence? It is alleged, the Emperor may do what he will, all things are his. I answer: Do not burden yourself O Emperor to think, you have any Imperial right over those things, which be Gods. Exalt not yourself (so high) but if you will reign long, be subject to God. Palaces pertain to Emperors, Churches to Priests. The Church is Gods, it ought not to be yielded (by me) to Cesar. The temple of God can not be Caesar's right. I can not deliver that which I received to keep (in God's behalf, to heretics.) Would God it were apparent to me that my church should not be delivered to the Arrians, I would willingly offer myself to the judgement of your highness. Would God it were decreed that no (Arrian) should trouble (my) Churches, and of my Person pronounce what sentence you will.  
With my consent I will never forego my right, if I be compelled I have no way to resist. I can sorrow, I can weep, I can sigh, tears are my weapons; Priests have (only) those defences, by other means I neither aught, nor can resist. Flee & forsake my church I use not, lest any think it done to avoid some sorer punishment. If my goods be sought for, take them; if my body, I will be ready. Will you put me in Irons, or lead me to death? You shall do me a pleasure, I will not guard myself with multitudes of people, I will not flee to the altar to entreat for life, but will gladly be sacrificed for the altars (of god.)  
Depart Ambrose would not, thereby to save himself & leave his Church to Arians; the Emperor should banish him, or else he would not forsake his flock. I could wish you had not sent me word to go whither I would. I came every day abroad, I had no guard about me. You should have appointed me, whither you would. Now the rest of the Priests say to me, there is no difference, whether thou be content to relinquish, or thyself yield up the altar of Christ; for when thou dost forsake it thou dost deliver it. If a strong hand remove me from my Church, my flesh may be carried thence, my mind shall not. Betray my Church I cannot, but fight I ought not. These answers be full of humility and as I think full of that affection (and reverence) which a Bishop should bear to a prince. We see the grounds that Ambrose stood on, resolved rather to suffer any death, than by his consent or departure to betray the Church of Christ into the hands of Auxentius the Arrian. His meaning was not with violence to resist, or with pride to despise the young prince, but either to die with his flock, or at least to be removed from his flock by the prince's power without his own consent, because it were sin in him to resign or leave the house of God as a pray for heretics, unless he were thereunto compelled, and forced against his will.  Phi. 
I thereby gather that Princes may not meddle with Churches without the bishops assent.  Theo. 
You may thereby well collect that Bishops were better to give their lives, than yield their churches for Christ to be blasphemed in, except they be constrained.  Phi. 
The Bishop refused, though the Prince commanded.  Theo. 
He refused to put his consent to the Princes will; but he resisted not the Prince's power.  Phi. 
No thanks in that he could not.  Theo. 
Yes great thanks in that he would not, when all the citizens of Milan took part with him, and the soldiers denied to wait on the Emperor, to any other church but only to that where he was; and greater obedience in that he confessed he should not. Aliter nec debeo, nec possum resistere, otherwise (than by tears and sighs) I neither aught, 
Ibidem orat. contra Auxent. Ibidem epist. 33.  nor can resist: and likewise he commended the people for saying, Regamus august, non pugnamus; we make request O Sovereign, we make no tumult. So that Ambrose in these words which you bring doth not generally dislike that Princes should meddle with religion or make Laws for Christ, but first affirmeth, which we confess, that Princes be no judges of faith; and next avoucheth that his refusal to deliver his Church to the hands of Arrians was no stubbornness against the Prince, but obedience to God, whose house it was; and, that he could not consent to betray the same to God's enemies but he should highly displease and offend God in so doing. By this you may prove, that we must obey God before man, and that all Pastors ought rather to give their lives than their consents, that heretics should invade their flocks; but against the Prince's authority to command for truth and punish error by the words or deeds of Ambrose, for aught that I see, you can conclude nothing.  Phi. 
He reporteth and commendeth the words of Valentinian the elder, the father of this young Valentinian. 
Ibidem epist. 32.  Non est meum judicare inter episcopos, It is not for me to judge among Bishops.  Theo. 
He gave the young Prince to understand what a weighty matter it was, 
Why Valentinian would not judge between the Bishops of divers faiths.  To sit judge between Bishops in cases of faith, and not among Bishops as you translate it; in that his father a man of ripe years, great wisdom, and good experience refused this as a burden too heavy for him. And what if the question betwixt the christians and Arrians were so intricate that Valentinian durst not take upon him to discuss or determine the same, is that any reason to prove that princes may not establish truth and abolish falsehood by their public Laws?  Phi. 
Was that the matter wherein Valentinian refused to be judge between the Bishops?  Theo. 
Even that, if you dare believe the story of the Church. For, 
Sozom. lib. 6. Cap. 7.  The Bishops of Hellespontus and Bithynia, saith Sozomene, and as many as professed the son of God to be of the same substance with his father, sent Hypatianus in a legacy to Valentinian the Emperor to request him that he would permit them to meet (in a Council) to correct the Doctrine (which troubled the Church.) When Hypatianus came to him, & declared the petition of the Bishops, Valentinian aswered: For me that am a Lay man I think it not lawful to search curiously such (deep) matters: let the priests that have charge of these things, meet where they like best among themselves.  
This fearfulness of Valentinian, 

Valentinian distrusting his judgement suffered the Arrians to do what they would.  
Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 6.  
Socrat. lib. 4. Cap. 1.  
Sozom. lib. 6. Cap. 21.   whiles he could not so much as look into the contention betwixt the Christians and the Arrians, did the Church no good. For though Valentinian were for his own person well persuaded in religion, yet he suffered the Arrians to do what they would, as Sozome confesseth. Valentinian being himself of the Nicene faith, made much of those that were of the same opinion with him, but molested not any that were of the contrary. And that note Socrates giveth him. Valentinian honoured those that were of his faith, but in the mean time he let the Arrians do what they would. And though himself very religiously embraced the Godhead of Christ, yet would he command nothing to the Bishops (in that behalf) neither thought he good to change other ecclesiastical laws into better or worse. For he took them to be above his reach, though he were (otherwise) a very good Emperor and fit to rule, as appeared by his doings.  Phi. 
Mislike you this in Valentinian?  Theo. 
Do you like that he suffered Arrians to have their forth & neither molested nor resisted them?  Phi. 
We like not that.  Theo. 
Then you mislike the timorousness or remissness, call it what you will, in the church affairs as well as we do: for what commendation could it be for him neither to meddle nor make with ecclesiastical matters, but to permit all sorts and sects to follow their appetites?  Phi. 
The stories commend him as excelling in wisdom, 

Theodoret. li. 4. Cap. 5.  
Sozom. lib. 6. Cap. 6.  
Valentinian married two wives & gave all men leave to do the like.  
Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 31.   moderation and justice.  Theo. 
The best men have their faults and are sometimes led with private fancies. Valentinian was a good man and worthy the Empire, and yet he made a Law that every man that would, might have two wives, and himself gave the first example in taking two.  Phi. 
What he did not?  Theo. 
Meaning to marry justina for report of her beauty, he made a law and published the same in every city, that it should be lawful for all men to have two wives at once. And after the law so made he took justina to wife, by whom he had Valentinian the younger and three daughters, not divorcing Severa the mother of Gratiaen (his elder son) whom he a little before had created Emperor.  Phi. 
That was a fault in deed.  Theo. 
And this was an other, 
Socra. lib. 4. Cap 29.  that he gave himself to quietness, and molested no sect of heretics: upon this opinion that it passed his capacity to judge between the Bishops in matters of faith.  Phi. 
But Ambrose doth commend it.  Theo. 
Ambrose doth allege it to stay the young prince from rashly presuming to judge of their matters, before he knew the first principles of religion, because his father when he was aged, Inhabilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse judicij, 
Ambros. lib. 5. epist. 32.  thought himself unable to judge in so weighty a cause, but farther he doth not commend it: and yet he might commend that in Valentinian and not hurt us. For we do not encourage Princes to profess themselves judges of faith, which Valentinian thought too great a burden, but only we wish them to discern betwixt truth and error, which every private man must do that will be a Christian.  


Theodosius discerned between the Bishops though Valentinian would not or could not.  
Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 10.   And though Valentinian disinherited his own judgement in matters of faith, yet that did not fray Theodosius a Prince highly commended by Ambrose himself, from looking into the strife between the Homousians and Arrians and appointing by a solemn edict which of them should be counted Catholics, which heretics: and taking their Churches from them without their consents. For he, not long after he was called to the Empire by Valentinians eldest son, willed every sect to put their faith in writing. At the day prefixed the Bishops of every religion, being sent for, came to the Court, Nectarius and Agelius for the Homousians (or Catholics) Demophilus ●or the Arrians, Eunomius himself for his followers, and for the Macedonians Eleusius. When they were come the Prince admitted them to his presence, and taking the Paper of each man's opinion heartily besought God to help him in choosing the truth. Then reading their confessions written he rejected all the rest, as dividing and severing the sacred Trinity and tore them in pieces, and only liked and embraced the Homousian faith; and therewithal made a Law, that such as followed that faith should be counted Christian Catholics, the rest infamous heretics. 

Codic. li. 1. tit. 1. de summa trinitate & side Catholica § Cunctos.  
The true faith in Theodosius time was kept at Rome; & that was the same which we profess at this day.   All people subject to our Empire we will have continue in that religion, which S. Peter the Apostle delivered to the Romans as the faith kept from his time to this day doth declare, and the which it is evident Bishop Damasus, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity do profess: to wit, that according to the apostolic and evangelic Doctrine, we believe one Godhead of the father, son and holy Ghost of like Majesty in sacred Trinity. The observers of this Law we command to be taken for Christian Catholics, the rest, as mad and frantic we adjudge to bear the reproach of heretics: which must look to feel first the vengeance of God, & next such penalties as the motion of our heart directed from above shall appoint.  


Princes commanded such as were here●●●es to be 〈…〉 of the● Churches.  
Sozom. lib. 7. Cap. 9  
Codic. lib. 1. tit. 1. § nulius.   As this religious Prince published by his Laws which opinion should be counted truth and which heresy, so did he by the same authority command the Churches throughout his Empire to be presently taken from the Arrians and delivered into the hands and possession of such as were of a right faith. So saith Sozomene, The Emperor (Theodosius) made a Law, that the Nicene faith should be authentic, and all Churches to be delivered to them which professed the same Godhead of the father, son and holy Ghost in three persons of equal honour and like power. The Law itself is extant. The rule of the Nicene faith received from our fathers and confirmed by the witness and assertion of divine religion, let it stand good for ever. And he shall be counted a follower of the Nicene faith, and a true professor of the Catholic religion, that holdeth the undivided substance of the incorrupt Trinity, which by a Greek word is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of right believers. They which be not of this faith, let them cease by cunning devices to shroud themselves under the name of true religion which they profess not, & be plainly noted by their heresies, and utterly removed and expelled from all Churches, that throughout the world the Churches may be delivered to the Bishops which hold the Nicene faith.  
So Gratian the son of Valentinian, after the Empire came entirely to his hands, 
Theodoret. li. 5. Cap. 2.  commanded the preachers of the Arrian blasphemy, as wild and cruel beasts to be driven from their Churches, and the same to be restored to good Pastors, & the execution of this law he committed to Sapores a most famous captain of that time. 
Euagrius lib. 1. Cap. 12.  The like did Theodosius the younger decree that they which followed the wicked faith of Nestorius, or cleaved to his unlawful doctrine, if they were Bishops or Clerks should be cast out of their churches, if they were Laymen they should be accursed. 

So did justinian appoint deprivation for the breach almost of every of his ecclesiastical laws.  
Apolog. Cap. 4. sect. 28.  
Epist. ad solitar. vitam degentes.   By this it is evident that the christian Emperors did and might dispose both of Bishops and Churches, & therefore Ambrose could not be of that mind that princes by their laws might not put Bishops from their Churches without their consents: but he brought this as a reason, why the Prince at his pleasure without law might not command, and himself, though the Prince commanded, might not consent.  Phi. 
You shift off S. Ambrose, but Athanasius, Osius, Leontius and Hilarius will not be so shifted. Of Constantius the Arrian Emperor, S. Athanasius saith, What hath he left for Antichrist? for yet again in place of Ecclesiastical cognition he hath appointed his palace the judicial seat of such causes, & made himself the chief judge & arbiter of our controversies. And who seeing him to make himself the ruler of Bishops, and precedent of spiritual judgements, would not justly deem him to be that very abomination of desolation foretold by Daniel? And in an other place of the same work: When was it ever heard since the beginning, that the Church's judgement did depend of the emperors authority? Or who ever accepted that for lawful judgement? The renowned Osius writeth to the same Emperor: 

Apolog. Cap. 4. sect. 29.  
Cited of S. Athanas. in the epistle aforesaid.  
Suidas in verbo Leontius.  
Lib. imperfect. 2. ad Constant.   Meddle not O Emperor in causes ecclesiastical, nor do thou command us in this kind, but leave such things to us rather: God hath given thee the Empire, but to us the church. At the same time, & to the same Emperor, thus saith Leontius the Martyr: I marvel that thy vocation being for other things, thou meddlest with these matters. Thy charge is of civil & Martial affairs only, and yet thou wilt needs be precedent of ccclesiastical causes. S. Hilary also to the same Emperor writeth thus, We beseech thy clemency to provide▪ that charge to be given to all judges of Provinces, that hereafter they presume not, nor usurp the hearing of Ecclesiastical causes.  Theo. 
You do well to put them together; 
Constantius reproved for his tyrannous and injurious oppressing the Church.  they all spoke of one man & meant one matter: reproving Constantius the Arian Emperor and that worthily for his tyrannous and violent oppressing the Church of Christ against all truth and reason.  Phi. 
You would feign give these father's the slip, as though Constantius were reproved by them not for intermeddling with causes ecclesiastical; but for his injurious and outrageous overruling those matters; what a mockery that were?  Theo. 
Mock not yourselves, and of our answer let the world judge.  Phi. 
What is it?  Theo. 
We say these fathers did not reprove that in Constantius, which the whole Church of Christ before them and after them for eight hundred years and upward obeyed, embraced and honoured in her Christian & Catholic princes, namely Constantine, Gratian, Theodosius, Honorius, Martian, justinian, Charles, Lodovic, Lotharius, and others.  Phi. 
Who saith they did?  Theo. 
Do you grant they did not?  Phi. 
What if we do?  Theo. 
Speak expressly whether you grant it or no.  Phi. 
We grant they did not.  Theo. 
Ergo these places of Athanasius, Osius, Leontius, and Hilarius, do not impugn that which we defend, but only traduce Constantius for his wilful and heady subverting the faith, and infringing the Canons, without all regard of truth or equity. They refute not his authority to command for truth and punish error, which other Princes had and used with the contentation and commendation of all good men, but they dissuade him from the tyranny which he showed in confounding both the doctrine and discipline of the church to serve his humour and wreck his anger on those that would not yield to his heresy.  Phi. 
You may not scape so, we must have a direct answer to the words which we bring.  Theo. 
I need not answer them, till you urge them.  Phi. 
As for urging, that shall not want.  Theo. 
If I fail in answering, take you the advantage.  Phi. 
Be sure, I will. First then Constantius was reproved by S. Athanasius for appointing his Palace to be the tribunal seat of ecclesiastical causes, and making himself the chief judge and arbiter of those controversies. 

Apolog. cap. 4.  
Athanasius words discussed.  
Apolog. Cap. 4.    Theo. 
We do not make Princes chief judges and arbiters of ecclesiastical controversies, Ergo these words of Athanasius disprove not our assertion.  Phi. 
Do you not make them Rulers of Bishops and precedents of spiritual judgements, which is that very abomination of desolation foretold by Daniel?  Theo. 
Do not you purposely clip the text, to draw the words from their right meaning to your malicious intent, which is a ready way to deface the truth and uphold the kingdom of Antichrist? 
Athanas. epist. ad solitar. vitam agentes.  For where the words are, Quis videns eum in decernendo Principem se facere Episcoporum, & praesidere judicijs ecclesiasticis, non merito dicat, etc. who seeing him to make himself the ruler of Bishops, and the ringleader of ecclesiastical judgements (in decernendo) what they shall determine, may not justly pronounce him to be that abomination of desolation which Daniel foretold; 

The jesuitical madness of citing the fathers to bear out that which should expound the rest.  
Hilar. de trinit. lib. 4.   you strike out clean, in decernendo, In judging or determining, and would have it a note of Antichrist to be a ruler of Bishops. Again, where The understanding of that which spoken must be fet from the causes that moved (men) to speak as Hilary well admonisheth, you let pass all that Athanasius hath said in that long epistle for the confirmation of this sentence and explication of himself, and ●●ll out a word or two that may be diversly taken, and think with a phrase of speech both doubtful and general to surprise a settled and certain truth.  
Prince's should not be rulers of Bishops: if by this you mean that Princes should not be superior magistrates to command Bishops that which is good and forbidden them that which is evil, 
How Princes may rule Bishops, and how not.  yea to punish them as well for ecclesiastical as civil disorders, Athanasius was never of that mind; his own words expounding S. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (if those be his works that carry his name) are clear to the contrary. 
Comment. sub nomine Athanas. in 13. Rom.  Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.] He teacheth all men, saith Athanasius, whether it be Priest, Monk or Apostle, to submit themselves to princes (or rulers.) And speaking of himself when he was commanded to confer with Arius, not the first and famous heretic, but an other of that name and time concerning matters of faith, 
Disputa. Atha. cum Arrio Laodicee habitae  Who, saith he, is so besides his wits that he dare refuse the Prince's precept? His deeds are as manifest; for when the Council of Tyrus would have proceeded against him for his crimes and causes ecclesiastical, the Cotholike Bishops of Egypt that took part with him made their appeal to the Prince, as I showed you before, 

Sorat. lib. 1. Cap. 33.  
Idem li. 1. ca 33.   and Athanasius in person fled to Constantine and desired the Synod to be sent for, and his cause to be heard before the Emperor. What Athanasius liked in himself, he might not mislike in others; what he thought to be lawful in the father, he could not think unlawful in the son; he doth not now refel that in words, which he before approved in deeds: you must so construe his sayings as they may stand with his doings, or else you make a mad construction. But if you mean that Princes should not rule Bishops in ecclesiastical causes & judgements, that is, not work them, nor force them against the witness of their hearts and consciences to follow the wills and appetites of Princes as Constantius did by the report of Athanasius in this place: then the words which you bring be very true, but nothing pertinent to this question.  
The ruling then of Bishops and sitting as precedent of ecclesiastical judgements which Constantius used and Athanasius reproved was nothing else but a wilful contempt in himself of the faith and Canons of the Church, 
Prince's may not rule Bishops, that is not force them, nor frame them to their fancies.  and a furious compulsion of others to make them determine what he listed, and condemn whom him pleased without respect of truth, and against all order of common justice.  Phi. 
This is your gloze, which we do not believe.  Theo. 
Your own witnesses say the same, whom you may not well discredit.  Phi. 
Which of them?  Theo. 
Athanasius and Hilary.  Phi. 
Where say they so?  Theo. 
Not far from the places which yourself allege. The whole Epistle of Athanasius which you quote, is a large repetition of the tyrannous words and deeds of Constantius touching causes ecclesiastical. The first book of Hilary against Constantius (the first I mean, as they now stand in order, though the last in time as they were written) doth handle the same argument. Read either of them, you can not choose amiss.  
Let pass the horrible persecution raised by Constantius, wherein the Pagans were set to invade the Churches of Christians and to beat the people with staves and stones: 
Vide Athanas. epist. ad solitar. vitam agentes.  the Bishops, Priests and Monks were bound with chains and scourged with rods; the women were haled by the hair to the judgement seat; 
〈◊〉 may play the tyrants in temporal things, much more in spiritual if they pass christian moderation and sobriety. Ibidem.  the virgins were toasted by the fire, and whipped with Prickles, others were banished, strangled, trampled to death under feet, and their limbs and joints even torn and rend asunder after they were dead, in so much that Athanasius is fain to cry out, who was not amazed at these things? who would give them the name of Ethnics, much less of christians? who will think them to have the conditions of men and not rather of beasts? who perceived not the Arrians to be crueler than beasts? The strangers standing by, yea the Ethnics detested the Arians as Antichrist's, and butchers of men. O new found heresy, which in villainies and impieties hast put on the fullness of the Devil, how great so ever he be: let pass I say these things, and come to his behaviour in matters and causes ecclesiastical.  

Ibidem.  Paulinus, Lucifer and other Bishops being called before him, the Emperor commanded them to subscribe against Athanasius and to communicate with the Arrians: they marveling at this strange endeavour & answering that the ecclesiastical Canons would not suffer them so to do, he straightway replied: 
Constantius would have his will to be the Canon of the church.  AT QVOD EGO VOLO, PRO CANONE SIT: ita me loquentem Syriae episcopi sustinent, aut ergo obtemperate, aut vos quoque exules esrote. LET MY WILL BE TAKEN OF YOU FOR A CANON: the Bishops of Syria content themselves with this speech of mine. Therefore do as I will you, or departed into banishment. And when the Bishops held up their hands to God and with great liberty proposed their reasons, showing him that the kingdom was not his, but Gods, of whom he received it; and that it was to be feared, lest he that gave it would speedily take it from him: also setting before him the day of judgement, and advising him not to subvert ecclesiastical order, nor to mingle the Roman Empire with the constitutions of the Church, nor to bring the Arrian heresy into the Church of God: he would neither hear them, nor permit them to speak: but grievously bending his brows for that they had spoken, and shaking his sword, willed (them) to be carried away. This was Constantius manner in conventing Bishops, and thus he perverted the faith and good order of Christ's Church upon a self will, subjecting all Laws both divine and human to his eager and erroneous fancy. And who seeing him (thus) to make himself the ruler of Bishops, & precedent of ecclesiastical judgements, would not justly deem him to be that desolation of abomination foretold by Daniel?  Phi. 
You put (thus) to the text which Athanasius hath not.  Theo. 
But the right meaning of Athanasius words must be gathered by that which goeth before and followeth after. 
* 
Hilar. de trin. lib. 9  
The words of 〈◊〉 〈…〉 ●o th●t which ●s antecedent & consequent in the same epistle.   Intelligentia dictorum, saith Hilary, ex praecedentibus & consequentibus expectetur: The understanding of any speech must be taken from the precedents and consequents. The conclusion is not proved but by the premises, and therefore must be measured by the premises. Athanasius bringeth many particulars to show in what sort Constantius overruled the Bishops and preferred his own will before all constitutions and Canons of the Church, and then inferreth, Who seeing him to make himself the ruler of Bishops and precedent of ecclesiastical judgements (in that ●ort as he doth) would not pronounce him to be Antichrist? Now in what sort he did it, the whole Epistle besides doth declare; thither must you repair if you will see how Constantius behaved himself in ecclesiastical causes, and consequently what things Athanasius and the rest misliked in him.  Phi. 
How did Constantius behave himself, say you?  Theo. 
That is worth the searching. By that you shall see what cause Athanasius, Osius, Leontius and Hilarius had to reprove him.  Phi. 
Say no more than you justly prove.  Theo. 
No more shall be said than your own witnesses report. I hope you will take them for direct and true deponents.  Phi. 
I do not mistrust them.  Theo. 
Then hear them. There were five principal points wherein Constantius dealt very intemperately & wickedly as the writings of Athanasius and Hilary do testify. 
Five things misliked in Constantius as tyrannical.  The often altering of the faith, the wresting from Synods what he would, the banishing of Bishops upon false accusations, the intruding of others in their places against all order, and the forcing of all sorts to communicate with the Arrians.  
Of his altering the faith Hilary thus complaineth: 

Hilar. lib. 3. ad Constant.  
Often chainging his faith.   Faith is come now to depend rather on the time than on the Gospel. Our state is dangerous & miserable that we have now as many faiths as wills, and as many doctrines as manners, whiles faiths are either so written as we list, or so understood as we will. We make every year and every month a faith, 
Ibidem. Hilar. lib. 1. contra Constantium defunct.  and still we seek a faith as if there were no faith. This O Constantius would I fain know of thee, what faith at length thou believest. Thou hast changed so often that now I know not thy faith. That is happened unto thee which is wont to follow unskilful builders, ever disliking their own doings, that thou still pullest down that which thou art still setting up. Thou subvertest the old with new, and the new thou rentest in sunder with a newer correction; and that which was once corrected thou condemnest with a second correction. O thou wicked one, what a mockery dost thou make of the Church? 
Ibidem. Constantius was dead and so no Prince, when Hilary was so bold with him in his terms.  Only dogs return to their vomit, and thou compelest the Priests of Christ to sup up those things which they had spit forth, and dost thou command them in their confessions to allow that which before they condemned? What Bishops hand hast thou left innocent? whose tongue hast thou not forced to falsehood? whose heart hast thou not brought to the condemning of his former opinion? Substravisti voluntati tuae sed & violentiae. Thou hast subjecteth (all) to thy will, nay to thy violence.  
His violent oppressing of Bishops in their Synods & wresting from them what he would, is witnessed by them both. 
Hilar. lib. 1. contra Constan. Forcing Synods to his fancy.  Synodos contrahis, conclusos urbe una minis terres, fame debilitas, hyeme con●icis, dissimulatione depravas: Thou gatherest Synods, saith Hilary to him, & when they be closed in one city, thou terrifiest them with threats, thou pynest them with hunger, thou lamest them with cold, 
Athanaes'. ad Solitar. vitam agentes.  thou depravest them with dissembling. He pretendeth, saith Athanasius, a judgement (or Synod) of Bishops for a show, but in the mean time he doth whatsoever he list himself. What liberty of persuasion, what place for advise is there, when he that contradicteth, shall for his labour lose his life or his Country? By that means hath the Emperor gathered so great a number of Bishops partly terrified with threats, partly enticed with promises to grant they would no longer communicate with Athanasius.  
The order of such tyrannical Synods, the Bishops of Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis, and Thebais do lively report in defence of Athanasius, whereby we shall see how far they be from the moderation and regiment of Godly Princes. With what face dare they call this convent a Synod, where the Lieutenant was precedent? 
Athans. apollo 2. in epis. Synod. Alexand.  where the tormentor stood ready? where the jailor in steed of the Deacons of the Church, brought in those that were called for? where the Lieutenant spoke, the rest that were present kept silence, or rather yielded their service to him? where that which the Bishops by common consent liked, was rejected by the Lieutenant? He sat and commanded, we were led by soldiers, yea the Lieutenant himself did whatsoever the Eusebians (our adversaries) bid him. To be short, what show of a Synod was there, where death or banishment, if Cesar said the word, was decreed?  
This violence Liberius toucheth in his answer to Constantius messenger. If the Emperor seek in deed to interpose his care for the peace of the Church, 
Athanas. ad Solitar. vitam agentes.  or if he command those things which we have decreed for Athanasius to be reversed, let those things also that are decreed against him be reversed, and after let an ecclesiastical Synod be called far from the Palace, where the Emperor is not present, nor the Lieutenant intermeddleth, nor the judge threateneth (as Constantius doth in his Synods) but only the fear of God and institution of the Apostles suffice for all things. And this dissimulation the Bishops were brought to by the emperors means, as your own author confesseth, 
Suidas in Leontio Tripoli Episco.  that Constantine's sitting precedent among the Bishops and prescribing rules for (their) churches, the most part of them received with applause & admiration whatsoever he said, affirming it to be divinely spoken.  
What marvel then if Athanasius reproved Constantius for sitting among the bishops in their Synods, as precedent of (their) judgements & ringleader or ruler of the bishops in their determinations, when as he oppressed the freedom of their voices with terror, corrupted the secrets of their hearts with promises, & hindered the uprightness of their proceed with his presence? Or if Leontius broke out into these words: 
Apud Suidam ibidem.  I wonder that having charge of other things thou interest into these matters, and that being governor of the camp and common wealth thou prescribest those things to Bishops which pertain only to Bishops.  
Touching accusations of Bishops his tyranny was greater. 
Admitting false accusations against Bishops, and not suffering them to speak for themselves.  He made his Palace the Consistory for such causes and himself judge of them, where if any Arrian accused an other Bishop, were the complaint never so false, the proof never so slender, the man never so guiltless, the party accused should not clear himself, no not so much as speak for himself, but was sure, though he were absent and innocent, to die the death or suffer banishment.  Phi. 
You imagine this of your own head to make Constantius seem a very tyrant.  Theo. 
The words which you brought do fully prove so much, but that you cut them off from the rest, to make them sound for your purpose. Put the words that follow to them, and see whether they do not import that which I said. 
Athan. ad Solit. vitam agentes.  Now again in steed of Ecclesiastical cognition, (that is, the trial of Bishops by their Synods when they are accused) he hath appointed his palace the judgement seat of those causes, and himself the chief judge and arbitrer of those contentions (or accusations:) and that which you would wonder at, if at any time he perceive the accusers to stagger or fail in their proofs, 
This was plain tyranny repugnant to the laws of God and man.  he himself playeth the accuser, so as the party convented is suffered to reply nothing by reason of his violence. Which he plainly showed in Athanasius cause. For in that matter hearing the free speech of Paulinus, Lucifer, Eusebius and Dionysius (all four Bishops) proving by the recantation of Vrsacius and Valens that the crimes objected to Athanasius were false, and the sayings of Vrsacius and Valens, which they themselves had revoked, ought not to be credited, Constantius straightway rising up said, I am Athanasius accuser, on my word believe those things (that are objected to him.) Here the Bishops answering again, how can you accuse (Athanasius) in his absence? Grant you would accuse him, the absence of the party accused is a let that you can not proceed to judgement. The judgement is not of any commonwealth matter, that you should be believed as Emperor; but a Bishop is accused, and in this case he that will accuse and he that is accused must be dealt withal in like condition. How can you accuse him that could not be present for the distance of place? If you have those things which you object, by hearsay, reason is you also believe that which Athanasius shall bring in defence of himself. For if you believe these (his accusers) and believe not him, it may be thought they say these things and accuse Athanasius to content and please you. This when the Emperor heard, expounding their honest allegations for his reproaches, he banished them: and waxing the sharper against Athanasius, gave forth a terrible edict that he should be punished, and his churches delivered to the Arrians, and his adversaries have leave to do what they would.  
Hereby the Arians waxed so confident that they spared no man. Whom have they not touched, saith Athanasius, with their false accusations? 
Athan. ad solis. vitam agentes.  Whom have they not entrapped? Whom hath not Constantius banished that was accused by them? When did he not give them both audience and allowance? Whom ever did he admit to say any thing against them? Or what did he not admit which they said against others? He ever doth that which the Arrians would have, and they again say that which he liketh.  
And whereas the Bishops in those days were wont to be lawfully chosen by the people of the place, and sufficiently examined and allowed by other Bishops adjoining and openly created in the church; Constantius in steed of the church would have his palace succeed, and for the multitude of people, and right of assemblies (to elect) he commanded three eunuchs to be present, 

Athan. in ead● Epist.  
Disordered electing of Bishops.   and three of his spies (or prolers) for you can not call them Bishops, that they (six) in his palace might create one Felix a Bishop. And noting what manner of Bishops the Emperor and his eunuchs made, he saith, In illorum locum iwenes, libidinosos, Ethnicos, ne catechismo quidem imbutos, necnon & digamos & de maximis criminibus malè audientes modò aurum darent, 
Athan. ibidem.  veluti emptores è foro ad Episcopatus summisere: They sent in their places (that were banished) young men, lecherous persons, Ethnics, not so much as taught the first principles of faith, having two wives, and spotted with enormous crimes, so they would give money, as cheepe-men out of a market.  
The furious violence that was used in the time of Constantius to drive men to participate with Arrians, not only by imprisonmentes and banishmentes, but by chaining, 
Tyrannous persecuting.  whipping, scalding with fire, trampling under feet, stoning, choking, and secret murdering such as refused, without all respect of vocation, age or sex, was so lamentable, that no christian hart can read it without tears, and it is so largely described and pithily disproved by Hilary and Athanasius, that no man except he be blinder than a bitle, can doubt whether Constantius were a wilful tyrant in the church of God, or no. Peruse the places and you shall find proofs enough of that which I say.  
I proclaim, saith Hilary, that to thee, Constantius, which I would to Nero, Decius, and Maximinian; thou fightest against God, thou ragest against the Church, 
Hilar. lib. 1. contra Constan. defunct.  thou dost persecute the Saints, thou hatest the Preachers of Christ, and overthrowest Religion, a tyrant not in human, but in divine things; a new kind of enemy to Christ, the forerunner of Antichrist. I repeat nothing rather than thy doings in the Church, because I would open no other tyranny, but that (which thou usest) against God.  

Athan. ad so●it. vitam agentes.  And Athanasius showing the reasons why he calleth Constantius Antichrist; Who seeing or hearing, saith he, these things, who considering the rage of these wicked ones and so great injustice, would not deeply sigh at it? Who hereafter will dare to call Constantius a Christian and not rather the image of Antichrist? For which of Antichrist's marks doth he lack? Or what cause is there why Constantius should not in every respect be counted Antichrist? Have not the Arrians and Ethnics as it were by his precept, used their sacrifices and blasphemies against Christ in the great church at Caesarium (in Egypt?) As a Giant he exalteth himself against the most high and hath invented ways to change the● Law (of God) breaking the ordinances of Christ and his Apostles, and inverting the customs of the church. And since he is clothed with Christianity and entereth into holy places, there standing and wasting the churches, Abrogating the Canons, and by force compelling that his pleasure may prevail, who at any time will affirm that these days are peaceable to christians? and not rather, that this is a persecution, and such a persecution as was never before, and no man after shall make the like, except that son of perdition, (which is the true Antichrist?)  
How think you, did not these Fathers reprove Constantius for changing the faith, oppressing Synods, corrupting judgements, infringing the Canons, barbarous enforcing the christians, and shortly, for subjecting all to his will and violence?  Phi. 
I know they make mention of these things, 
These fathers reproved Constantius for that he did. Now what he did, their own words do witness.  but yet they reprove him generally for intermeddling with Ecclesiastical causes.  Theo. 
I hope they reproved him for that he did.  Phi. 
The case is clear, they could not reprove him for that he did not.  Theo. 
These things which I last rehearsed, Constantius did; as I prove by their witness that chief rebuked him; ergo Constantius was reproved of Athanasius, Osius, Leontius, and Hilarius for these things, that is for playing the tyrant in divine matters, or as you call them in causes Ecclesiastical.  Phi. 
But Osius saith, Meddle not O Emperor in causes Ecclesiastical, nor do thou command us in that kind, 
Osius words examined.  but leave such things to us rather.  Theo. 
You were answered before, but that you will never be satisfied. Osius dissuadeth Constantius from using his absolute power & obstinate will in those things that were then in question betwixt the Christians & Arians. He saw the manifold and excessive disorders of Constantius in forcing Synods of Bishops by terror and violence to bow at his beck, in making his palace a consistory for their causes, and there judging what his eunuchs would, in dissolving the ordinances of Christ and his Apostles, and doing all things against the Rules of the church, 
Athan. ad solit. vitam agentes.  and therefore had good cause to say: Ne te misceas ecclesiasticis neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe, sed potius ea a nobis disce: Interpose not thyself (as thou dost) O Emperor in Ecclesiastical matters, neither command us in this kind, but learn such things rather of us, and not as you say (leave such things rather to us.) God hath committed the Empire to thee, to us the things of the church: & as he that envieth thine Empire contradicteth the ordinance of God, so take thou heed, least drawing unto thyself the things of the church thou be guilty of great sin. 
It is neither lawful for a Bishop to hold a kingdom: nor for a Prince to take a Bishop's function on him.  It is written, Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, & unto God that which is Gods. It is therefore neither lawful for us to hold a kingdom on earth, neither haste thou power, O Prince, over sacrifices & sacred things. These words put a difference between the function of Priests & Princes, & show that neither may intrude with each others charge, which we confess with a good wil But as Priests must teach truth and convict error, that is their office, so princes must command for truth, and punish error, because public authority to command and punish is not the Priests, but the Princes right, wherewith Priests must not meddle.  Phi. 
Yet the Prince must learn at the priests hand, which is truth and which error.  Theo. 
If the Priest teach truth and the Prince reject it, the Prince shall answer to God for the contempt of truth: but if the priest teach error in steed of truth, a godly prince hath lawful power to banish the doctrine, & punish the teacher.  Phi. 
And if the Prince say that truth is error & error is truth, shall truth be banished and the Priest punished upon the Princes saying?  Theo. 
And what if the Priest say that light is darkness and darkness light, 
The Priest shall not excuse the Prince before God: and therefore the the Prince can not be bound to the Priest's mouth  shall Princes be excused before God for displacing the truth and maintaining falsehood upon the priests warrant?  Phi. 
Let Princes join themselves to the Church, & they can not mistake.  Theo. 
Shall they trust every sect that claimeth to be the church, or must they learn to know the true church of Christ from the counterfeit?  Phi. 
The Church is soon known.  Theo. 
Not so soon as you think. But we slip from our matter; How Princes must be directed to light on truth is an other, and the next question: we be now discussing their authority to command for truth, not their ability to discern the truth; and as far as I conjecture by your speeches, you be loath to grant that Princes may defend or assist the truth, were it never so well known, to be the undoubted truth of Christ's church.  Phi. 
Yes we grant they should defend the faith & assist the church, but we would have them not go beyond their calling.  Theo. 
No more would we: but the words of Osius as you press them infer that Princes may not so much as meddle with defending the faith, or assisting the church of Christ, by their Princely power, which everteth as well your opinion, as ours.  
If you will have these words, Meddle not in causes Ecclesiastical, to be taken as they lie without restriction, 
The limiting of Osius words.  ergo Princess must not meddle neither in word nor deed with the defending nor impugning the faith or church of Christ. And this, you see, were no sober persuasion but a frantic conclusion wrested out of Osius words against his meaning, against all truth and your own confession. Who in his right wits will say to kings, take you no care who defendeth or impugneth the church (of Christ) in your realms; 
Aug. epist. 50.  let it not pertain to you who list to be religious or sacrilegious in your kingdoms? The acts of Constantine, the Laws of justinian, the chapters of Charles, the stories of the church, the Scriptures themselves, do clearly convince that the best and most famous Princes have meddled in Ecclesiastical matters: the office and oath of a Prince, as anon you shall hear, require the same: your own assertion is that Princes ought to defend the faith and assist the church, and that they can not do without meddling in Ecclesiastical matters. Now choose whether you will thwart the whole church of God and disprove your own doctrine, or else limit the words of Osius as we do by the particulars that moved him to reprove Constantius for his immoderate presumption.  
The general is absurd and refuteth your intention as well as ours; 
The words of Osius must be limited, & the limitation whatsoever it be cannot hurt us.  for you would have Princes meddle with the publishing, assisting and executing of your pleasures and judgements, and we would have them yield that service to Christ and his truth, which you challenge to yourselves: the limitation, let it be what it will agreeable to the circumstances, can not hurt us. Meddle not in causes Ecclesiastical (in such sort as thou dost) which rebuketh his tyranny; meddle not, neither appoint us what we shall do, that is, meddle not (with appointing and directing us) in these things, but learn them rather of us, which represseth his insolency: Ne te misceas ecclesiasticis, thrust not thyself into those things (which belong to the Priests and not to the Prince's charge) which is Osius own distinction: or else: ne te misceas, interpose not thyself, that is, (thy resolute will and power to command & compel us) to subscribe against Athanasius an innocent, and to communicate with Arians condemned heretics, which were the two points that Constantius exacted of Osius. All these constructions import that Constantius meddled in that sort, and with those things, that he should not; but they do not exclude Princes from establishing the truth & punishing sacrileges, schisms and heresies, which is meddling with matters ecclesiastical.  Phi. 
Leontius is as earnest against him as Osius. I marvel, saith he to Constantius, thy vocation being for other things, thou meddlest with these matters. Thy charge is of civil and martial affairs only, and yet thou wilt needs be precedent of Ecclesiastical causes.  Theo. 
I marvel that professing to seek a truth, you be not ashamed to temper and alter your witnesses in this sort. You cut off the first part that would expound the whole, and the latter you wilfully corrupt to force it to your purpose. The place of Suidas is this. Constantius at a time sitting chief among the Bishops, and going about to set them orders for their churches, 
Suidas in Leon. Tripoli Epis●.  the most part received with applause and admiration whatsoever he said, affirming it to be most excellently spoken. Leontius held his peace: whom when the Emperor asked, 

Prince's may not do what they list in the church of God.  
Leontius wilfully corrupted by the Jesuits.   why dost thou only of all the rest keep silence? I marvel, saith Leontius, that having charge for other things thou interest into these matters, and that being appointed over the camp and commonwealth thou prescribeth to the Bishops those things which belong only to Bishops. In steed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you say, (Thy charge is of civil and martial affairs only) that word only is your own and not your Authors, and so be the rest that follow. Thou wilt needs be precedent of Ecclesiastical causes: Leontius said: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Thou prescribest unto Bishops those things which belong only to Bishops. This is no good dealing with Fathers, to forge them and frame them to your fancies.  
Leontius had some reason to say as he did, Constantius was sitting chief among the Bishops & prescribing them rules and orders for their churches, 
This was above Constantius ●each and without his vocation to teach bishops in his own person.  in things that were both beyond his cunning and besides his calling. What things those were the story doth not express, but saith, such things as belonged only to Bishops. Now why should not Leontius think that Princes in some things had no skill to direct Bishops, neither might prescribe what rules and orders they listed, for the churches of God? And yet your author is not ancient that reporteth this. Suidas lived twelve hundred years after Christ, a man learned, 
Suidas a late writer.  but of very late time and far from the credit of antiquity. Leontius himself, if all be true that Suidas writeth of him, had no more discretion than needed. For when the Empress sent to speak with him, he returned this answer: If thou wilt have me come to thee, let me have the reverence due to Bishops, 
Suidas in eodem Leont.  that when I come in, thou by and by descend from thy throne and reverently meet me, and submit thy head under my hands to receive (my) blessing, 
Leontius a man of no great judgement.  and then will I sit, and thou shalt stand mannerly by, and not offer to sit till I bid thee. If these covenants please thee, I will come. A high point of divinity that a subject will not come to his Prince but on these saue●ie conditions. Such fables you seek to further your cause, and yet all will not help.  Phi. 
I trust you will make more account of Hilary, whose words are these, We beseech thy clemency to provide that charge be given to all judges of provinces, that hereafter they presume not, nor usurp the hearing of Ecclesiastical causes. 
Hilary would not have men forced to religion with tortures.   Theo. 
Proofs go very low with you when you fall from Princes to inferior judges, & yet mistake your text. For Hilary beseecheth nothing of Constantius in that place, but that the judges of every Province should forbear meddling in matters of religion (with tortures & violence.) The whole book, the words before the next part of the same sentence joined to this which you bring with a conjunction copulative confirm that to be the true meaning of Hilary. This is the right order of the place: 
Hilar. lib. 2. ad Constant.  We beseech not only with words but also with tears, that the catholic churches be no longer oppressed with grievous injuries & sustain intolerable persecutions & contumelies, & that which is shameful, even of our brethren. Let your clemency provide & appoint that all judges every where, to whom provinces are committed, which ought to take care & charge of commonwealth matters only, refrain from meddling with religion. Neither let them presume & usurp & think they may enter into clergymens' causes & force & vex innocent men with diverse afflictions, threats, violence & terrors. Your singular & admirable wisdom perceiveth it is not seemly, it ought not to be, that men should be forced & compelled against their wills & hearts to yield & addict themselves through violent oppression to such as cease not to sow the corrupt seeds of false doctrine. 
Temporal judges had their charge by the Remane laws limited unto temporal 〈◊〉.   
This was the meddling with clergy men's causes that Hilary meant, and which he would have temporal judges restrained from: and yet were his meaning never so general, he required nothing but that which Constantine the father of Constantius had by his public laws ordained, & all christian Princes have since observed, to wit, that Ecclesiastical persons should be convented before ecclesiastical judges. 

Niceph. lib. 7. cap. 46.  
Ambros. lib. 5.  
Epist. 32.  
Novel. Constit. 83.   For so Constantine decreed, Committing judgement & jurisdiction over clerks to Bishops; & Valentinian the elder would have priests to judge of priests: Yea justinian excludeth all secular judges from hearing the causes of clergy men, except it were for civil offences. If the crime be ecclesiastical, needing ecclesiastical reformation & punishment, let the Bishop determine the same, the judges of the Province no way intermeddling, for we will not have temporal judges enter into such matters where as such faults must be examined ecclesiastically by the sacred and divine rules (and Canons) which our laws take no scorn to follow.  
And though he bar civil judges from the hearing of such causes, 
Clergiemen exempted from temporal laws, but not from the Prince's laws. Ibidem.  yet doth not exempt clergy men, Bishops nor others from the obedience of his ecclesiastical laws, as the words import that be next to these; Omnibus quae iam a nobis sancita sunt, sive super sanctiss. ecclesus, sive super Deo amabilibus Episcopis sive super clericis, sive super monachis propriam virtutem habentibus: All things which we have already decreed concerning the most holy churches, and blessed Bishops, and touching clerks and monks standing in their full force. He quiteth clergy men from temporal bars, but he bindeth both them and their judges to the tenor of his ecclesiastical laws as well in their Synods as in their Consistories, as appeareth at large by his 123. constitution; so that this place of Hilary might well have been spared save only to make up your tale.  Phi. 
Is this your opinion that Princes themselves may lawfully meddle with Ecclesiastical causes and persons though their inferior judges may not?  Theo. 
We say princes exempted clergy men from secular judges but not from themselves: And that Princes from the beginning have meddled with persons & causes Ecclesiastical, 
Princes have ever meddled with ecclesiastical matters,  we bring you, not only five authorities that shall be neither maimed nor wrested as yours be, but five hundred acts, examples, laws and edicts that shall be strong and effectual proofs for this purpose.  Phi. 
You talk of cost, when you say five hundred.  Theo. 
We could far pass that number if the number would move you to leave folly, but I will go an other way to work with you. What good king can you name before or after Christ for 1000 years, but such as meddled with Ecclesiastical matters?  Phi. 
Nay, what good king can you name that did?  Theo. 
They be sooner named than answered.  
Nabuchodonosor in making a law that every people, 
Nabuchodonosor. Daniel. 3.  nation & language, which spoke any blasphemy against the God of Sidrac, Misac and Ab●dnago should be drawn in pieces & their houses made privies, did he not meddle with matters of Religion?  Phi. 
Nabuchodonosor was a tyrant?  The. 
But being corrected by the divine miracle, 
Aug. Epist. 50.  he made, saith Augustine, a religious and commendable law for the truth, that who so blasphemed the God of Sidrac, Misac, and Abednago should with his house perish utterly.  
Darius upon the sight of an other miracle wrote to all people, nations and languages that dwelled in the world with these words: 
Darius. Daniel. 6.  I make a decree, that in all the dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel.  
The king of Niniveth, hearing of that which jonas threatened from God, proclaimed a fast, 
jonas 3. The king of Niniveth.  and charged all men to put on sackcloth and cry mightily to God and to turn from (their) evil ways and the wickedness that was in their hands. I trust you dare not condemn the king of Niniveth for an intruder upon ecclesiastical causes, whose service so well pleased God, that he spared the king and his subjects from destruction hanging over their heads: and yet fasting, prayer and repentance be causes mere spiritual, in which the king interposed his royal authority by the council of his Nobles, 
jonas 3.  and not of jonas who departed the city grieved and angry with God for pardoning the Ninivites upon their conversion.  
The facts of these three kings I allege the rather because S. Augustine grounded himself upon them, 
August. Epi. 50. S. Austen proposeth their examples to be followed of christian kings.  as proofs that christian kings may meddle with matters of Religion, and as patterns for them to follow. Ye kings understand, be wise ye that judge the earth, serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice before him with trembling. How do kings serve the Lord in fear, but by forbidding and punishing with a religious severity, those things which are done against the precepts of God? As the king of Niniveth served by compelling the whole city to appease the Lord. As Darius served by giving the Idol into daniel's power to be broken, and casting his enemies to the Lions. As Nabuchodonosor served by restraining all that were in his kingdom from blaspheming God, with a terrible law. And again, When Emperors profess the truth they command for truth against error. 
Aug. Epist. 166.  As Nabuchodonosor proposed an edict for truth against error, that whosoever blasphemed the God of Sidrach, Misaach, and Abednago should be destroyed and his house dispersed. And you (donatists) will not that christian Emperors command any such thing against you. If the commandments of kings have nothing to do with the publishing of religion and prohibiting of sacrileges, 
The commandements of kings may lawfully reach to the publish▪  why then do you sign yourselves at king (Nabuchodosors) edict commanding such things? For when you hear it, do you not answer Amen, and saying so with a loud voice, do you not sign yourselves in the holy solemnity at the kings edict?  
What Moses, josua, David, Solomon, Asa, jehosaphat, Ezechias, Manasses, josias, 
Kings and rulers commanded by the holy Ghost for meddling with religion. ing of religion.  Nehemias' did for the planting, preserving and purging of true religion, and how they commanded, reproved and punished as well Priests as others for spiritual crimes and causes, the places are infinite, and witnessed in no worse records than the Scriptures themselves: I will not touch them all but only show that every one of these in their times & reigns meddled with Ecclesiastical men and matters, which is the point that you would impugn by your allegations.  
Moses the civil Magistrate reproved Aaron the high Priest, for making the golden calf, 
Moses. Exod. 32.  and stamping it to powder cast it into the water that Israel might drink it, and in one day put three thousand of them for that idolatry to the sword. And after the rebellion of Corah, when the residue were plagued for murmuring against Moses and Aaron, 
Numbers 16.  Moses commanded Aaron to take the censer and stand between the living and the dead to make atonement for the people. And as during life Moses guided & ruled them in all things both spiritual and temporal, so, ready to departed, he carefully warned, and finally blessed the twelve tribes of Israel. 
Deut. 32.33.   
josua that succeeded him, 
josua. josua. 1.  a Prince not a Priest was charged by God to meditate in the book of the law day & night, that thou mayest observe, saith God, and do according to all that is written therein, and the people received him with this submission, 
josua. 1.  As we obeyed Moses in all things so will we obey thee. Whosoever shall rebel against thy commandment, and will not obey thy words in all that thou commandest him, let him be put to death.  
And lest you should think that he commanded in nothing but temporal matters, 
josua. 5● 8. josua. 8.  he circumcised the sons of Israel, erected an Altar of stone for their offerings, read the whole law to them, there was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which josua read not before all the congregation; searched and punished the concealer of things dedicated to idols, 
josua. 7. josua. 24.  & not long before he died, in his own person renewed the covenant between God and the people, & caused them to put away the strange Gods that were among them, 
josua. 24.  insomuch that by his diligent care and good regiment, Israel served the Lord all the days of josua.  
How far king David meddled with matters of religion, 
David. 1. Chron. 16.1. Chron. 23.24 25.26.  if the Psalms which he made for Asaph and his brethren to sing in assemblies, and order which he set for the whole service of the Temple, appointing the Priests, Levites, Singers and other Servitors of the church their dignities, courses and offices, did not declare; the charge which he gave to king Solomon his son, and the praise which he gate at God's hands for the faithful execution and religious observation of his law given by Moses in all things and causes both spiritual and temporal are sufficient evidence. Take heed to the charge of the Lord thy God, 
3. King. 2.  saith David to Solomon, to walk in his ways and keep his statutes, & his commandments, and his judgements and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses: This God himself repeated to Solomon, proposing David his father for a pattern unto him: If thou wilt walk before me, 
3. King. 9  (as David thy father walked in pureness of heart and uprightness) to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and keep my statutes and my judgements, I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.  Phi. 
Do these words prove that David did or Solomon might meddle with Ecclesiastical matters? 
The Magistrate charged with all the words of Moses law.   Theo. 
These places and such like do fully prove that the Kings and Governors of Israel and judah were appointed by God himself to have the custody, charge and oversight of all things mentioned and expressed in Moses law. Here you see the words are, to do according to all that I have commanded thee and keep my statutes and judgements: 
3. Kings 9  To josua God said; that thou mayest observe and do according to all that is written (in the book of the Law; 
josua 1. ) and likewise of the king in general, 
Deut. 17.  The book of the Law shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn, to keep all the words of this Law and these ordinances to fulfil them. The king was charged with all the words and ordinances of Moses Law: the law of Moses contained all things which God required of Priests or people both spiritual and temporal, ergo the king was charged by God himself as well with all Ecclesiastical things and causes as with Temporal. And consequently David and all other kings that discharged their duties to God in such sort, as he enjoined them, 
They which discharged their duties to God meddled with all things as well Ecclesiastical as civil.  meddled with all things and causes Ecclesiastical and Temporal.  Phi. 
Frame your argument shorter.  Theo. 
They were charged with all, ergo they should meddle with all: and some discharged their duties to God, for example, such as were commended and favoured by God, whom I before named; ergo some did meddle with all the precepts of God both Ecclesiastical and Temporal.  Phi. 
They were charged to observe the whole Law as all other men were.  Theo. 
They were charged for their own persons as all private men were, but as kings they were charged for others in such manner as no subject could be charged, 
kings be charged with God's law in respect of commanding it to others.  namely to see the law of God to be publicly received & fully observed within their Realms, and all other sorts of Religion and policy to be clean forbidden and banished.  Phi. 
This is your surmise.  Theo. 
It is S. Augustine's main collection in sundry places, fet from the very Principles of reason and nature; and confirmed by the warrant of the sacred Scriptures. The king serveth God, saith Saint Augustine, 
August. Epi. 50.  As a man one way, as a king an other way. As a man by living faithfully, as a king by making Laws with convenient vigour to command that which is right & forbid the contrary. 

Idem contra lit. Petiliani, lib. 2. cap. 92.  
Idem. contra Cres. lib. 3. cap. 51.  
Idem. Epist. 50.   And again, Kings even in that they be kings have to serve the Lord, in such sort as none can do which are not kings. For kings (in respect as they be kings) serve the Lord, if in their kingdoms they command that which is good, and forbidden that which is evil. How then, saith he, do kings serve the Lord, but by forbidding and punishing with a religious severity those things that are done against the commandments of the Lord? 

Idem. in Psalm. 44.  
No man is a king in respect of himself but of his people.  
Keeping and observing referred to magistrates, is nothing else but to command & see the law of God kept & observed by others.   And thus much the very derivation of the name doth infer. Rex à regendo dicitur, a king is he that ruleth (others) and the relation of the word doth teach us there can be no king but in respect of his subjects, and his duty towards them is to direct and correct, that is to command and punish in all things needful.  Phi. 
What conclude you of all this?  Theo. 
That where God chargeth the king to keep and observe all the words of the law, keeping and observing are not there referred to his private actions as a man, but to his public function as a king: and therefore the king in these words received the charge and oversight of the whole law, that is an express commandment from God to see the law kept, and every part thereof observed of all men within his Dominions, and the breakers of it, Prophets, Priests and People to be duly punished. Now the Law contained all things that any way touched the true service and worship of God, ergo the king had one and the selfsame power and charge to command and punish as well for the precepts of piety as other points of policy, neither did God favour or prosper any of the kings of Israel or judah but such as chief respected and carefully maintained the ordinances of Religion prescribed unto them in Moses law. 
Aug. Epist. 50.  In the times of the Prophets, saith S. Augustine, all the kings which in the people of God did not forbid and overthrow those things which were brought in against the commandements of God, are blamed: and they that did prohibit and subvert such things, are praised above the rest.  
God blessed Solomon with wisdom, 
Solomon.  honour, riches and peace so long as he walked in the steps of David his father: during the which time Solomon did dedicate the Temple in his own person, 
3. Kings 8. 3. Kings 2.  and cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord, and set Zadocke in his room: but when his heart once turned from God to build places also for Idols and to suffer his outlandish wives to burn incense and offerings to their Gods, 
3. Kings 11.  than the Lord was angry with Solomon and stirred up adversaries against him and threatened to rend his kingdom from him, and to give it to his servant.  
Asa took away the Altars of the strange Gods, 
Asa. 2. Chron. 14.  and the high places, and broke down the images, and cut down the groves, and commanded judah to seek the Lord God of their fathers, and took away out of all the cities of judah the high places and images, therefore the kingdom was quiet before him. And he took an oath of all judah and Benjamin, that Whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be slain, 
2. Chro. 15.  whether he were small or great, man or woman, and he deposed Maachah his mother from her regency, because she had made an idol: & Asa broke down her idol and stamped it and burned it, and the Lord gave him rest round about.  
jehosaphat his son walked in the first ways of David and sought the Lord God of his father, 
jehosaphat. 2. Chro. 17. Vers. 3. Vers. 4. Vers. 5. Vers. 7. Vers. 8. 2. Chro. 19 Vers. 4. Vers. 8. Vers. 9 Vers. 10. Vers. 11.  and walked in his commandments, and therefore the Lord established the kingdom in his hands, so that he had riches and honour in abundance. In the third year of his reign he sent his Princes that they should teach in the cities of judah, and with them levites and Pristes, and himself went through the people from Beer-sheba to Mount-Ephraim, and brought them again to the Lord God of their fathers. In jerusalem he sent of the Levites and of the Priests and of the chief of the families of Israel for the judgement and cause of the Lord. And he charged them saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord faithfully and with a perfect heart. 
Vers. 10. Vers. 11.  Thus shall ye do and trespass not. And behold Amariah the Priest shall be the chief among you for all the matters of the Lord, and Zebadiah for all the kings affairs, and the Levites shall be helpers unto you. 
2. Chron. 20. Vers. 3. Vers. 5. Vers. 6.  Be strong and do it. And when the Moabites and Ammonites came against him, he proclaimed a fast throughout all judah and stood in the congregation of judah and jerusalem in the house of the Lord & prayed in his own person for all the people.  

Ezechiah. 2. Chron. 29. Vers. 2. Vers. 3.4. Vers. 5. Vers. 10. Vers. 15. Vers. 20. Vers. 21. Vers. 27. Vers. 21. Vers. 29.  Ezechiah did uprightly in the sight of the Lord according to all that David his father had done. He opened the doors of the house of the Lord, and brought in the Priests and the Levites, and said unto them; hear me ye levites, sanctify yourselves and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers. I purpose to make a covenant with the Lord God of Israel: And they sanctified themselves according to the commandment of the king. And the king rose early and gathered the Princes of the city and went up to the house of the Lord. And they brought (sinne-offeringes) and Ezechiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the Altar, yea he commanded the Priests the sons of Aaron to offer them. 
Vers. 30.  And when they had made an end of offering, Ezechiah the king & the Princes commanded the Levites to praise the Lord with the words of David and Asaph the Seer. 
2. Chron. 30. Vers. 1.  And Ezechiah sent to all Israel and judah & also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasses that they should come to the house of the Lord at jerusalem to keep the Passover. 
Vers. 6.  So the Posts went with letters by the commission of the king and his Princes throughout all Israel and judah, and with the commandment of the king, saying: Ye children of Israel, turn again unto the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. 
Vers. 12. 2. Chron. 31. Vers. 2.  And the hand of God was in judah, so that he gave them one heart to do the commandment of the King. And Ezechiah appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites by their turns, every man according to his office for the burnt offerings and peace offerings, to minister and give thanks to praise in the gates of the tents of the Lord. 
Vers. 21.  And in all the works that he began for the service of the house of God, he did it with all his heart and prospered. 
4. Kings. 18.  He took away the high places and broke the Images and cut down the groves and brake in pieces the brazen Serpent which Moses had made, for in those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it.  

Manasses. 2. Chron. 33. Vers. 3.  Manasses at the first went back & built the high places which Ezechiah his father had broken down, and set up altars for Baalim, & made groves & worshipped all the host of heaven & served them, but after he was taken by the king of Babylon & put in fetters, 
Vers. 11. Vers. 12. Vers. 13.  & bound in chains, he humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers; & God was entreated of him, and heard his prayer, and brought him again to jerusalem into his kingdom. Then he took away the strange Gods, and the image out of the house of the Lord, 
Vers. 15.  and all the Altars that he had built in the mount of the lords house and in jerusalem, 
Vers. 16.  and cast them out of the city. Also he repaired the Altar of the Lord, and sacrificed thereon peace-offeringes and of thanks, and commanded judah to serve the Lord God of Israel.  
josiah, 
josiah. 2. Chron. 34. vers. 3.  in the eight year of his reign, when he was yet a child (of sixteen years) began to seek after the God of David his father, and in the twelfth year he began to purge judah & jerusalem from the high places & the groves and the carved and molten Images. 
Vers. 4.  And they broke down in his sight the Altars of Baalim, and he caused to cut down the images that were on them: he broke also the groves, and the karued & molten images, and stamped them to powder and strewed it upon the graves of them that had sacrificed on them; 
Vers. 5. Vers. 7.  Also he burned the bones of the Priests upon their Altars, and purged judah and jerusalem. And when he had destroyed the Altars, and cut down all the idols throughout the land of Israel, he returned to jerusalem. 
Vers. 29. Vers. 30.  Then the king sent and gathered all the Elders of judah and jerusalem. And the king went up to the house of the Lord, and all the men of judah and inhabitants of jerusalem, and the Priests and the Levites, and all the people from the greatest to the smallest, and he read in their ears, all the words of the book of the covenant, that was found in the house of the Lord. 
Vers. 31.  And the king stood by his Pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord to walk after the Lord and to keep his commandements, and his statutes with all his heart, & with all his soul, & that he would accomplish the words of the covenant written in that book. And he caused all that were found in jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to (the covenant.) 
Vers. 32. Verse 33.  So josias took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and compelled all that were found in Israel to serve the Lord their God: & all his days they turned not back from the Lord God of their fathers.  
Moreover josiah kept a Passover unto the Lord in jerusalem and he appointed the Priests to their charges and said to the Levites, 
2. Chron. 35. vers. 1. Vers. 2. Vers. 3. Vers. 4. Vers. 5. Vers. 6.  Serve now the Lord your God and his people Israel, & prepare yourselves by the houses of your father's according to your courses, as David the king of Israel hath written, and according to the writing of Solomon his son. And stand in the sanctuary, according to the division of the families of your brethren: Kill the Passover and sanctify yourselves and prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses. Thus the service was prepared, 
Vers. 10.  and the Priests stood in their places, also the Levites in their orders according to the kings commandment. So all the service of the Lord was prepared the same day to keep the Passover & to offer burnt offerings upon the Altar of the Lord according to the commandment of king josiah. 
Vers. 16.   
Nehemias' though he were no king but a captain sent from king Artaxerxes, 
Nehemias'. Nehem. 6. Nehe. 10. vers. 1.  yet he discerned & resisted the Prophets, that would have put (him) in fear, & was the first that sealed the covenant between God & the people with an oath to walk in the law of God, 
Vers. 29.  and to observe all the commandments of the Lord. And he displaced Tobiah an Ammonite whom Eliashib the high Priest had received and lodged within the court of the house of God, 
Nehem. 13. Vers. 7. Vers. 8. Vers. 9 Vers. 11. Vers. 17. Vers. 10. & 11. Vers. 22. Vers. 23. Vers. 25. Vers. 28.  and cast out all the vessels of the house of Tobiah, and commanded them to cleanse the chambers for the vessels of the house of God: And reproved the rulers for that the house of God was forsaken, & the Sabbaoth day broken: assembling the Levites & singers: & setting them their places; & charging the Levites to cleanse themselves and to sanctify the Sabbaoth day. And when he saw jews that married (strange) wives, he rebuked them and cursed them and smote certain of them & took an oath of them by God, that they should not marry with strangers. And one of the sons of joiadah the son of Eliashib the high Priest married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite, but Nehemiah chased him away; 
Ver. 30.  and cleansed (the Priests and Levites) from all strangers, and appointed them their courses every one in his office.  

The illation upon the former examples  There needeth no great skill to set this together. To remove idols, & all abominations out of the land, to enter a covenant with God, & to walk in his ways, to proclaim fasts, an d make public prayers, to sanctify the Temple, and celebrate the Passover, to seek and serve God according to his law; be matters ecclesiastical, not temporal; and yet in the same cases the godly kings of judah commanded and compelled all that were found in judah, Priest and Prophet, man and woman, to stand to that order, which they took for the better accomplishing of those their enterprises. Acknowledge that right and power in Christian Princes at this day, to meddle with matters of Religion, which the Scriptures report and commend in kings of religious and famous memory, we press you no farther: If you stick to grant so much, others will not stick to distrust the soundness of your doctrine, notwithstanding the smoothness of your tongues and loftiness of your spirits, wherewith you think to compass and quail kingdoms.  Phi. 

The kings decreed and commanded those things though happily the Prophets did advise them and persuade them.  The kings of judah did that which they did at the motion of the Prophets and direction of the Priests.  Theo. 
You shun that, which you shall not avoid. We reason not, who moved and advised, but who decreed and commanded these things to be done; Priests or Princes? The Scriptures in plain terms say, that Princes DECREED, APPOINTED, COMMANDED them to be done. Contradict the words if you dare. Take from Asa, jehosaphat, Ezechias, josias, the king of Niniveth and others the Princely power which they showed, & due praise which they merited in meddling with these matters, & impugn the words whereby God expresseth & approveth their doings, 
To be directed and advised by others doth not hinder the Prince's authority.  & see whether the consciences of all good men will not detest & abhor your wilful impiety.  Phi. 
The Scripture saith in deed, they commanded, appointed, decreed these things, but no doubt they were directed by Prophets and other spiritual Pastors what they should do.  Theo. 
What if they were? Doth that hinder their authority? Princes in civil affairs are guided and directed by learned and wise Counsellors; do they therefore not command in temporal matters neither? Or find you no difference between counseling and commanding?  Phi. 
Again these Princes were before the coming of Christ, 
The high Priest among the jews had his commission from Gods own mouth, the Pope hath not. Deut. 17.  when as yet there was no supreme Pastor over the whole Church.  Theo. 
There was an high Priest over the twelve Tribes with surer and better authority than your holy father can show for himself. All Israel by Gods own mouth were referred to the judgement of the Priests and Levites, and not to decline from the thing which they speak: & The man, saith God, that will do presumptuously not hearkening unto the Priest (that standeth before the Lord to minister) that man shall die. This was their commission, & yet this notwithstanding the kings of judah commanded both Priest and people for matters of religion.  
And so did the Christian Emperors after the coming of Christ, 
The best christian Princess have followed the steps of the kings of judah.  for eight hundred years that we show, command both Bishops and others, yea the Bishop of Rome no less than others in causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal. The particulars I noted before. The Laws were public, the time long, the Prince's wise; the facts known, the Church of Christ honoured and obeyed those decrees: It is no doubtful question, but a manifest truth that the best Princes before Christ, and after Christ for many years, meddled with the reformation of the Church, and prescribed laws both Ecclesiastical and Temporal.  
S. Augustine accounteth them not usurpers, 
God himself speaketh and commandeth by the hearts and laws of Princes.  as you do, but happy Princes that employed their authority to delate and spread the true worship of God as much as they could, and avoucheth plainly that God himself speaketh and commandeth by the mouths and hearts of Princes when they command in matters of Religion that which is good, and whosoever resisteth their Ecclesiastical Laws made for truth shall be grievously plagued at God's hands. 
August. de civi. Dei li. 5. cap. 24.  (Imperatores) felices dicimus, si suam potestatem ad DEI cultum maximè dilatandum maiestatis eius famulam faciunt. We count (Princes) blessed, if they bend their power to do God service, for the spreading of his (true) worship, as much as they can. 
Idem. Epi. 166.  Hoc iubent imperatores quod jubet & Christus: quia cum bonum iubent, per illos non jubet nisi Christus. emperors command the selfsame that Christ doth: because when they command that which is good, it is Christ himself that commandeth by them. And ● little after: 
Ibidem.  Attendite qua manifestissima veritate per cor regis quod in manu Dei est ipse Deus dixerat inista ipsa lege quam contra vos prolatam dicitis: Mark ye with how manifest truth by the kings heart, which is in God's hand, GOD himself spoke in that very Law, which you say was made against you. And therefore he concludeth: Quicunque legibus Imp●ratorum, quae pro Dei veritate feruntur, 
Aug. Epist. 50.  obtemporare non vult, grand acquirit supplicium: Whosoever will not obey the laws of Princes which are made for the truth of God, is sure to bear an heavy judgement.  


Religion the chiefest care that Princes ought to have Cod. lib. 1. tit. 17 de veter. iure enucleando, § Deo authore. Authen. constit. 6.  
Codic. Theodos. lib. 16. tit. 4. de religione, § Ea quae.  
Legum novel. Theodos. tit. 2. de judeis & Samaritanis, § Inter caeteras.   The Princes themselves will teach you that by their power they may, by their charge they should meddle with matters Ecclesiastical. The authority of (our) laws, saith justinian, disposeth divine and human things. Thence is it that we take greatest care for the true religion of God, and honest conversation of Priests. So likewise Theodosius and Valentinian: Ea quae circa Catholicam fidem vel ordinavit antiquit as, vel parentum nostrorum authoritas religiosa constituit, vel nostra Serenitas roboravit, novella superstitione remota, integra & inviolata custodire praecipimus. Those things which ancient (Princes) have ordained, or the religious authority of our progenitors decreed, or our highness established concerning the catholic faith, we command you to keep them firm and inviolable, all latter superstition removed. And this they reckon to be the first part of their Princely charge. Inter caeteras sollicitudines, quas amor publicus pervigili nobis cogitatione indixit, praecipuam Imperatoriae, maiestatis curam esse praecipimus verae religionis indaginem. Among the rest of those duties which the commonwealth exacteth at our hands, we perceive the inquiry of true religion should be the chiefest care of our Princely calling.  
Valentinian the elder, though at first he refused to deal with profound questions of religion, yet after he was content to interpose his authority with others, 

Valentinian himself was content at length to command for truth.  
Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 8.  
Codic. lib. 1. tit. 6. Nesacrun Baptisma iteratur.   and to command that the faith of the Trinity should be rightly preached, & the Sacrament of Baptism by no means doubled. The blessed Bishops, saith he with Valens & Gratian, have made demonstration that the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost be a Trinity coessential; & nostra potentia eandem praedicari mandavit, and our power hath commanded the same (truth) to be preached. And again: The bishop which shall reiterate holy Baptism, we count unworthy of his place. For we condemn their error, which treading the apostolic precepts under their feet, do not cleanse but rather defile those with a second washing that are once already baptised.  
Zeno seeking to reconcile the Bishops, Clerks, Monks and people of Egypt and Alexandria to the Nicene faith, 

Euagrius lib. 3. cap. 14.  
The right faith is the only strength of an earthly kingdom.   beginneth with these words, For so much as we know that only faith, which is right and sincere, to be the ground, stay, strength and invincible defence of our Empire, we have always employed our desires, endeavours and laws, that thereby we might multiply the holy Catholic and apostolic church, the perpetual and undefiled mother of our Sceptre. And justinus nephew to justinian writing a public Edict to all Christians concerning many points of true Religion maketh his conclusion with these words: Omnes eos qui contraria hijsce vel sentiunt vel sensuri sunt, Anathemate damnamus, 
Idem lib. 5. cap. 4.  & alienos à sancta Dei Catholica & Apostolica Ecclesia iudicamus: We condemn them all as accursed that presently do or hereafter shall think contrary to these things, & we adjudge to have no part in the holy Catholic and apostolic Church of God.  
This care to provide, and power to command for matters of religion, Princes as well in this realm as else where continued a thousand years after Christ. The Bishop of Rome himself 850 years after Christ promiseth all kind of obedience to the chapters and laws ecclesiastical of Lotharius & his ancestors. In Greece the Emperors lost not their authority to call Counsels and establish truth till they lost Empire and all. More than thirtine hundred years after Christ, Nicephorus highly commendeth a Greek Emperor for his labours and endeavours in the Church affairs. 

Niceph. dedicatio operis.  
In Greece the Emperors kept this power 1300. years after Christ.   You have, saith he to the Prince, restored the Catholic and universal Church to her ancient state that was troubled with novelties: impure and unsound doctrine you have banished from her; you have purged the temple from heretics that were corrupters and depravers of heavenly doctrine, not so much with a three corded whip as with the word of truth. You have established the faith, and made constitutions for it: you have walled about true godliness with mighty defences, you have repaired that, which was ruinous. Priestly unction decayed, you have made purer than gold, and by laws and letters taught them sobriety of life and contempt of money. Wherefore their order is now sacred in the common wealth which in former times was degenerated & infected with corruption of discipline and manners. 
Ibidem paulo ante.  Yea, when you saw our true religion brought in danger by false and absurd doctrines, you did most zealously and most wisely undertake the defence of it. And knowing very well that piety of itself & the diligent care of God's causes, 
Diligent care of God's causes the surest prop of a Prince's seat.  are the surest props of an Empire, you took a divine and passing wise course. For by meddling with these matters (of religion) you wan great thanks of God, and gave him just cause to be favourable to your prayers, to direct all your doings and confirm and settle the Empire in your hands.  
Canutus a King of this land not full 32 years before the conquest apparently proveth that Princes kept their authority to command for matters of religion more than a thousand years after Christ. 
A king of this land making laws for religion a 1000 years after Christ.  His laws made by a Council of his sages at Winchester, are yet extant. Hear some of them, and then tell us whether he did meddle with ecclesiastical causes or no.  
First he commandeth all men to love one God for ever above all things, 
Lege. 1.  and one rule of Christian religion well and advisedly to hold.  
Item he willeth all men to discharge their functions, 
Lege. 6.  specially the servants of god, Bishops, Abbots, Monks, Canons, & nuns to do their duties, to live according to their rules, to make their prayers night and day for all Christian folk.  
Item he biddeth and on God's behalf forbiddeth that any Christian man take to wife a kinswoman within six degrees, 
Lege. 7.  or his wives kinswoman or his Godmother at the font, or a professed Nun, or a divorced woman, or keep harlots, or have more wives than one, and that in lawful marriage.  
Item that holy days, and fasting days be kept, 
Lege. 14 & 15.  & Sunday be kept holy from saturday noon till monday morning. Fairs, Courts, huntings and worldly works on that day to be forborn.  

Lege. 16.  Item that all fasts which be bidden, ember days and Lent be kept, and the feasts of our Lady and the Apostles to be fasted, save Philip and jacob: every friday to be fasted, except it be holy day: and no man to fast from Easter to Whitsuntide, or from Christmas to the Octaves of the epiphany, unless he will or it be enjoined him.  

Lege. 19 & 21.  Item that every Christian prepare himself for the communion thrice a year: And truly keep his oath and promise, and love God with an inward reverence, and hear diligently heavenly teachers, and oft and many times search and look on God's Law & his dictrine.  

Lege. 22.  Item that every Christian man learn so much, that he can the true faith and the true understanding thereof, namely, the lords prayer and the Creed: Or else not to have Christian burial, neither to be admitted whiles he liveth to the lords table nor to undertake for others at the font or before the Bishop.  

Lege. 26. ●iter politica i●ra erusilem. Lege. 4 & 6.  Item that Bishops be preachers, and teachers of God's Law, and careful followers of goodwoorkes.  
Item that Witches, sorcerers, Idolaters, perjures, strumpets, breakers of order and wedlock be banished the realm: with other Laws for tithes, temples, Church rights, trial of Clergy men accused, and such like duties and offences ecclesiastical.  Phi. 
You press me with a number of places, that prove nothing against us directly.  Theo. 
Take the weakest of them, and see whether it will not infer that Princes meddled with causes ecclesiastical. 
The weakest of these places prove that Princes meddle with ecclesiastical causes, which they would seem to ●ray them from by Osi●s words.   Phi. 
We know they meddled with them, but not as supreme Governors of them.  Theo. 
I brought these places to refel that general objection which you framed out of Osius, Leontius and others, that Princes should not meddle with causes ecclesiastical. If you grant they did▪ and might lawfully meddle with such matters, as the places which I bring do prove, then by your own confession Constantius was not reproved for meddling with religion, for so did other godly Princes that were not reproved but highly commended and honoured in the Church of Christ: but rather he was reproved, as I answered you at the first, for his insolent and tyrannous kind of meddling with these matters, which was, as I showed, you for that in his own person, having no skill nor experience in such cases, he would needs end and determine all things according to his own fancy without respect of right or truth, and execute the same with terrible force and rigour exceeding the bounds of all Christian humanity.  

And consequently their sword stretcheth unto spiritual things as well as unto temporal.  Again these later examples as well as the former import that Princes had all this while full power to plant and establish the Christian faith in their realms and to punish ecclesiastical transgressions and disorders in all sorts of subjects, Lay men and Clerks, which is all that we seek for and all that we mean when we make them Governors of their dominions in all causes both ecclesiastical and temporal; and since you can neither deny the laws, Edicts nor acts of Princes, which we produce to this purpose, nor possibly shift them, why do you wickedly slander and maliciously pervert that doctrine which you shall never soberly confute?  Phi. 
You will have Princes to be supreme Governors in these cases; 
When papists be posed with these places and cannot avoid them, they slip to an other question and cavil about the direction of Princes unto truth.  this is it that we most impugn.  Theo. 
Well then let us go by degrees. Do you grant them to be Governors in those cases?  Phi. 
What mean you by Governors?  Theo. 
Such as have lawful authority from God to command for truth and punish error.  Phi. 
Do you make them judges and Deciders of truth?  Theo. 
No, but receivers and establishers of it.  Phi. 
Yea but who shall tell them which is truth?  Theo. 
That is not this question. When we reason whether Princes may command for truth and punish error, you must not cavil about the means to know truth from error, but suppose that truth were confessed and agreed on: and in that case what may Princes do for truth.  Phi. 
Marry Sir if truth were not in strife the doubt were not so great.  Theo. 
If I should ask you whether Princes may revenge murders and punish thefts, were this an answer to say, but how shall they know what murder is, and who be thieves? No more, when we demand what duty Princes own to God and his truth, should you stand quarreling what truth is or how truth may be known? The Prince's duty to God is one question which we now handle; the way to discern truth from error is an other, which anon shall ensue when once this is ended; but first let us have your direct answer whether Princes may command for truth or no?  Phi. 
For truth they may: but if they take quid pro quo they both hazard themselves and their whole Realms, and for that cause we say they must be directed by Bishops.  Theo. 
You slide to the second question again before the first be finished. Stay for that till this be tried. 
Prince's may command for all points of truth as well as for one.  You grant that Princes may command for truth, Do you not?  Phi. 
We do.  Theo. 
When you say they may command for truth, you do not mean this or that point of truth, but indefinitely for truth, that is for all parts of truth alike, without the which God can not rightly be served.  Phi. 
They may command for all as well as for part, if the Bishops need their help in all.  Theo. 
And commanding is not only the free permitting of those that will, 
He that may command for truth may justly punish for truth.  but the moderate punishing of those that will not. For punishment is the due desert of him that neglecteth the commandment which he should obey. So that he which may justly command, may justly punish; and he that may lawfully punish may certainly command. How say you then, may Princes punish for matters of religion?  Phi. 
No doubt they may, but when and where the Priest must guide.  Theo. 
Who beareth the sword? The Priest or the Prince?  Phi. 
The Prince, not the Priest.  Theo. 
And that sword, which the Prince beareth, 
As lawful for the Prince to punish Idolaters and heretics, as thieves and murderers.  must do the deed, must it not?  Phi. 
It must.  Theo. 
And the fact is as lawful in Princes when they punish schismatics, heretics and Idolaters as when they punish adulterers, thieves and murderers?  Phi. 
What else?  Theo. 
And if they leave such impieties against God unpunished they do not that duty which God requireth of them.  Phi. 
All this we grant.  Theo. 
Will you not recall it when we come to the push?  Phi. 
Recall it? As though this could hurt us?  Theo. 
Since you promise not to recall it, I will trust you for this once and will come to the true difference betwixt your opinion & ours.  

Both sides grant that Princes must punish as well spiritual as temporal offences.  You flatly confess, and the general practice of your Church is, that Princes of duty should and lawfully may punish all spiritual & ecclesiastical offences, namely, Apostasy, Idolatry, sorcery, sacrilege, schism, heresy and such like impieties against God and his Church, as well as civil disorders and injuries against our neighbours: Can you deny this?  Phi. 
I can not.  Theo. 
We confess the same. Let it stand irrevocable for both sides.  Phi. 
Agreed. But remember they be punishers not determiners, of those things.  Theo. 
I said punishers if you look to my words.  Phi. 
I grant that doctrine to be good and sound.  Theo. 

He that will punish must first prohibit.  Then forth. What you say Princes may punish, we say Princes may prohibit. Prohibiting is less than punishing, & a mean to make subjects do their duties without punishing, which every Christian Magistrate should rather embrace. Princes by common justice must open their mouths to speak, before they lift up their hands to strike; their laws must be known, before their sword must be drawn to revenge disobedience. Nothing can be justly punished except it be first prohibited. So that princes may punish those things, ergo they may prohibit them.  Phi. 
Great reason Princes should warn their subjects as well as punish them. Prohibiting is but forewarning what things they must avoid lest they fall into the pains prescribed.  Theo. 


If Princes may punish & prohibit that which is evil in matters of religion, ergo they may command & establish that which is good in the same causes. August. epist. 50.  
Idem contra Cresconium lib. 3. cap. 51.   If they may punish and prohibit that which is evil, ergo they may command and establish that which is good in matters of religion. How like you the sequel?  Phi. 
You think it holdeth by reason of the contrariety that is between both parts.  Theo. 
All learning will tell you that contraries be consequent to contraries. If they may forbid and abolish that which is evil, ergo they may bid and establish that which is good. And so S. Augustine coupleth them. You heard the places before. As a king he serveth God by making Laws commanding just things and prohibiting the contrary. And again, Kings as they be kings, serve God as they be willed by God, if in their kingdoms they command that which is good and prohibit that which is evil, not in civil affairs only but in matters also touching divine religion. They serve not God by prohibiting evil except they likewise command that which is good in divine religion. By duty they must, by consequent they do both. How think you, say we not truth?  Phi. 
I see your meaning. You would have Princes command in matters of religion.  Theo. 
We would have them in those things to command that which is good as well as prohibits that which is evil. 
Papists grant princes may punish for religion but not command: & yet punishing is a very forcible kind of commanding.  You grant the later, why should you stick at the former?  Phi. 
Commanding is a word of too great authority.  Theo. 
Whether think you the greater, with words to command, or with deeds to compel?  Phi. 
Compelling is more than commanding.  Theo. 
And he that punisheth, apparently compelleth. Since then by your own confession Princes may compel men by punishments from that which is evil to that which is good in matters of religion, ergo they may much more command them that which is good.  Phi. 
You snare me with words.  Theo. 
Do I snare you with words when I say that Princes may command that which is good in matters of religion as well as punish that which is evil, or do you rather harden your faces and whet your tongues against the Scriptures, against the fathers, against the laws and Edicts of all godly Princes in all ages and Countries? 
Nothing clearer than that Princes may command for matters of religion  Look no farther than to the places which I have brought you as well out of the holy scriptures as ancient stories and laws, & you shall find where princes commanded in causes ecclesiastical (I mean the very word) above three score times: If that be not sufficient you shall have three hundred when you will. So that you make a bad march if you stand on this point with us, that Princes may not command that which is good in matters of religion.  Phi. 
You shall have no such advantage at us. 
August. epist. 166. Ibidem. The word commanding which they most avoid is most usual in the sacred scriptures & ancient laws of Christian Princes. Epist. 66.  We know S. Augustine saith, When Emperors take part with truth, they command for truth against error; which whosoever contemneth, he purchaseth to himself judgement. And again, Emperors command the self same that Christ doth, for when they command that which is good, no man commandeth by them but Christ.  Theo. 
You did well to pull your fingers out of the fire; you saw it was too hot for you. S. Austen in that epistle which you quote useth that very word twelve times to show that Kings and Princes did and might COMMAND in matters of religion. Read the 
* Novel, constitut. 3.5.6.16.37.42.57.58.59.67.77.79.83.109.117.131.132.133.141.144.146. If princes at all may meddle with matters of religion they must needs command.  twenty constitutions wherein justinian disposeth of crimes and causes ecclesiastical, and see whether every sentence be not a commandment. Or if that be too much, overrun the 123 entitled of divers ecclesiastical Chapters, and tell us whether in that one constitution you do not find above fourteen score imperative and prohibitive verbs, whereby the Prince WILLETH, PRESCRIBETH, APPOINTETH, COMMANDETH, DISPOSETH, of persons and causes ecclesiastical.  
And this you can not choose but perceive except you be void of common sense, that Princes use not to persuade and entreat, but require and command their subjects. And therefore they must either not meddle with matters of religion at all, or else of necessity they must command, and afterward punish if their commandment be despised.  Phi. 
Let it be so, since you will needs have it so; but yet this doth not prove that Princes be supreme Rulers and masters of the faith and Church of Christ.  Theo. 
You leap before you come to the stile. Anon you shall hear what this doth prove: but first, Do you grant that Princes may command that which is good, & prohibit that which is evil in matters of religion?  Phi. 
What gain you by that if I grant it?  Theo. 
Take you no care for our gains. Do you grant it or no?  Phi. 
What if I do?  Theo. 
What if, doth not answer my question; speak off or on to that which I demand. Why be you so dainty to grant that which you dare not deny?  Phi. 
Take your pleasure in that point, and yet you shall miss your purpose.  Theo. 
My purpose is truth, which neither your high words nor indirect shifts shall disappoint. You spend time with delays, we might otherwise sooner end.  Phi. 
Will you answer, as briefly when I ask you the like?  Theo. 
If I do not, charge me with mine own words.  Phi. 

Or if the Jesuits will not grant so much, let them look to the places that went before and presently follow.  Then I grant that Princes may command that which is good, and prohibit that which is evil in matters of religion.  Theo. 
You grant it as an evident truth confirmed by the Scriptures, confessed by the fathers, reported by the Stories of the Church, and infinitely repeated in the laws and edicts of religious and ancient Emperors made for persons and causes ecclesiastical: Or if you doubt any part of this division, have recourse to the texts & places before produced, and if every part be not fully proved, refuse the whole.  Phi. 

They would none of this if they could choose, because they hold that Bishops in these cases must command Princes.  I see they did, and therefore I resolve myself they might command in those cases.  Theo. 
As well Bishops as others.  Phi. 
God forbidden Princes should command Bishops in matters of religion. Have you forgotten what Osius said to Constantius, Do not command us in this kind?  Theo. 
Osius and others were commanded by Constantius to condemn Athanasius against all order of equity, and their certain knowledge of his innocency. For Osius was present and precedent in the Council of Sardica where the cause of Athanasius was fully debated by the consent of both emperors East and West, and his accusers proved to be wicked slanderers; and in that case, he might justly say to Constantius, Command us not in this kind (or in these things) but learn (the truth of) them rather at our hands that were by, 
What Osius meant by saying Cōmand● us not, in this kind.  when these matters were narrowly sifted and Athanasius clearly discharged from all that could be said against him.  
And what if Osius had not limited his words to these particular respects, as in sight he doth; shall one poor place, think you, bear down all the proofs, examples and authorities that I have showed you to the contrary, where religious and ancient Emperors appointed, prescribed, commanded Bishops yea the chiefest Bishops in matters of doctrine and discipline?  

Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 3. cap. 23. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 28. Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 4. cap. 42. Socra. lib. 1. ca 4.  Constantine prescribed the bishops what was profitable for the Church, and commanded the Council of Tyrus to discuss the crimes objected to Athanasius, and threatened to banish him if he failed to present himself before the Synod, to teach him what it was to withstand the precept of the chief ruler defending the truth. And upon complaint made by Athanasius against them he sent for the whole Council with this commandment: You must all of you resort hither to show the reason of your doings, and to give account how sincerely and sound you have judged and that before me, whom you shall not deny to be Gods sincere minister: and when Arius should be restored, this was the stile that he used to Athanasius, knowing our pleasure, We charge you to suffer such as will to return to the Church, and after commanded Alexander Bishop of Constantinople to receive (Arius) to the communion. 
Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 27. Idem. lib. 1. cap. 38. Theodoret. li. 4. cap. 8.   
Valentinian the elder rehearsing the Nicene faith in his Edict added, Our power hath commanded the same to be preached. And when the people of Milan cried to have Ambrose for their Bishop though he were not yet baptised, the same prince commanded he should be presently baptised and consecrated, 
Idem. lib. 4. cap. 7.  notwithstanding the Canons were strong against it & S. Paul seemeth not willing that a novice should be a Bishop. 
1. Tim. 3.   
Gratian commanded the Arrian Bishops to be thrust from their Churches, 

Cod. lib. 1. tit. 6.  
Ne sanct. bapt. i●eretur.   and by vigour of his Princely Laws deprived the Bishop, that rebaptized, of his Priestly function.  
Theodosius the elder commanded the followers of his Edict, 
Cod. lib. 1. tit. 1.  Bishops and others, to be counted Christian Catholics, and for the rest that believed otherwise, 
Ibidem. § nullus  he said Propelli jubemus, we commanded them to be driven from their Churches; and when Demophilus a Bishop refused to embrace the Nicene faith, the Emperor in his own person replied, 
Socrat. lib. 5. ca 7.  than I command thee to forego thy Churches.  
It well be seemed a religious Prince, 
Gregor. epist. li. 4. ca 78. Legun Franciae lib. 1. ca 76.  saith Gregory, to command Bishops in such things. And Charles appointing the Bishops what doctrine they should teach, saith, This we charge and enjoin you the more precisely because we know that false teachers shall come in the later days. And for the reformation of certain abuses in the Church he keepeth this tenor of speech, 
Ibidem, cap. 71.  Know ye sacred fathers this must be forbidden in your Dioceses.  
The rest of the Laws, Edicts and precepts of Godly Princes for causes ecclesiastical, which I before alleged in no small number, do they not either comprehend all men, and by consequent Bishops, or else directly and expressly commanded Bishops by name? If those be not sufficient you may & shall have more.  
Theodosius the younger sent his letters to the Patriarch of Alexandria for the second Council of Ephesus with these words: 
Chalced. Concil. actio. epist. Theodosii & Valentiniani ad Dioscorum.  We decree that the most holy Bishops meeting together, this vain doubt may be discussed, and the true Catholic faith confirmed. Therefore Your holiness bringing with you ten of the most reverend metropolitans that be within your province, and ten other holy Bishops well accounted of for their learning and conversation, shall hasten with all speed to meet (the rest) at Ephesus by the first of August next: 
The Prince appointeth what Bishops shallbe present at the Council.  no Bishop besides the foresaid troubling the sacred Synod. If any Bishop fail to come to the place prefixed at the time appointed, he shall have no excuse neither with GOD nor with us. As for Bishop Theodorete, whom we command to attend at home on his own Church, we determine that he shall be none of your assembly, unless the whole council think good to have him one. But if any dissent, We command that the Synod sit without him, and dispatch those things which we have appointed them.  


Ibidem Imperatoris epist. ad eund● § Diosco. reverendo.  
The Prince maketh the precedent of the Council. The Prince limiteth who shall have voices in the Council.  
Ibidem Imperatoris commonitorium ad Elpidum.   And in his second letters to the same Bishop, Because we suspect that some of Nestorius' favourers will do their best to be present at this Council, therefore we think needful to advertise you and the whole Synod that not only in respect of Theodorete, but of all others which have aught to do in your Council, we give you the pre-eminence and chief authority. And those that add or diminish any thing to or from the Nicene fathers & the fathers since that assembled at Ephesus, We suffer them not to presume any thing in this sacred Synod, but will have them subjecteth to your judgement, because we have appointed this Synod for that purpose.  
In the very same council he likewise commanded, that those Bishops which not long before sat in judgement upon Eutiches should be present but silent and give no voices (with the rest) as judges, but expect the common determination of all the rest of the sacred fathers. And also commanded that they should neither say neither do any thing in the sacred Council, until the (right) faith were concluded.  

Ibidem oratio. Martiani ad Synodum.  Martian charged the 630. Bishops in the great Council of Chalcedon, that None of them should dare dispute of the nativity of our Lord and Saviour Christ otherwise than the 318. fathers of Nice delivered.  

Ibidem epist. Euseb. ad Imperator.  Eusebius Bishop of Dorilaeum at the same time put up a supplication to Martian & Valentinian the third against Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria with these words, In most humble wise we beseech your Majesties that you will command the reverend Bishop Dioscorus to answer to those things that we lay to his charge, for confirming a wicked heresy & deposing us unjustly directing your sacred precept to ecumenical council of Bishops to hear the matter between us and the said Dioscorus, and certify your Majesties of the whole cause, that you may do therein what shall please your Graces.  


Novel. Constit. 6. § Maxima quidem.  
These commandments of justinian bound the Bishop of Rome no less than other Bishops.  
Ibidem § & hanc non pecunijs.   justinian in his sixth Constitution prescribing what persons he will have made Bishops, and how they shallbe qualified and examined, before they be admitted, threateneth in sharp manner: He that doth any thing besides this (which we have appointed) both he that (is ordered) shallbe deprived of his function, and he that did order him, shall lose his Bishopric for offending this law.  
The like punishment he setteth down for Simony. Though, saith justinian, he have all other things that we before required, yet, if he procure a Bishopric by money or money worth, Let him know that he shall be turned out of his Bishopric, and do his orderer this pleasure, that he also shall be removed from his office and from the Clergy.  
So for ordering and not examining that was objected against the Person: If one come to be made a Bishop, and any man contradict and offer to lay somewhat to his charge, 
Ibidem § ● quis aute● talis.  Let him not be ordered, before such complaints be discussed. And if he that should make him, hasten to consecration, after such contradiction without examining the matter, Let him know that which he doth shall be utterly void, and also he that goeth against our law shall be deprived of his Priestly function, and he that ordered him without trial, shall likewise be removed from his Episcopal dignity  
So for absence from his church after he is Bishop. 
Ibidem § & illud etiam definimus.  This also we define, that no Bishop be so hardy as to absent himself from his Church above one whole year. If he be away longer than a year, let the Patriarch of that region cite him orderly to return: If he continue disobedient, let him be clean expelled from the sacred number of Bishops.  
And generally for all matters comprised in that constitution; 

Ibidem § sed neque effusas.  
The prince commandeth the whole clergy, patriarchs, metropolitans, Bishops and the rest whatsoever, to observe his ecclesiastical laws.   The things which we have decreed for the preservation of ecclesiastical order and state agreeable to the tenor and prescript of the sacred rules, let the most holy patriarchs of every Province, the metropolitans and the rest of the most reverend Bishops and Clerks see that they keep for ever hereafter sure and inviolable; the punishment to him that transgresseth these things, shall be to be severed quite from God, and excluded from his Priestly degree.  
In his sixteen constitution, commanding Clerks to be removed from one Church to an other till the just number which he decreed were supplied in every Church, he writeth to the Patriarch of Constantinople in this wise. 
Novel. constit. 16. ad finem.  Your blessedness shall endeavour to put in execution the things which we have thought decent for the profit of the sacred and holy Churches. And if any thing be attempted to the contrary, let him assure himself, that durst enter orders against this our law, that it do him no good.  
In his 57 Constitution prohibiting the sacred mysteries to be celebrated in private Chapels; 
Constit. 57  these things, saith he, we command to the most holy Archbishop and universal Patriarch of this City.  
In his 123 Constitution you shall find examples enough, of his Princely prohibitions and commandments to Bishops for matters concerning the regiment of the Church.  
For first appointing how Bishops shall be chosen, and that the Person elected shall before his admission deliver a confession of the true faith subscribed with his own hand, and recite the prayers used in the sacred communion & holy Baptism, and swear that he neither hath given nor promised, nor will give any thing to those that elected him, nor to him that ordereth him, nor to any other the rather to attain his ordering, he addeth; 

Constit. 123. § exigatur autem prius.  
These laws. extended to all provinces & patriarchs.  
Ibidem, § prae omnibus autem illud.   If any be made Bishope against this observation, as well he shall be cast out of his Bishopric as the other that presumed to create him against this form shall be severed one year from the sacred ministery and shall forfeit all his goods to the Church where he is Bishop. But if any man consecrate one that is accused before he examine the matter, both he that is made and he that did make him shall be deprived of their episcopal functions. Above all things This we decree to be kept that no man be made a Bishop by rewards. And therefore as well he that giveth, as he that taketh, and he that would be the means to work it, shall be degraded.  

Ibidem § interdicimus autem. Ibidem § quis a vero.  And so going on with divers ecclesiastical Chapters he saith, We forbidden the Bishops to leave their Churches, and to travel into other coasts. And we command that in every Province there be yearly kept a Synod, where causes of faith and doubts concerning the Canons and administration of ecclesiastical things, 

Synods called for ecclesiastical causes were tied to the Laws imperial.  
Ibidem C. ad haec jubemus.  
All Bishops commanded by the Prince. Ibidem § Insuper interdicimus.  
Eadem constit. § omnibus vero epis.  
Unjust excommunication punished by the Prince's laws.  
Eadem constit. § praeterea si qui.  
The Courts and consistories of all Bishops, Archbishops & patriarchs limited as well to the Prince's laws as to the Canons.   as also touching Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other Clerks and Rulers of Monasteries and Monks either for their lives or other things needing reformation shall be handled; and in convenient manner examined and corrected according to the sacred Canons and OUR (imperial) laws.  
Besides we command that all Bishops and Priests do celebrate the sacred oblation and prayers in the holy Baptism, not secretly but with a loud voice, so as the faithful people may hear: the religious Priests (and Bishops) knowing that if they neglect any of these things they shall answer for it in the dreadful judgement of the great GOD and our Saviour Christ, neither will we understanding thereof pass it over or leave it unpunished.  
We also forbidden the most religious Bishops, Priests, and all other Clerks to play at tables or to company with such gamesters or to be present at spectacles. If any of them offend in this point, we command that he be suspended from his function for three years.  
Likewise we forbidden all Bishops and Priests to separate any man from the communion till a cause be showed for which the Canons will it to be done. If any man separate an other from the communion against this law, the party that is grieved unjustly shall be absolved and received to the communion by an higher Priest: And he that durst excommunicate unjustly shall be put from the communion by the Bishop that is (next) above him as long as it seemeth good to (that superior).  
Moreover if the Bishops of the same Synod have any controversy between them touching either ecclesiastical right or causes, first their Metropolitan with two other Bishops of the same Synod shall determine the matter. And if either part find fault with that judgement, then shall the Patriarch of that Province hear the cause and define that which is consonant to the canons ecclesiastical and our laws, neither part having leave to contradict his sentence. If a Clerk or any other of what cause soever, appeal from a Bishop, first the Metropolitan shall judge the matter according to the sacred canons and our laws. If either side mislike, the cause shall deuolue to the Patriarch of the Province, 
No appeal from the Patriarch.  and he shall end it by the direction of the Canons and our laws.  
Clerks we permit none to be made except they be lettered, of a right faith & honest conversation; 
Eadem constit. § Clericos autem.  & have neither Concubine nor bastards; but such as either be single men or had or have one lawful wife and her the first, no widow, nor divorced woman, nor otherwise interdicted by the laws or Canons. A Priest we will not have made under the age of five and thirty, neither a Deacon or Subdeacon under the age of five and twenty, neither a Reader under eighteen: A woman shall not be admitted to serve the Church that is under forty, or hath been twice married.  
Many score precepts besides these that I reckon shall you find in that constitution touching persons and causes ecclesiastical with these words, Volumus, sancimus, jubemus: We will, decree, command, and other verbs equivalent, prescribing directly to Bishops what order and course they shall keep for the seemly regiment of Christ's Church.  
By the commandment of justinus uncle to justinian the Council of Chalcedon was preached (and established) through the most holy Churches: 

Euagrius. lib. 4. cap. 9  
Idem li. 5. ca 6.   And by the commandment of (an other) justinus (his nephew) was Gregory called from Mount Sina to be chief Bishop (of Antioch) next after Anastasius whom the Prince removed from his seat for wasting the Church treasures. 
Idem lib. 5. ca 5.   
Leo the successor and Anthemius that married the daughter of Martian gave forth this commandment: 
Cod. lib. 1. tit. 3. de epist. & cleri, C. si quenquam.  Let no man be made a Bishop for entreaty or for money. If any man be detected to have gotten the seat of a bishop by rewards or to have taken any thing for the electing or ordering of others, let him be accused as for a public crime and an offence committed against the state, & repelled from his priestly degree. And we adjudge him not only to be deprived for ever of that honour, but also to be condemned to perpetual infamy.  
And the same princes by their Edict more general, 
Cod. lib. 1. tit. 2. de sacrosactis ecclesiis C. decernimus.  We decree, say they, that those things which were in sort done against the Lord himself of true religion, being abrogated and utterly abolished, all things be restored again to their former condition and order in which they were established before our times, as well touching the points of christian faith, as touching the state of the most sacred churches, & Martyr's chapels; All innovations in the time of this tyranny against the holy churches, & their reverend bishops concerning the right of their Episcopal creations, the deposing of any Bishop during those times, their prerogative to sit before others within Council or without the privileges of metropolitans and patriarchs (all such innovations we say) repealed, Let the grants & CONSTITUTIONS of the godly Princes before us, and likewise ours touching churches, chapels of Martyrs, Bishops, Clerks, and Monks be kept inviolable.  
Much more might be said, but this shall suffice. You bring us one silly mistaken authority where Constantius commanding against right and truth in a bishops cause was reproved; we bring you, if you view the precedents well, an hundred express places and above, that ancient and religious princes commanded Bishops and Counsels in matters of doctrine and discipline, and were not reproved, but honoured and obeyed in the Church of God. Now choose whether you will show yourselves so void of all religion & reason, 
Osius words if they were not diversly answered by us, may not control the perpetual practice of Christ's Church.  that you will prefer a single and solitary text, and the same so many ways answered by us, before the public and perpetual practice of the primative Church; or else acknowledge with us that Princes for truth did & might command Bishops and prevent and punish in them as well errors in faith as other ecclesiastical crimes and disorders.  Phi. 
All this I may grant, and yet your supremacy will not follow.  Theo. 
Never tell us what you may do, but what you will do. Deny the premises if you dare: or the consequent, if you can.  Phi. 
I grant Princes may command Bishops, but not what they list; which is your opinion.  Theo. 

The cunning of the papists in this point is either to bely our doctrine, or to slip themselves from the question.  If you may be the reporter of our doctrines we shall defend many mad positions, leave your malicious and odious slanders, we maintain no such opinion.  Phi. 
What do you then?  Theo. 
If you did not range thus besides all order and truth, you should perceive what we do: but when we come to conclude, you slide from the matter and fall to your wont outfacing and wrangling.  Phi. 
Do I not answer directly to that which you ask?  Theo. 
For a while you do, but when we come to touch the quick, you start aside and busy the reader with other quarrels. Forbear that till we come to the sifting of your absurdities, and then take your fill. In the mean time suffer us to say what we defend, and to know what you assent unto, that the difference betwixt our opinions may be rightly conceived, and the proofs of either part duly considered.  Phi. 
With a good will.  Theo. 

The sum & effect of the former allegations & authorities for the Prince's power.  Do you then 〈◊〉 for a matter fully proved that ancient kings and Christian emperors 〈◊〉 command for truth, as well Priest as people; and that they chief did, and iu●●ly might interpose their royal power and care for the reformation and correction of errors in faith, abuses in discipline, disorders in life, and all other ecclesiastical enormities, as appeareth plainly by the public laws and acts of Constantine, Theodosius, justinian, Charles, Lodovic, Lotharius and other no less Godly than worthy Governors? If the places which I have brought import not so much, refel the particulars, I will be of your mind: if they do, why stand you so doubtful as loath to confess, and yet not able to gainsay the proofs?  Phi. 
For truth I know Princes have commanded as well Bishops, as others, and vy their Princely power established and preserved the faith and Canons of Christ's Church.  Theo. 
And this the sacred Scriptures, the learned fathers, the stories ecclesiastical, the laws and monuments of Catholic Princes in the primative church of Christ for eight hundred and fifty years do fairly warrant. 
Or if they do not, disprove them.   Phi. 
They do.  Theo. 
And the places that prove this, are both innumerable and inexpugnable?  Phi. 
The proofs for this point be pregnant evough.  Theo. 
And this is no way repugnant to probability, possibility, reason or nature?  Phi. 
It is not.  Theo. 
You will not eat these words when you come to the purpose?  Phi. 
I will not.  Theo. 
And if you were to be sworn on a book, do you believe in your conscience this which you say to be true?  Phi. 
I do.  Theo. 
Then here I will stay.  Phi. 
Have I not answered directly to your questions?  Theo. 
You have; and we urge you no farther.  Phi. 
What are you the nearer?  Theo. 
That shall you now see. You make shameful outcries at the power which we give to Princes to be supreme Governors of their Realms in all things and causes, as well ecclesiastical as temporal, 
Apolog. cap. 1.  as A thing improbable, unreasonable, unnatural, impossible, reprovable by all divine and human learning, which never king, much less Queen Christian nor heathen, Catholic nor heretic in this Realm, or in all the world besides, before our age did challenge, or accept: You heap authorities and absurdities, 
The Jesuits in their Apology, for all their vaunts never come near the prince's power which we defend.  and terrify the simple with words and cracks of the largest life, as if the doctrine were so barbarous and monstruous that heathen and profane men would abhor it; and when the bottom of your skill is seen and the pride of your tongues spent, notwithstanding your often and jolly proffers, you never so much as come near the question.  Phi. 
Will you make us believe that?  Theo. 
Mark the points that we teach, and see how wide you be from refuting that which we defend. We say Princes only be Governors, that is, higher powers ordained of God and bearing the sword with lawful and public authority to command for truth; 
The Prince's authority as we defend it.  to prohibit and with the sword punish errors and all other ecclesiastical disorders as well as temporal, within their Realms. This we prove, this you grant to be good and sound doctrine. Of this then there is no question betwixt us.  
Secondly, we teach, that as all their subjects, Bishops and others must obey them commanding that which is good in matters of religion, and endure them with patience when they take part with error, so they, their Sceptres and sword be not subject to the Pope's tribunal, neither hath he by the law of God, 
The Prince's supremacy as we maintain it.  or by the Canons of the Church any power or pre-eminence to reverse their doings and depose their persons, but this is a wicked and arrogant usurpation lately crept into the West parts of Europe since the Bishops of Rome exalted themselves above all that is called God; and for this cause we confess Princes within their own regiments to be SUPREME, that is not under the Pope's jurisdiction, neither to be commanded, nor displaced at his pleasure, but to be reserved to the righteous and Sovereign judgement of God, who will sincerely judge and severely punish both Popes and Princes if they bolster or suffer any kind of Impiety within their dominions.  
This is the very point that is in question betwixt us, 
Neither of these points touched in the Apolog.  of which in your whole Apology you speak not one word, but cunningly shift your hands of it, knowing yourselves not able to justify your wicked assertion. And lest the reader should distrust your silence in that behalf, you follow the word supreme with hue and cry, as if God were highly dishonoured and the Church of Christ rob of her right and inheritance, because the Pope may not set his feet in Princes necks and be Lord Paramount of all earthly states and kingdoms.  Phi. 
Do we mistake your meaning, or do you rather pull in your horns, when you see yourselves compassed round with so many grolie and sensible absurdities? 

The absurdities which the Jesuits muster against the Prince's supremacy.  
Apolog. cap. 4. sect. 21.  
1. Cor. 14. 1. Tim. 2.    Theo. 
What one inconvenience can you fasten on us for teaching this doctrine?  Phi. 
A thousand.  Theo. 
You be better at craking than concluding. Prove but one and spare the rest.  Phi. 
This Sovereignty giveth power to the Queen to confer that to others (as to the Priests and Bishops, to preach, minister Sacraments, have cure of souls, and such like) which she neither hath, nor can have nor do, herself. It giveth her that may neither preach nor speak in public of matters of religion, to do that which is much more, even to prescribe by herself or her deputies or Laws authorised only by her, to the preachers what to preach, which way to worship and serve God, how and in what form to minister the Sacraments, to punish and deprive, teach and correct them, and generally to prescribe and appoint which way she will be governed in soul.  

Sect. 22.  It maketh the body above the soul, the temporal regiment above the spiritual, the earthly kingdoms above Christ's body mystical. It maketh the sheep above the Pastor: It giveth her power to command them, whom and wherein she is bound to obey: It giveth power to the subject to be judge of the judges, yea and of God himself, as S. Cyprian speaketh: 
Epist. 55.  It maketh her free from Ecclesiastical discipline, from which no true child of God's family is exempted.  

Sect. 23.  It derogateth from Christ's Priesthood, which both in his own person, and in the Church, is above his kingly dignity. It divideth (which is a matter of much importance) the state of the Catholic Church and the holy communion or society of all Christian men in the same, 
August. contra Gaudentij epist. lib. 2. Cap. 25.  into as many parts not communicant one with on other, nor holding one of an other, as there be worldly kingdoms differing by customs, Laws and manners, each from other, which is of most pernicious sequel, and against the very native quality of the most perfect conjunction, society, unity, and intercourse of the whole Church and every Province and person thereof together. It openeth the gap to all kind of divisions, schisms, sects & disorders.  

Sect. 24.  It maketh all Christian Bishops, Priests, and what other soever borne out of the Realm, foreigners and usurpers in all jurisdiction Ecclesiastical towards us: & there can be no jurisdiction over English men's souls, but proceeding and depending of her sovereign right therein. Which is directly against Christ's express commandment and commission given to Peter first, and then to all the Apostles of preaching, baptizing, remitting, retaining, binding and losing, over all the world, without difference of temporal state, or dependence of any mortal Prince therein.  

Sect. 25.  It keepeth the Realm from obedience to general Counsels, which have been or shallbe gathered in foreign Countries. It taketh away all convenient means of gathering, holding, or executing any 〈◊〉 Counsels and their decrees, as appeared by refusing to come to the late Council of Trent, notwithstanding the Pope's messengers, & letters of other great Princes, which requested and invited them to the same. When a Realm or Prince is in error, it taketh away all means of reducing them to the truth again: no subjection being acknowledged to Counsels or Tribunals abroad, all other Bishops, patriarchs, Apostles, Christ and all (because they were and be foreigners) not having jurisdiction nor sufficient authority to define against English Sectaries and errors. Finally if this jurisdiction spiritual be always of right a sequel of the Crown and sceptre of all Kings, assuredly Christ nor none of his Apostles could otherwise enter to convert Countries, preach, and exercise jurisdiction spiritual, without Caesar's and others the Kings of the Country's licence and delegation.  Theo. 
Upon what part of our doctrine infer you these absurdities?  Phi. 
Upon the supremacy wherewith you flatter Princes. For all these things be consequent to the princes ecclesiastical sovereignty.  Theo. 
You must tell us how. 
Their absurdities be grounded on their own dreams, not on our doctrine.   Phi. 
See you not that?  Theo. 
Surely not I There be two parts of our assertion as I showed you before: the first avouching that Princes may command for truth and abolish error: the next that Princes be supreme, that is, not subject to the Pope's judicial process to be cited, suspended, deposed at his beck: Upon one of these twain, if you reason against us, must your absurdities be grounded.  
The first you can not impugn, 
To this that Princes may command for truth, no absurdity can be consequent.  but you must therewith impugn the Scriptures, the best and most famous Princes of Christendom, the Church of God itself, which for eight hundred years and upward embraced and obeyed the Laws and Edicts of religious Princes commanding for truth. And if you think you may say and unsay with a breath, and refel that now as absurd which I before proved and you yielded to be sound and good doctrine, take either of our positions rightly understood for your antecedent, and mark how jointlesse and senseless the sequels be, that you set down for inevitable consequents.  
When Princes command for truth, 

When Princes command that which is good it is Christ & no man else that commandeth by their mouths.  
Epist. 166. Ibidem.   it is evident they command the self same thing that God commandeth, or rather as S. Augustine plainly declareth God himself commandeth by their hearts, that are in his hands, the things which no man should refuse. Emperors, saith he, command the self same thing that Christ commandeth: for when they command that which is good, it is Christ and no man else that commandeth by them. Again, Mark, saith he, with how manifest truth God himself speaketh by the Prince's heart which is in his hand, even in this law, which you complain to be made against you. And therefore he concludeth, 
Ibidem.  when Princes command for truth, Whosoever neglecteth (their commandment) shall have no part with God for not doing that which TRVETH BY THE KING'S HEART COMMANDED HIM TO do.  
If you build your absurdities upon the first part of our doctrine, then must you thus conclude. When God commandeth by the Prince's heart, that which is good in matters of religion, The body is above the soul, the sheep above the Pastor, the subject is judge of the judges, yea of God himself, and consequently, Neither Christ, neither any of his Apostles could enter to convert Countries, preach and exercise jurisdiction spiritual without Caesar's licence and delegation. Well, your Rhetoric may beguile fools, sure your Logic will never enforce wise men to regard your conclusions.  Phi. 
We make no such arguments.  Theo. 
You must make these or worse. The first part of our assertion is that Princes be Gods servants and ministers appointed to bear the sword with full commission to command what God commandeth, and to prohibit what God prohibiteth as well in matters pertaining to religion as Civil justice. 
Their absurdities must be inferred upon our assertion, if they bring them against us.  You infer upon us that we make The body above the soul, the temporal regiment above the spiritual, the earthly kingdom above Christ's body mystical, the sheep above the Pastor, the subject to be judge of the judges, yea of God himself, with many like childish and frivolous consequents. Let your own favourers be judges in this case, whether we be absurd in affirming that we do, or you more absurd in refelling us as you do.  

May not Christ appoint as well as the Pope what Princes shall command.  If it be no absurdity with you for princes to command that which the Pope appointeth them, as yourselves defend, that is your opinion; what inconvenience can it be for Princes to command that which Christ the Sovereign Lord and head of the Church commandeth: which is all the power that we give to Princes, notwithstanding your feigned and false reports in this slanderous libel of yours to the contrary?  Phi. 

To command that which God commandeth is piety and no absurdity.  We never denied but Princes might command that which God commandeth; and in so doing they be rather to be commended for their piety than to be charged with any absurdity.  Theo. 
And we never affirmed that Princes might command that which God forbiddeth, or prohibit that which God commandeth. And therefore you must seek out some others whom you may pursue with your absurdities, they touch no part of our doctrine.  Phi. 
They show what an absurd thing it is for temporal Princes to challenge supreme power over Christ's Church in causes of religion.  Theo. 
If you take the word supreme, as it ever was and is defended by us, to make Princes free from the wrongful and usurped jurisdiction which the Pope claimeth over them, 
Supreme, as we profess it, hath no absurdity consequent to it.  your illations have as little strength and truth as the former: for what fond and untoward reasons be these? If the Pope may not depose Princes and discharge their subjects from all obedience, ergo we give Power to the Queen to prescribe to the Preachers what to preach, which way to worship and serve God, how and in what form to minister the Sacraments, to punish and deprive, teach and correct them, and generally to prescribe and appoint which way she will be governed in soul: ergo, we make her free from ecclesiastical discipline, we derogate from Christ's Priesthood, and open the gap to all kind of divisions, schisms, sects and disorders: ergo, there can be no jurisdiction over English men's souls but proceeding and depending of her: we keep the Realm from obedience to general Counsels, and take away all means of reducing the Realm and Prince, when they be in error, to the truth again, with many such lose and unsavoury sequences.  Phi. 
If the Prince be supreme, 
This misconstering of supreme is the ground of all their absurdities.  she may do what she list in all matters of religion and Ecclesiastical regiment, and so these absurdities follow very directly upon that assertion of yours.  Theo. 
That Princes may do what they list in matters of religion and the regiment of the Church, is neither coherent nor consequent to our opinion, but a wicked and wily pretence of yours, to cause men that can not so well discern of your sophisms to distrust our doctrine as false and absurd, and in the mean time to convey yourselves away as it were in a mist unespied. And as for the words supreme governor, which you wring and wrest to that purpose, take the true construction of them, as the oath importeth and we profess them, and infer duly but one of your absurdities upon them, we yield you the rest.  Phi. 
What, not one?  Theo. 
No, not one, descend to the specialties when you will.  Phi. 
It giveth power to the Queen to confer that to others, 
Apol. cap. 4. Sect. 21.  which she neither hath, nor can have, nor do herself, as to the Priests and Bishops to preach, minister the Sacraments, have cure of souls, and such like.  Theo. 
It giveth no such power to the Queen as you speak of. bishops have their authority to preach and minister the Sacraments, not from the Prince, but from Christ himself. 
Mat. 28.  Go teach all nations, baptising them, & so forth; only the Prince giveth them public liberty without let or disturbance to do that which Christ commandeth. If you see no difference between the commission which Christ giveth unto Bishops, 
Princes give no commission but a permission and free liberty without let to the ministers of the word and Sacraments.  and the permission whereby Princes suffer and incite them with peace and praise to do their duties, your learning is not so great as you would make the world believe it is. For what a foolish collection is this, The Prince permitteth those that are sent of Christ to preach and administer the Sacraments, ergo the Prince conferreth that power or function to them? You might as well conclude, The Prince permitteth men to live & breath, ergo the Prince conferreth life and breath to them. Or, the Prince permitteth her Subjects to believe in God and relieve each others, ergo the Prince conferreth faith and charity to them.  Phi. 
It giveth her to do that which is more, even to prescribe by herself, or her deputies, 
Apolog. cap. 4. Sect. 21.  or laws authorised only by herself, which way to worship and serve God, how and in what form to minister the Sacraments, to punish and deprive, teach and correct them, and generally to prescribe and appoint which way she will be governed in soul. 
God hath already by his law prescribed which way he willbe served: that Princes may and must command in their realms though the Pope say nay.   Theo. 
That Princes may prescribe what faith they list, what service of God they please, what form of administering the Sacraments they think best, is no part of our thought, nor point of our doctrine: And yet that Princes may by their laws prescribe the christian faith to be preached, the right service of God in spirit and truth to be used, the Sacraments to be ministered according to the Lords institution, this is no absurdity in us to defend, but impiety rather in you to withstand. And that Princes may punish both Bishops and others for heresy, dissension and all kind of iniquity, by banishing and commanding them to be removed from their Churches, which you call depriving, can not now be counted absurd, unless you reject the stories of the church and laws of christian Princes, which I before cited, as absurd. For there shall you find that Emperors by their Laws and Edicts have commanded Bishops to be judicially deprived by other bishops & actually displaced by their temporal Magistrates, as well for erroneous teaching as vicious living.  Phi. 


Princes be not supreme to do what they list in religion, but only free from the Pope's jurisdiction.  
The fear of God and not the practices of Popes must keep Princes from doing evil.   When you give princes supreme power in matters of religion, you give them leave to do what they lift.  The. 
If you affirm that of us, your report is utterly untrue: if you infer it upon us, your reason is very ridiculous. For what a fond illation is this? Princes be supreme, that is not subject to the Pope's jurisdiction, ergo princess may lawfully do what they wil  Phi. 
We say not lawfully, but if there be none to control them, none can let them to do what they list.  The. 
The dreadful judgements of God, not the lewd practices of Popes must bridle Princes from doing evil; If they fear not a revenger in heaven, whom they can not escape; they will never regard a conspirator in earth, whom they may soon prevent: & yet we dispute not what tyrants de facto will do, but what godly Princes of duty should, of right may do. This is it that we seek for, & therefore you must conclude this or nothing.  Phi. 
You give them authority to make laws & punish for religion without any mention of truth or error. 
The other toucheth our duty to the Prince, & not the Prince's duty unto God.   The. 
The oath expresseth not their duty to God, but ours to them, & as they must be obeyed when they join with truth, so must they be endured when they fall into error, which side soever they take, either obedience to their wills, or submission to their swords is their due by God's law, & that is all which our oath exacteth. And yet when we profess them to be governors, that word restraineeh them from their own lusts, & referreth them to God's ordinance. For they which resist God, impugn the truth, oppress the righteous, assist error & favour impiety, be no governors under God as all princes oughtto be, but tyrants against God; not bearers but wilful abusers of the sword which God hath appointed for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well.  
And this, though it be not expressed, yet is it ever employed in the very sceptres, swords & thrones of princes. For dominion, power & majesty belong of right to god alone & are by him imparted to Princes, 
The Prince beareth the sword under and not above God.  with this condition & to this end that they should reign under him not over him, command for him not against him, be honoured & obeyed after him not before him; & therefore this quarrel savoureth not of ignorance but of malice, when you say we give Prince's power to do what they will in matters pertaining to God & his service. We reject & detest that sinful assertion more than you do. In deed we say that the Pope may not pull Princes crowns from their heads, nor seek to master them with contriving rebellions & treasons against them, whiles he pretendeth to depose them. In this only sense we defend them to be supreme, that is not at liberty to do what they lift, without regard of truth or right, but without superior on earth to repress them with violent means and to take their kingdoms from them.  Phi. 

Apolog. cap. 4. Sect. 22.  It maketh the body above the soul, the temporal regiment above the spiritual, the earthly kingdom above Christ's mystical body. It maketh the sheep above the Pastor; it giveth her power to command them, whom & wherein she is bound to obey. It giveth power to the subject to be judge of the judges, yea & of God himself, as S. Cyprian speaketh. 
Epist. 55.   Theo. 
I am loath to bring you out of love with your own conceits, otherwise I never saw more boldness & less soundness in any man. If we did prefer earthly things before heavenly, you might justly charge us that we set the body above the soul: but between Princes & Priests that comparison is foolish, except you think Priests to be without bodies, & Princes without souls, which were a merry devise.  
The spiritual regiment which Christ hath over the faithful in his Church is infinitely before the temporal regiment of Princes over their subjects. 
The spiritual regiment of the soul is properly Christ's and not the piests.  But if by this you would infer that good Princes may not punish evil Priests, you deface godliness and truth in Princes as temporal, and exact wickedness and error in Priests as spiritual, which is more than absurd.  
As for the right functions of Preachers and Princes, 
The Preachers function excelleth the Princes in perfection & comfort, but not in power to command or means to compel.  if that be the matter you speak of, for you speak so doubtfully that we can gather no certainty what you mean, know you that as in spiritual perfection and consolation the Preacher excelleth the Prince by many decrees, God having appointed Preachers not Princes to be the sowers of his seed, messages of his grace, stewards of his mysteries: so for external power and authority to compel & punish, which is the point that we stand on, God hath preferred the Prince before the Priest, so long as the Prince commandeth that which God alloweth. 
The same god forceth by the Prince's sword that teacheth by the preachers mouth.  And in this case, we make not temporal above spiritual, as you trick it with terms: but avouch that the same God, who teacheth the simple and leadeth the willing by the Preachers mouth; driveth the negligent, and forceth the froward by the Prince's sword, which himself, that is a 
* john. 3.  spirit and 
* Heb. 12. The kingdom is not above the Church though the Prince punish wicked priests.  the father of spirits, hath ordained to that end.  
The mystical body of Christ which is his church, containeth not only Priests & bishops but all the faithful, & in heavenly graces & inward virtues far exceedeth all earthly kingdoms, and yet hath God himself authorised the sword on earth in Princes hands to be keepers of his truth and clensers of his Church, that is with lawful force to remove such as impugn the faith, and with public authority to punish those that defile the Church of God with their shameless manners, be they Priests or People; and this doth not place earthly kingdoms above the Church, but prepare them as aids and defences for the Church, which is the right end of all earthly States, & was the first cause why God erected them.  
Though the sheep may not rule their shepherds, 
The true shepherd is only Christ● the rest are his servants and not the owners of the sheep.  yet give them leave to discern strangers and fly from thieves and murderers, and give the great and 
* 1. Pet. 5.  Archpastor that is in heaven leave to guard his flock not only with watchmen but also with armed men, that if the greediness and hardiness of the wolves be such that they fear not the clamours of Preachers, at least they may shrink for the terrors of Princes. And this is no such absurdity as you make it, 

Princes in their vocation be shepherds and bear the staff to compel where the voice will not serve.  
1. Chron. 11. Psal. 78.   that Princes should serve the true shepherd, Christ jesus, by turning their swords against those raveners and spoilers which under the colour & show of feeding would kill the fattest, and gorge themselves with the fairest of Christ's flock: Yea Princes in their sort be shepherds as well as Bishops; in that they bear the sword under God, to compel and punish such as the gentle persuasion of the Preacher can not move; and for that cause God said to David, Thou shalt feed my people Israel: and David maketh this report of himself, So he fed them according to the simplicity of his hart, and guided them by the discretion of his hands.  


The Prince is bound to obey the preachers word, if he speak truth and so is the Preacher bound to obey the Prince's Laws, if they be good.  
1. Thes. 4.   As Princes are bound to hear preachers directing them unto truth because the words of God are in their mouths, and he that despiseth those things despiseth not man but God: so likewise are Preachers bound to obey Princes commanding for truth, & who so neglecteth (that commandment of theirs) shall have no part with God, for not doing that which truth by the kings hart commanded him. And the Prince's obedience to be due not to Preachers persons or pleasures, but their message delivered them by God the Lord & Ruler of all Princes, appeareth by this, that Princes may lawfully punish the preachers if they falsify the word of truth, or shame their calling with their disordered living.  


Aug. Epist 166.  
Princes be no judges of Religion.   That Princes be judges of Religion we never said it nor thought it, much less that they be judges of God himself; this argueth rather your impudency in reporting than our ignorance in not affirming it. God's name be blessed we know what difference there is and aught to be between God and man as well as you: but such is the badness of your cause, and blindness of your hearts, that you must and will rather childishly quarrel and wittingly bely the truth, than come to a fair and even trial.  


S. Cyprians words alleged without his meaning.  
Cypr. lib. 1. Ep. 3   S. Cyprian hath some such words, but no such meaning as you allege. He saith when a Bishop is orderly chosen in any Church, he that After the divine (allowance or) judgement, after the suffrages of the people, after the consent (and liking) of other Bishops, erecteth a second in the same Church against him, maketh himself now the controller and judge not of the Bishop, but of God, which we believe to be very true; but how doth this prove that Christian magistrates may not displace wicked and unworthy Bishops for their jousts deserts, which is our question?  
And as Cyprian in his sense is not against us, so Cyprian in our case is clear against you. 

Cyprian allowed the people to reject their Bishop, if he were unworthy.  
Lib. 1. Epist. 4.   For when as yet there were no Princes Christened, that with public authority might remove ungodly Bishops, Cyprian assureth us that the people might lawfully sever themselves from a wicked Bishop and elect an other. His words be these: Therefore the (flock or) people obeying the lords precepts, and fearing God, aught to separate themselves from a sinful Bishop, and not to participate with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest, whereas they chief have power to choose worthy Bishops, and to reject unworthy, persuading and encouraging the people to go forward in that their attempt, notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome took stitch with the party deposed, and wrote letters for his restitution; of the which Cyprian maketh no great account, as you may see by his words that follow. 

Cypr. lib. 1. ep. 4. Though the Bishop of Rome took his part.  
Apolog. cap. 4. Sect. 22.  
The Prince not free from Christ's Precepts.  
Prince's must hear the word and receive the Sacraments in such sort as God hath appointed.  
The Preacher is prescribed how he shall minister the Sacraments, not how he shall depose Princes.  
We deny this argument.   Neither is (the Bishop of Rome) so much to be blamed that was deceived through negligence, as this man to be detested that fraudulently deceived him. And though Basilides could cirumvent men, yet can he not beguile God.  Phi. 
It maketh her free from Ecclesiastical discipline, from which no true child of God's family is exempted.  Theo. 
It maketh her free from the Pope's Bulls and decretals, but not from the Laws and Precepts of Christ, which is the true discipline of God's children. Touching the regiment of their own persons and lives Princes own the very same reverence and obedience to the word and Sacraments that every private man doth: and if any Prince would be baptized, or approach to the Lords table with manifest show of unbelief or irrepentance, the minister is bound freely to speak, and rather to lay down his life at the Prince's feet, than to let the king of Kings be provoked, the mysteries defiled, his own soul and the Princes endangered, for lack of often and earnest admonition.  Phi. 
I am glad you grant that Princes may be excommunicated: for that proveth Priests to be their superiors and overthroweth quite their supremacy.  Theo. 
You reason very profoundly. The servants of God may not receive any mortal man to the divine mysteries except he bring with him a right faith in God & an inward sorrow for his former sins, ergo the Pope may depose Princes, & set their subjects in open field against them to thrust them from their thrones.  Phi. 
We reason not so, but we say, Priests may excommunicate Princes, ergo they be superiors to Princes.  Theo. 
I speak of not admitting Princes to the Sacraments, but with those conditions that God requireth of all Christian men without respect of States or persons, and you by and by leap to excommunication, 
Excommunication made a wrist to lift Princes out of their seats.  which word you eagerly seize on, not for any meaning you have to guide Princes right lest they provoke the wrath of God to their everlasting destruction by the contempt of his graces, but for a cunning to defeat them of their crowns by your indirect and ungodly devices. For first you will excommunicate them; that is you will have no communion with them in any thing spiritual or temporal; next you descend from not communicating with them, to not obeying them; & lastly from not obeying, to open rebelling against them, & placing others in their steeds. And thus when Princes displease you, you never leave them till with this wreath of excommunication, you wring their Sceptres out of their hands. But if you look better about you, you shall find great difference between not delivering them the sacred mysteries of God except they repent and believe the Gospel, and your devilish conspiracy to deny them all obedience, & with armed violence to take their swords from them: but thereof more hereafter.  
In the mean time your argument is very foolish: Priests must not deliver the Sacraments but on such conditions as God hath limited, ergo Priests be superior to Princes. You might have concluded, ergo God is superior to them both, in that he prescribeth how the one shall deliver & the other take the Seals of his grace: but for the Priest no such illation can be made. For were you Porter in any Prince's palace, and commanded that no man Noble nor other should enter the Court with weapon, would you thence conclude yourself superior to all the Nobles and counsellors of the Land, 
The servant must not think himself superior to all that his master may command.  because you might not suffer them to come within the gates, except they first lay their swords aside; or would you rather excuse yourself, that the Prince's precept being straight and you a servant, you could not choose but do your duty, and put them in mind of your Lord and master's pleasure.  Phi. 
Our case is not like.  The. 
You say truth. You have not so much reason to make Priests superior to Princes, as this Officer hath to prefer himself before all other persons. Princes have sovereign power over the goods, lives & bodies of Priests, Nobles have not over the meanest attendant in the Prince's Court: Princes must be obeyed or endured with meekness and reverence offer they never so hard dealing to their Preachers and Pastors: 
In vain seek they reasons to make the Priest superior to the Prince, whom God himself hath made subject to the Prince.  That submission no man oweth to any subject be he never so Noble. And therefore every servant in the Prince's house, hath better cause to advance himself before all the Nobles of the Realm, than you have to set the Priest above the Prince whom God himself hath pronounced superior to the Priests, and to whom he will have every soul, be they Monks, Priests, or Bishops, to be subject with all submission & duty: Much less is this a warrant for you to depose Princes, and to pursue them with arms against the precepts of God, against the general and continual obedience and order of Christ's Church, as you shall perceive in place where: for this present go on with your absurd lies, I should have said absurdities.  Phi. 
It derogateth from Christ's Priesthood which both in his own person, and in the Church is above his kingly dignity. 
Apol. cap. 4. Sect. 23.   Theo. 
Call you this a derogation from Christ's Priesthood, 
They harp on Christ's priesthood, as if they were Christ's own fellows in his priestly dignity.  if the Pope may not tread Princes under his feet? Your Seminaries must needs be famous that coin us such conclusions.  Phi. 
Never mock at our Seminaries, you shall find them too well furnished for your store.  Theo. 
So we think, your learning is so strange, it passeth our intelligence. We fools conceive not how these things hang together.  
For first what mean you by this; The Priesthood of Christ in his own person, is above his kingly dignity? 
Christ hath no higher title than the king of glory, and Prince of the world to come  He is king of glory in that he is the son of God; can you name any thing in Christ that is above his divine dignity? Your doctrine is very curious if it be not dangerous. The glory of the son of God, as he is owner and ruler of all things in heaven and earth, hath no title nor name above it. As a Priest he purged our sins in humility: as a king he now doth and ever shall reign in the highest degree of celestial and everlasting glory. His Priesthood washed our uncleanness in this life. His kingdom placeth and preserveth men and Angels in perfect and eternal bliss.  
If you speak this in respect of us, that the Priesthood of Christ which washeth our sins, and saveth us from the wrath to come; is more comfortable and acceptable to our weak consciences, by reason of our guiltiness and daily transgressions, than the power wherewith he subdueth his enemies, besides the strangeness of your speech that his Priesthood should be above his kingly dignity in his own person: note the looseness of your argument. The Priesthood of Christ in favour and mercy to us ward is above his power, ergo the Prince must be subject to the Pope. May not we much rather conclude; Christ compelleth & punisheth as a king, not as a Priest, ergo power to command & punish belongeth to the kingdom & not to the Priesthood, that is to the Magistrate, not to the minister.  Phi. 
It divideth (which is a matter of much importance) the state of the Catholic Church and the holy communion or society of all Christian men in the same, 
Apolog. cap. 4. Sect. 23.  into as many parts not communicant one with an other nor holding one of an other, as there be worldly kingdoms differing by Customs, Laws & manners, each from other: which is of much pernicious sequel, and against the very native quality of the most perfect conjunction, society, unity and intercourse of the whole Church & every Province and Person thereof together.  Theo. 
It is a most pernicious fancy to think the communion of Christ's Church dependeth upon the Pope's person or regiment, 
The communion of Saints consisteth not in obedience to the Pope.  and that diverse nations and countries differing by customs, laws & manners (so they hold one & the same rule of faith in the band of peace) can not be parts of the Catholic Church communicant one with an other, & perfectly united in spirit and truth each to other: And fie on your follies that rack your Creed & rob Christ of his honour and the Church of all her comfort and security whiles you make the unity and society of Christ's members to consist in obedience to the Bishop of Rome and not in coherence with the son of God.  
The communion of saints, and near dependence of the Godly each of other and all of their head standeth not of external rites, 
Nor in external rites and ceremonies.  customs and manners, as you would fashion out a Church observing the Pope's Canons and deserving his pardons as his devote and zealous children: but in believing the same truth, 
The true communion of the church.  tasting of the same grace, resting on the same hope, calling on the same God, rejoicing in the same spirit, whereby they be sealed, sanctified and preserved against the day of redemption. And why may not Christians in all kingdoms & countries have this communion and fellowship though they lack your holy father's beads, 
The communion of the Church not dissolved by the variety of rites.  blessings and such like babbles?  
To what end you allege S. Augustine in that place which you quote, we cannot so much as conjecture; you must speak plainly what you would have, we be not bound to make search for your meaning. As for the communion of the Catholic Church, it is not broken by the variety and diversity of rites, customs, Laws and fashions, which many places and Countries have different each from others, except they be repugnant to faith or good manners, as S. Augustine largely debateth in his epistle to januarius; 
Epist. 118.  and Irineus, when the bishop of Rome would have cut the East Churches from the communion of the West, for observing Easter after an other manner & order than their brethren did, sharply reproved him and showed him, that Polycarpus and Anicetus dissenting in the same case Communionem inter se habuerunt, were, this notwithstanding, joined in communion; 
Euseb. lib. 5. c●. 26.  & pacem in universa Ecclesia tum servants tum non servants retinuerunt, 
Ibidem.  and both sides kept the band of peace in the Catholic Church.  
For the discrepant observation of fasting before Easter he saith the like: 
Euseb. lib. 5. ca 23.  Alij unum sibi diem ieiunandum esse putant, alij duos, alij plures, alij quadraginta horas. Nihilo minus tamen omnes illi pacem inter se retinuerunt & retinemus etiamnum, & dissonantia ieiunij fidei concordiam commendat. Some fast one day, some two days, some more, some forty hours: and yet all these continued in peace among themselves, and to this day we continue the same, and our difference in fas●●●g commendeth our concord in faith.  

The Church from the beginning had diversity of rites.  Socrates hath a whole chapter purposely made to show what diversity there was in the Church of Christ about Lent, the lords Supper, marrying, baptizing, praying, fasting and such like Ecclesiastical observances, and yet all those places and countries parts of the catholic Church and communicant one with an other in Christian peace and unity. 
Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22.  Operosum & molestum fuerit imò impossibile, omnes ecclesiarum quae per civitates & regiones sunt ritus conscribere. It were an hard and laborious thing, saith he, yea an impossible, to write all (the different customs and) manners of the Churches in every city and country. Qui eiusdem sunt fidei de ritibus inter se dissentiunt. 
Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22.  They that are of the same faith, differ in their rites. So that this is no breach of the Christian and Catholic communion which all the faithful aught to keep among themselves & with their head, the author and finisher of their faith. 
Heb. 12.   Phi. 

Apolog. cap. 4. Sect. 23.  It openeth the gap to all kind of divisions, schisms, sects and disorders.  Theo. 
Why so? Because your holy father can not merchandise the souls & empt the purses of men as he was wont to do? What Sects, Schisms, disorders or heresies can there arise if we defend it lawful for Princes to command for truth within their own Realms? Nay rather hath not the subjecting of Princes to the Pope's pride wrought the utter ruin and decay of the West Church? 
The Pope's pride first decayed the West Churches.  Where Rulers be many it is easy to find some good, and they will resist that which is evil, and reform that which is amiss: where one ruleth all, if he fall as he quickly may, he draweth the whole Church into the same danger and error with him.  Phi. 
But the successor of Peter can not err, and therefore the Church is safest when it is ruled by him, for whose faith Christ prayed that it might not fail.  Theo. 
Prove that the Pope can not err, and we will grant not only this but all your religion besides to be true.  Phi. 
What, you will not?  Theo. 
The word is spoken, accept the condition when you list. Till you do we prefer Cyprians judgement before yours: 

Cyprian. lib. 3. Epist. 13.  
A number of watchmen in the Church better than one.   Therefore dear brother, saith he writing to Stephanus Bishop of Rome, is there a plentiful number of Priests (in the church) joined together with the knot of mutual concord and band of peace, that if any of our company make a breach, and rend and waste the the flock of Christ, the rest should help, and as profitable and pitiful Pastors reduce the lords sheep to the flock again. The number of Rulers in his opinion is no cause of sects and dissensions, but rather a remedy provided in the Church against disorder and heresy.  Phi. 
It maketh all Christian Bishops, 
Apol. chap. 4. sect. 24.  Priests and whatsoever borne out of the Realm foreigners and usurpers in all jurisdiction Ecclesiastical towards us, & that there can be no jurisdiction over English-mens souls, but proceeding and depending of her sovereign right therein.  Theo. 
Your force is almost spent, when you come to these frozen and wooden objections. We call those that were borne and live out of the Realm foreigners. What else should we call them? And such as pretend Peter's keys to dispose crowns and remove Princes from their seats, joining rebellion with remission of sins, we think them usurpers and abusers of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 
Usurpers and foreigners.  A marvelous oversight in deed. We might have spared you some sharper and quicker terms; but by these we thought good to manifest to the world, your injurious and irreligious drift to be masters of earthly kingdoms, by winding and turning Peter's keys at your pleasure.  Phi. 
Your words exclude Christ & his Apostles, (in as much as they were and be foreigners) from having any jurisdiction over England.  Theo. 
It is pity you can not cavil. 
The jesuits cavil at the word foreigner.  We strive for judicial authority to deprive Princes, you urge us with apostolic power to preach the Gospel and remit sins: We speak of that which is at this present, you tell us what was fifteen hundred years since: We reason of States in earth, you run to Saints in heaven: We reject the Bishop of Rome, you wrangle with us as though we refused the son of God. Doth not matter fail you, when you fly for help to such unsavoury toys?  Phi. 
Your oath is so absurdly conceived, that though you meant not to exclude Christ and his Apostles, yet in words you do. For if No foreign person, Prelate, State, nor Potentate hath nor aught to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this Realm of England, surely neither Christ nor his Apostles (because they were & be foreigners) have or aught to have any.  Theo. 
Not our speaking, but your wresting and wrenching of our words is far fet & most absurd. For first where you avouch Christ himself to be a foreigner whom we acknowledge to be the right inheritor & owner of the whole world, yea the mighty Lord & king of heaven & earth; 
God is no foreigner to men.  in gibing at us, you jest on his birth; as if Christ were a foreigner to the Gentiles because he took flesh among the jews. And though you might have tak●n some advantage at his cradle, yet you should have remembered, that the Creator is no foreigner to the work of his hands, as likewise the head is not to the members, nor God incarnate to the sons of men.  

Souls in heaven be no foreigners.  As for his Apostles in deed whiles they lived on earth, they were foreigners: but that their spirits now present with God & reigning in bliss with Christ, be foreigners, is a mad speech of yours, no meaning of ours. You must send us word from Rheims how souls can be French, Spanish, Scottish, or English: These with us be distinctions of countries not of souls, & after death till your new doctrine came we took them to cease: With a little help I think you will make us some men souls and some women souls, you be so skilful in these conceits.  

Souls in heaven exercise no jurisdiction ecclesiastical nor spiritual on earth.  Again, might the souls in heaven be called or counted foreigners, you must tell us what ecclesiastical power & authority they now exercise on earth. We do not affirm that foreigners never had any such power in England, the Apostles had their commission from Christ to teach and baptise all nations without exception, but we say none hath at this present, nor aught to have any such power within the Realm: and unless you will defend that souls in heaven do now preach the Gospel and minister the Sacraments, we see not how the Apostles have any actual function or ecclesiastical power on earth, here or elsewhere.  
These quarrels full of spite and void of all truth and common reason, do more than you think, impair the credit of your religion and learning: but so great is your malice that it shutteth your senses & kindleth your choler whiles you would say somewhat, to say you care not what, be it never so untrue or untidy.  Phi. 

Apol. Cap. 4. sect. 24.  The Prince's sovereignty is directly against the commandment & commission given to Peter first, & then to all the Apostles, of preaching, baptising, remitting, retaining, binding, losing over all the world without difference of temporal state, or dependence of any mortal Prince therein.  Theo. 
That commandment & promise of our Saviour to his Apostles is no way prejudicial to our doctrine, nor beneficial to yours, as also the charge which the preachers & bishops of England have over their flocks proceedeth neither from Prince nor Pope, nor dependeth upon the will or word of any earthly creature: & therefore you do us the more wrong, so confidently to say what you list of us, as if your envious reports were authentik oracles.  Phi. 

Princes bear the sword in these causes to see that permitted and defended in their realms which Christ commanded.  You make the Prince supreme governor in all spiritual & ecclesiastical things & causes; preaching, baptising, binding, losing, & such like be spiritual things & causes, ergo you make the Prince's supreme governor even in these things. And here you may see that we justly charge you with all the former absurdities, though to shift them & us off, you say we do nothing but slander & cavil.  Theo. 
And here you may see the truth of our speech & uniustnes of your charge, & that as you began, so you continued with spite full perverting & depraving our words. For by GOVERNORS we do not mean moderators, perscribers, directors, inventors, or authors of these things, as you misconstrue us, but rulers & magistrates bearing the sword to permit & defend that which Christ himself first appointed & ordained, & with lawful force to disturb the despisers of his will & testament. Now what inconvenience is this if we say that Princes as public Magistrates may give freedom, 

None but Princes can give freedom and protection to these spiritual functions and actions.  
Apolog. Cap. 4. Sect. 25.   protection and assistance to the preaching of the word, ministering of the Sacraments, & right using of the keys, & not fet licence from Rome? Is that against Christ's commandment or commission given to Peter & the rest? or doth that prove all ecclesiastical power & cure of souls to proceed & depend of the Princes right?  Phi. 
It keepeth the realm from obedience to general Counsels which have been or shall be gathered in foreign countries: It taketh away all convenient means of gathering, holding or executing any such Counsels & their Decrees, as appeared by refusing to come to the late Council of Trent, notwithstanding the Pope's messengers and letters of other great Princes, which requested and invited them to the same.  Theo. 
Prince's ought to hear & obey the truth proposed by private persons & Preachers, 

General counsels were wont to be assistants unto Princes, not tribunals above princes  
A general council must have the consent of all christian countries.   much more to reverence the same declared by a number of faithful & godly Bishops meeting in a general council: But the pleasures & orders of other princes & prelates, be their assembly never so great, the rulers of this realm are not bound to respect unless their consents be first required and obtained.  
Particular counsels you may call without us, and as we are not acquainted with them, so are we not obstricted to them: General Counsels you can not call, without the liking and warning of all Christian Princes and commonwealths; and if you neglect or skip any, they may lawfully refuse and despise that which you shall then and there decree: For that which pertaineth to all can not be good, without the knowledge and consents of all.  Phi. 
To the Council of Trent you were requested and invited by messengers from the Pope, 
The late council of Trent a mere faction of the Popes, sworn to take his part and content to refer all things to his power.  and letters of other great Princes.  Theo. 
To your Chapter at Trent we came not for many good and sufficient reasons. The Pope took upon him to call that Council which he had no right to do: None might have voices in the Council, but such as were his creatures and sworn to be true & trusty to his triple crown: The conclusion and resolution of all things was ever reserved to him or his Legates: This Realm and others were invited to come but as suppliants to your Synod, & to stand at your courtesies, and to suffer yourselves to be judges in your own cause, and yet you think much that we refused to come. Let a christian council be agreed on by all their consents that have to do with it, let both sides have like interest in the council: 

Concil. Triden. Sess. 25. decres. de reformatione cap. 21.  
Item. Sess. 7.   Let your salva semper in omnibus Apostolicae sedis authoritate, Forprising in all things the Pope's power and pleasure be rejected, and the Scriptures inspired from God be laid in the midst as the balance and touchstone of truth, which was the wont of former counsels. Let both parts be sworn to respect nothing, but in the fear of God to examine the faith, & seek out the ancient canons of Christ's church, & if we fail to meet you, declaim against us on God's name, as hinderers of peace & despisers of general counsels: Otherwise no duty bindeth us to resort, much less to be subject to your unlawful routs, void of all christian authority, liberty, truth & indifferency.  Phi. 
Was the Council of Trent unlawfully called?  Theo. 
Prove it the Pope's right to call general Counsels; & that none must sit there but his feed & sworn men; & lastly that he must rule & reign as he doth in all assemblies, & be judge against all law & reason in his own cause, though he be chief in resisting the truth & oppressing the church, & then will we grant your conventicle at Trent was orderly called: 
Such wrongs were never offered in the Council of ancient times.  But if these things be repugnant to christian equity & the sincere canons of God's Church, whereby the Catholic Counsels of former ages were directed, as apparently they be, than had your Tridentine chapter neither the calling, keeping, concluding, nor meaning of a general Council.  Phi. 
Who should call Counsels, if not the Pope?  Theo. 

The Prince for 1200. years called general Counsels, and not the Pope.  Show what one general Council the Pope called, for the space of twelve hundred years after Christ, and then ask us who should call them but he; if you can not, learn that usurpation is no right and that general Counsels were called by Princes and not by Popes, and therefore the Pope's power to summon general Counsels, if it be any, grew very lately and is not yet old enough to be currant or Catholic.  Phi. 

The poor Friars were 18 years disputing, whether the Pope and his Cardinals were conspiring against the godly.  To the Council of Trent other Princes consented.  Theo. 
Certain Friars were set there to waste day light & weary the walls with declaiming against the Gospel of Christ whiles your holy father and his Cardinals were eighteen years provoking & working the Princes & States adherent to them, to spill christian blood & to make havoc of all places & persons that were not ●●●dient to the Bishop of Rome; & yet you count it some great absurdity for us to reject this Council as not general.  Phi. 

Apolog. cap. 4. Sect. 25.  You acknowledge no subjection to Counsels or Tribunals abroad, all other Bishops, patriarchs, Apostles, Christ & all (because they were & be foreigners) not having jurisdiction or sufficient authority to define against English Sectaries or Errors. And this, when a Realm or Prince is in error, taketh away all means of reducing them to the truth again.  Theo. 
To Christ & his Apostles we acknowledge more subjection than you do. 
We yield more subjection to Christ & his Apostles than they do.  We honour & adore him as the true son of God equal with his father in authority & majesty. We make him no foreigner to this Realm as you do, but profess him to be the only master, redeemer, & ruler of his church as well in this as in all other Nations: To whom Princes & Preachers are but servants; the preachers to propose, the Princes to execute his will & commandments: & whom all that will be saved must believe & obey above & against all Counsels & Tribunals, 
The Apostles we reverence & obey as the messengers of Christ.  be they regal or papal, if they descent from his word.  
The preachings & writings of the Apostles we receive with greater reverence & exacter obedience, than you do. We give no man leave to dispense against them which your law witnesseth of the Pope. 

Distinct. 34. ¶ Lector. & cause 15. q. 6. ¶. autoritate in gloss. Pig. Hierar. lib. 1. cap. 2.  
1. Thes. 2.  
1. Thes. 2.  
R●m. 1.   Papa contra Apostolum dispensat, The Pope dispenseth against the Apostle: We never said as Pigghius saith, The Apostles wrote certain things, not that their writings should be above our faith and religion, but rather under. We confess, The Apostles were men allowed of God, to whom the Gospel should be committed, & therefore we receive the word from them, not as the word of man, but, as it is in deed, the word of God, assuring ourselves, it is the power of God to save all that believe, & detesting your erroneous and heinous presumptions, that take upon you to add, altar, diminish, and dispense with that which the spirit of Christ spoke as well by the pens as mouths of the Apostles.  
To Counsels, 

We own communion not subjection unto Counsels.  
revelat. 22.   such as the Church of Christ was wont by the help of her religious Princes to call, we own communion and brotherly concord so long as they make no breach in faith, nor in christian charity: subjection and servitude we own them none: the blessed Angels profess themselves to be fellow servants with the Saints on earth, what are you then that with your Tribunals and jurisdictions would be Lords and Rulers over Christ's inheritance?  
Peter, saith Cyprian, 

Cypr. ad Quirinum.  
Peter claimed no subjection to his tribunal.   whom the Lord made first choice of & on whom he built his church, when Paul after strove (with him) for Circumcision did not take upon him, nor challenge any thing insolently or arrogantly, nor advance himself as Primate and one to whom the novices and punies should be subject. And as it were in open defiance of your Tribunals and jurisdictions which Stephen the Bishop of Rome began then to exercise, he directeth the Bishops assembled in a Council at Carthage on this wise: It resteth that of this matter we speak every one of us what we think, 
In sententijs Concilij Cartha.  judging no man nor removing any man from the communion, though he be not of our mind. For none of us maketh himself Bishop of Bishops, 
The Pope's counsels are tyrannical.  or by terror like a tyrant, forceth his colleagues to yield him obedience whether they will or no, considering every Bishop by reason of his (Episcopal) power and freedom, hath the rule of his own judgement as one that can not be judged of an other, nor he himself judge an other but let us all expect the (tribunal or) judgement of our Lord jesus Christ, which only & solely hath power to set us in the government of his Church and to judge of our acts.  
And because you be so earnest with us for subjection to Tribunals abroad to be plain with you it is boys play, before you name them, or prove that we own them any subjection, to score it up as an absurdity that we acknowledge none unto them; 

Many before us have refused foreign tribunal.  
Cypr. in sententijs Concil. Car.   and yet lest you should think us the first that refused Tribunals abroad, you shall see that ancient and worthy fathers have done the like before us.  
What Tribunals abroad did Cyprian and the 80. Bishops at Carthage with him acknowledge, when he said as you heard? Christus unus & solus habet potestatem de actu nostro judicandi, Christ only and none else hath authority to judge of our act. And again, 
Ibidem.  Episcopus ab al●o judicari non potest, cum non ipse nec alterum judicare: A Bishop may not be judged of others, nor judge others. 
Ibidem.  Expectemus universi judicium Christi; Let us all (both abroad and at home) expect the judgement of Christ.  
What Tribunals abroad did Polycrates and the Bishops of Asia with him acknowledge when he replied to the Bishop of Rome, 
Polycrates.  threatening to excommunicate him and the rest? Non turbaborijs, quae terrendi gratia obijciuntur, I pass not for these threats that are offered to terrify me. 

Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 25.  
Augustine.  
Concil. African. cap. 29.  
Concil. African. cap. 105.    
What Tribunals abroad did S. Aug. & the 216. African Bishops acknowledge when they decreed that none Appealing over the Sea (to Tribunals abroad) should be received to the communion within Africa? And when they repelled the Bishop of Rome, labouring to place his Legates a latere within their Province & willed him n●t to bring Fumosum seculi Typhum, That smoky pride of the world into the Church of Christ?  

The Britons. Ga●frid. Monemutens. lib. 8. ca 4.  What Tribunals abroad did the Bishop of the Britons acknowledge, when they proved to August. the Monk that was sent from Rome, that they ought him no subjection.  


Lib. 7. indict. 1. Epist. 30.  
This Bishop of Rome claimed no Tribunal over other country's   Nay what Tribunal abroad did Greg. the Bishop of Rome challenge, when he wrote thus to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria: Vestra beatitudo mihi loquitur dicens, sicut iussistis, quod verbum iussionis peto à meo auditu removete: quia scio quis sum, qui estis. Loco enim mihi fratres estis, moribus patres. Non ergo iussi, sed quae utilia visa sunt judicare curau●. Your blessedness (in your letters) saith to me as you commanded, which word of commanding I beseech you remove from mine ears, because I know who I am, & what you are. In calling you are brethren to me; in behaviour fathers. I did not then command you but advertise you what seemed best to me. 
Greg. Lib. 4. Epist. 38.  The same Greg. teacheth you what it is for any one man to require universal subjection of the whole church, as your holy father now doth. If Paul, saith he, would not have the members of the Lords body to be subject to any heads but to Christ, 
No Tribunal over the whole church, but only Christ.  no not to the Apostles themselves; what wilt thou answer to Christ the head of the universal church in the last day of judgement which goest about to have all his members in subjection to thee by the title of universal? Whom dost thou imitate in so perverse a name, but (Lucifer) that despising▪ legions of Angels his fellows, would needs aspire to be singular and alone to be over all?  
To let one man have all the members of Christ in subjection under him, is not the mean to reduce Princes and their people to truth, as you falsely suppose, but the high way to wrap them and the whole church in blindness and error. 
Gregor. lib. 6. Epist. 24.  Ecclesia universa corruit, si unus universus cadit; If he that is universal fall, the whole church falleth with him.  

The Pope's Tribunal made him first forget both God & man.  Yea this very subjection of all kingdoms and countries to the Pope's beck, made him first forget his duty to God and man, whiles his clawback's advanced him to the height of heaven, and gave him all power both in heaven and earth, and so quailed & disabled all others that they neither might reprove nor durst resist his wicked and wilful fancies were they never so pernicious to the faith or opprobrious to the church. For you made it Sacrilege to dispute of his fact, 
A Tribunal fit for the devil himself.  Heresy to doubt of his power, Paganism to disobey him, Blasphemy against the holy Ghost to do or speak against his decrees and canons; and that which is most horrible, you made it Presumption not to go to the devil after him without any grudging. O shameful & sinful subjection, such as Lucifer himself never offered the bondslaves of hell!  Phi. 
Nay rather, O shameful and sinful report: 
Distict. 40. ¶ Non nos glos. ibidem ¶ quis enim. Caus. 17. quaest. 4. ¶ Si quis.  doth he require any such subjection?  Theo. 
If your law do not avouch as much as I report, let me bear the shame. Sacrilegij instar esset, disputare de facto (Papae) It were no less than sacrilege to dispute of the Pope's fact. And the Capital Register of your decrees, Commit tunt sacrilegium, qui contra divinae legis sanctitatem, aut nesciendo committunt, 

Sacrilege to doubt of the Pope's fact, or dispute of his judgement.  
Distinct. 19 ¶ Sic omnes.   aut negligendo offendunt. Similiter de judicio summi Pontificis alicus disputare non licet. They commit sacrilege which of ignorance transgress, or of negligence break the Law of God. Under the like pain (of sacrilege) it is unlawful for any man to dispute of the Pope's judgement. For all the sanctions of the apostolic See (of Rome) are to be received as confirmed with the divine voice of Peter himself.  
He, 

Distinct. 22. ¶ Omnes.  
Heresy to mutter against the Pope's pride.   saith Pope Nicolaus, that defraudeth any church of her right doth unjustly, but he that endeavoureth to take from the church of Rome her privilege, hic procul dubio in haeresin labitur & est dicendus haereticus, he out of all doubt slideth into heresy and is to be counted an heretic. Upon the warrant of this and such like texts your Glozer as it were falling on his knees and holding up his hands to that Idol exalting himself in the Temple of God, pronounceth distinctly and leasurably: 

Extrau. johan, 22. ¶ cum inter nonnullos; glos. ibide●. ¶ declaramus.  
Extra. johan. 22 ¶ quia quondam. glos. ¶ non ut Papa.  
Extrau. communium, de maioritate & obedient. ¶. unam sanctam.   Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeretur: To think that our Lord God the Pope could not decree as he hath decreed, must be counted heretical. For as Pope he might do many things, & not only declare, but also bring in a new article of faith.  
Bonifacius the eight would needs have it to be Manicheisme, and that he found by the first book of Moses: Whosoever, saith he, resisteth (the Popes) power resisteth the ordinance of God, unless with Manicheus he dream of more beginnings (than one) which we adjudge to be false and heretical, because, as Moses saith in the beginning God made heaven and earth, not in the beginnings. Therefore we declare, affirm, define, pronounce, that it is a necessary point to salvation, for every human creature to be subject to the Bishop of Rome. Gregory the seventh produceth Samuel to prove that it is idolatry and infidelity to disobey the Pope. 

Manicheisme and Paganism not to obey the Pope's word.  
Distinct. 81. ¶ Si qui sunt.  
What said Samuel more of God, than the Pope here apply to himself?  
Caus. 25. quaest. 1. ¶. violateres. Ibidem glos. ¶ Blasphe●a●e.   He that will not obey this most wholesome precept of ours (forbidding Priests their wives under the colour of fornication.) incurreth the sin of Idolatry as Samuel witnesseth; Not to obey is the sin of witchcraft, & not to be content is the wickedness of idolatry. Therefore he falleth into Paganism, whosoever obeyeth not the apostolic See (of Rome.)  
They may be well said to blaspheme the holy Ghost, saith Pope Damasus, which willingly or frowardly do or dare speak against the holy canons. For this presumption is plainly one kind of blasphemy against the holy Ghost. And as though this were too little the gloze addeth Blasphemy, nay ipso facto he is accursed, and an heretic.  Phi. 
You wrist that to the Pope's decrees which was spoken of the canons of counsels.  Theo. 
I wrist it not, the same place will tell you, the word compriseth as well the Pope's decrees as canons of counsels. 

Cans. 25. quaest. 1. ¶ ideo permittente.  
Ibidem.  
No canons but what the Pope maketh or alloweth.  
Ibidem.   Sancta Romana Ecclesiaius & authoritatem sacris Canonibus impertitur, habet enim ius condendi Canon's. The holy Roman church giveth strength and authority to the sacred canons, for she hath right to make canons. And again, Sic summae sedis Pontifices Canonibus sive à se, sive ab alijs sua authoritate conditis reverentiam exhibent: So the Bishops of the supreme See, do reverence the canons which themselves make or others by their authority. And lastly, speaking of the Bishops of Rome, Ipsi soli Canones valent interpretari qui ius condendi eos habent: Popes only may interpret the canons, which have right to make canons.  
Or if you think Popes would not account it blasphemy to break their decrees, read the words of Pope Adrian in the same section. 

Caus. 25. quaest. 1. ¶ generali.  
A breach of the faith to violate the pope's decrees   Generali decreto censemus & constituimus ut execrandum anathema sit, & velut praeuaricator fidei Catholicae semper apud Deum reus existat, quicunque Regum, Episcoporum, vel Potentum deinceps Romanorum Pontificum Decretorum censuram in quoqua crediderit vel permiserit violandam: By a general decree we order and determine that he shallbe execrably accursed and guilty for ever before God, as a transgressor of the catholic faith, whatsoever king, Bishop or Noble man hereafter shall believe the censure of the Pope's decretals may be broken in any thing or shall permit the same. That horrible curse which the Apostle pronouceth, If any man love not the Lord jesus, 
1. Corinth. 16.  this Apostata thundereth on them that do but doubt of his decretals.  
This is bad enough, & yet this is not the worst. For Bonifacius a Martyr as you make him requireth all men to follow the Bishop of Rome to the devil of hell without making any words. 
Distinct. 40. ¶ ●i Papa.  Si Papa suae & fraternae salutis negligens deprehenditur, inutilis & remissus in suis operibus, & insuper à bono taciturnus qui magis officit sibi & omnibus, nihilominus innumerabiles populos cateruatim secum ducit primo mancipio gehennae: huius culpas istic redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus. Your forgeries be as gross as they be wicked, the latin is so good that I can scant english it; yet thus it is, or should be: 
No man must find fault with the Pope for leading men to hell by heaps.  If the Pope be found to neglect the salvation of himself & his brethren, unprofitable & slack in his office, silent in that which is good, hurtful to himself & all others, yea though he lead with him innumerable souls by heaps to the devil of hell, yet let no mortal man presume to find fault with him, or reprove him for his doings.  
This is the subjection which your holy father would have, & which you count us absurd for not acknowledging: But may we not justly say to you as S. August. said to the Donatists? 
Contra 2. Gaudentij Epist. lib. ●. cap. 25.  This which you affirm, that all the world must be subject to one man as to Christ's vicar, Did God or man tell it you? If God, read it unto us out of the law, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Apostolical or evangelical writings. Read it if you can, which (hitherto) you vever could. But if men have said it (or rather no men but yourselves) behold the devise of men, behold what you worship, behold what you serve, behold wherefore you rebel, you rage, you wax mad.  Phi. 
If you will not be subject to the Pope, 
The Pope not Patriarch over England.  as Christ's vicar and head of the Church, which no doubt he is, yet have you no colour to withstand his authority, as he is and ever was Patriarch of the West.  Theo. 
His vicarshippe to Christ and headshippe over the Church be things that you speak much of, but show small proof for: It were good you would either prove them, or not presume them as you do: they be matters of greater weight than that you may carry them away with your fair looks.  
Patriarch of the West we grant he was, which is a foul fall from head of the Church and vicar general to Christ himself, and yet this way you come too short of your reckoning.  
For first, 
patriarchs not erected by Christ but by consent of Bishops.  the title and authority of archbishops and patriarchs was not ordained by the commandment of Christ or his Apostles, but the Bishops long after, when the Church began to be troubled with dissensions, were content to link themselves together, and in every Province to suffer one (whom they preferred for the worthiness of his City and called their Metropolitan, that is Bishop of the chief or mother City) to have this prerogative in all doubts of Doctrine and discipline to assemble the rest of his brethren or consult them absent by letters, and see that observed, which the most part of them determined.  
Before there began schisms in religion the Churches, 
Hiero. in epist. ad Tit. cap. 1. Ibidem.  saith S. Hierom, were governed by the common Council of the Seniors. And therefore Episcopi noverint, se magis consuetudine quam dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse maiores: Let the Bishops understand that they be greater than (ministers or) elders, rather by Custom, than by any truth of the lords appointment, and that they ought to govern the Church in common. And in his Epistle to Euagrius having fully proved by the Scriptures that the Apostles called themselves but Presbyteros, 
Hiero. Euag● tom. epist. 2.  Elders or Seniors, he addeth Quoth autem postea unus electus est qui ceteris praeponereter, in schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christiecclesiā rumperet: That after their times, one was chosen in every Church and preferred before the rest to have the dignity of a Bishop this was provided for a remedy against schisms, 
Ibidem.  lest every man drawing some unto him should rend the Church of Christ in pieces. For what doth a Bishop, except ordering of others, which an Elder may not do?  
And lest you should think he speaketh not as well of the chief as of the meaner Bishops, he compareth three of the greatest patriarchs with three of the poorest Bishops he could name. 
Hierom. Ibidem.  Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubij, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegij, sive Alexandria, siue Tains, eiusdem meriti, eiusdem est & Sacerdotij. Potentia divitiarum & paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit: ceterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt. A Bishop of what place soever he be, either of Rome, or of Eugubium, or of Constantinople, or of Rhegium, or of Alexandria, or of Tains hath the same merit and the same (function or) Priesthood. Abundance of riches or baseness of poverty doth not make a Bishop higher or lower, for they all be successors to the Apostles. So that the Bishop of Rome by commission from Christ and succession from the Apostles is no higher than the meanest Bishop in the world.  

The patriarchs grew by consent and custom. Concil. Nicen. Cap. 6.  The superiority which he and others had as metropolitans in their own Provinces came by custom, as the great Council of Nice witnesseth, not by Christ's institution. Let the old use continue in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria be chief over all those places, for so much as the Bishop of Rome hath the like custom. Likewise at Antioch and in other Provinces, let the Churches keep their prerogatives.  

Concil. Ephes. 1. Decretum postquam Cypr. episc. accessissent ad council.  The general Council of Ephesus confesseth the same. It seemeth good to this sacred and ecumenical Synod to conserve to every province, their right privileges whole and untouched, which they have had of old according to the custom that now long hath prevailed.  

patriarchs always subject to Princes & their ecclesiastical laws.  Next their authority was subject not only to the discretion and moderation of their brethren assembled in Council, but also to the laws & Edicts of Christian Princes, to be granted, extended, limited and ordered as they saw cause.  
For example the first Council of Constantinople advanced the Bishop of that City to be the next Patriarch to the Bishop of Rome, which before he was not. And the Council of Chalcedon made him equal in ecclesiastical honours with the Bishop of Rome, 
Concil. Chalced. actio. 16.  and assigned him a larger Province than before he had.  
So justinian gave to the City in Africa that he called after his own name, the See of an Archbishop. 

Novel. constit. 131.  
Princes gave Bishops their prerogatives over others.   Archiepiscopale munus, quod Episcopo justinianeae Carthaginis Africanae Dioeceseos dedimus, conseruari jubemus. Sed & aliae civitates atque horum Episcopi, quibus passim in diversis locis ius Metropoliticum concessum est, in perpetuum hoc privilegio perfruuntor. The Archiepiscopal dignity which we gave to the Bishop of justinianea within the Province of Africa, we command to continue still. And likewise let other Cities and their Bishops to whom in divers places and Countries the right of metropolitans hath been granted, enjoy that privilege for ever.  

Constit. 123. The Prince commanded the patriarchs by name.  The same Prince as you heard before commanded the Archbishops and patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Theopolis and jerusalem, and generally subiecteth them in ecclesiastical causes and judgements to the sacred Canons and his (Imperial) Laws, as appeareth expressly in his public Edicts made to that end.  

This Realm not in the Pope's ancient Province. Inter August. epist. 95. Ibidem epist. 96.  Thirdly by the right and ancient division of provinces this Realm was not under the Bishop of Rome. For when the Bishops of Africa prayed Innocentius either to send for Pelagius the Britan or to deal with him by letters to show the meaning of his lewd speeches tending to the derogation of God's grace, the Bishop of Rome made answer; Quando se nostro judicio, quibusuis acceptis literis, cum sciat damnandum esse, committet? Qui si accersendus esset, ab ijs melius fieret quimagis proximi & non longo terrarum spacio videntur esse ds●iuncti. When will he commit himself to our judgement, writ I what letters I will, whereas he knoweth he shallbe condemned? And if he were to be sent for, they may better do it that are nearer (to him) and not so far distant (from him as I am.) Innocentius 400. years after Christ confesseth he had not sufficient authority to call one poor Briton out of this Realm. And two hundred years after that the Bishops of Britanny would yield no subjection to him that was sent from Rome, nor accept him for their Archbishop. 
Beda. hist. gentis Angler. lib. 2. C●. 2.  And even their manner of baptizing, observing Easter, and other ecclesiastical institutions contrary to the rites and customs of the Church of Rome, as Augustine the Monk then objected unto them, make manifest proof that they were never under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.  
Fourthly the Pope coveting and affecting to be that he was not, 
The Pope affecting to be Christ's vicar neglected his Patria●kdom.  disdained and refused ever since the conquest to be that he was: and so by his own fact hath extinguished his own right, if any he gate in the time of the Saxons, who to settle themselves in the possession of this Realm, after the chase out of the Britons, were soon entreated to receive the Bishop of Rome for their Patriarch. And seeing the headshippe of the Church, which he violently and wrongfully enforced upon the Normans, by God's Law is not his, no reason he should now claim by his Patriarkshippe, which himself aspiring to higher titles so many hundred years disused and contemned.  
Lastly the Kings of England for the most part of them from the Conqueror to this day, 
The Kings of this land resisted the Pope's power in whole or in part ever since the conquest.  in the right of their Crown have either resisted or rebated the jurisdiction Ecclesiastical which the Pope claimed in this Land. Wherefore he was never any long time in full and quiet possession of his pretenced power in this Realm: And her majesties Father and brother excluding him both from that authority which he would have over this Island, as unlawful and repugnant to the word of God, and also from that which for these five hundred years and upward himself neglected and omitted, had God's Laws and man's Laws for the warrant of their doings, and for their leaving him no kind of power or pre-eminence within this Realm.  
So that his Uicarshippe to Christ must be proved by stronger and plainer evidence than yet you have showed, 
This Land subject to him neither as Christ's vicar, nor as Patriarch of the west.  before we may grant it: And as for his Patriarkeshippe, which you would now take hold of, by God's Law he hath none, in this Realm for six hundred years after Christ he had none, for the last six hundred, as looking to greater matters, he would have none: above or against the sword which God hath ordained, he can have none; to the subversion of the faith and oppression of his brethren in reason, right and equity he should have none: You must seek farther for subjection to his Tribunal, this Land oweth him non●.  Phi. 

Apol Cap. 4. sect. 25.  Finally if this jurisdiction spiritual be always of right a sequel of the crown and Sceptre of all kings, assuredly Christ nor none of his Apostles could otherwise enter to convert Countries preach and exercise jurisdiction spiritual, without Caesar's and others the kings of the country's licence and delegation.  Theo. 
Finally, if this be all you can say, you may wipe your bill and go to rest. You were told before that Princes have no right to call or confirm Preachers, but to receive such as be sent of God, and give them liberty for their preaching, 
bishops may preach without Caesar's leave if they submit themselves to Caesar's sword as the Apostles did.  and security for their persons; & if Princes refuse so to do, God's labourers must go forward with that which is commanded them from heaven, not by disturbing Princes from their thrones nor invading their Realms, as your holy father doth and defendeth he may do, but by mildly submitting themselves to the powers on earth, and meekly suffering for defence of the truth what they shall inflict.  
How you gather out of this or any words of ours, that Christ and his Apostles might not preach the Gospel without Caesar's delegation, and licence from others the kings of the Countries, whither they went, I see not, except you take the word supreme for superior to Christ, and all which, as I have often signified unto you, standeth neither with our assertion nor intention, but is a very pestilent and impudent sophistication of yours, which you still repeat, though we still refute.  Phi. 
The word supreme is such a Labyrinth that we know not what to make of it.  Theo. 
You know well enough, but you will not acknowledge the true meaning of the word, lest you should discover yourselves and discredit your cause. 
The Jesuits cunning in playing with the word Supreme as they do.  For then either you must show which you are no way able to do, that the Pope as a superior judge may lawfully command, punish and displace Princes if they withstand him: or else with us confess Princes to be supreme, which your stomachs will not abide. And therefore finding your proofs too slender to bear up the height of his pride and the load of your folly, you thought best to skip it over, and in all your Apology not so much as to offer us one half word for the confirmation of the superiority which the Pope claimeth over Princes, that being the right construction of the word supreme, & the first occasion why princes were so called, but to brawl rather with us about some words of ours, and therefore to make such monstruous and impious imaginations, that the simple should be afraid at the very sound of them, as though we made the prince supreme, that is, 
What the jesuits imagine of the word Supreme.  superior to Christ himself, and Christ's master, & gave her absolute & infinite power to do what she listed in all ecclesiastical matters, and taught that truth and faith, Scriptures and Sacraments, vocation of ministers, remission of sins, preaching, baptising and serving God must proceed from her Sovereign right and depend on her only will, and in this vain you run on with a jolly persuasion of yourselves, that you work wonders, when indeed you do nothing but lewdly pervert our words and falsely charge us with your own fictions.  Phi. 
Never burden us with the perverting of your words, 

The words of the oath be sound enough if they cease perverting them.  
Ruler and Prince, be as doubtful as governor, if men be disposed to cavil.  
Bishops be called Rulers, Princes, Kings & Queens.  
Heb. 13. Act. 20. In. 1. Cap. epist. ad Titum. Idem in 3. Ca 1. ad Tim. Lib. 4. Cap. 33. Morali. in job. In 49. ca Esaiae.  
Every of the faithful is a King and a Priest.  
revelat. 1. 1. Peter. 2. Lib. Cap. 37. Idem. lib. 4. Cap. 24. Ibidem.  
Princes are Bishops and Priests.  
Euagrie, tom. epist. 2. Idem Oceano eodem tom. Exod. 24. josua. 24. judges. 8. judith. 6.   we take them as we find them; and as you said before to us, we be not bound to search for your meaning; if there be any generality or ambiguity in your words, which you meant not, the blame is yours that made choice of such.  Theo. 
Cease you to wrest them against the grounds of faith and rules of speech received and used on both sides, we ask you no favour, our words be sound and good.  
We call her highness the Governor of this Realm, that is the public magistrate bearing the sword, which God hath ordained to command good things and punish evil as well in religion as civil policy: How else should we call her?  Phi. 
Not Governor, but Prince or ruler. For Bishops be Governors in their kind as well as Princes.  Theo. 
As though these words were not subject to the same cavils with the former. Bishops be Princes and Rulers in their kind as well as governors. Yourselves prove them to be rulers by S. Paul, Obey your Rulers: and again, The holy Ghost hath set you to rule the Church. And where you say Rulers in S. Paul, S. Hierom saith, Parete Principibus vestris: Obey you Princes. And elsewhere; A Bishop must be irreprovable, or he shall be no Prince of the Church. Yea Gregory doubteth not to call them Kings. The holy preachers of the Church, saith he, be Kings. And S. Hierom ventereth to call them Queens. The Kings and Queens, that nurse the Church be plainly the Apostles and apostolic men.  
So that if we were disposed to play with words, as you be, we could drive you to seek new names not only for Kings & Princes, but also for Priests and Bishops. S. john saith of himself and of all the faithful (Christ hath) made us Kings and Priests unto god his father: and S. Peter confirmeth the same, You are a Royal Priesthood. Eusebius writeth of Constantine, that He called the servants of God to Synods as a common Bishop appointed by God: and sat among them, and made himself partaker of their consultations; and that in his hearing the Prince Named himself a Bishop with these words, You are Bishops of things within the Church, I am appointed by God a Bishop of those things that are without the Church. And this he might well do. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Bishop, is in Greeke nothing else but an overseer, or a superintendant, which word Hierom useth; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence our English word Priest seemeth to be derived, he saith, is nomen aetatis, a name of age, and signifieth an Elder, and nothing in the Scriptures more common than to call Princes and rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders: as the seventy Elders, all the tribes of Israel and their Elders, Princes and judges: the Princes and Elders of Sucoth: the Elders of Bethulia; and infinite other places; where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of the Septuagint.  Phi. 
We know you may confound all things if you list to dally with equivocations, 
The ground of all their absurdities is the cavilling at 〈◊〉 words.  but S. Paul hath expressly prohibited all good teacher's strife of words,  Theo. 
You say well, and since all your absurdities have none other ground but the carping at our words, or rather the manifest abusing and perverting of the same, what are your labours, to requite you with Saint Paul, but vain brabbles of men corrupted in mind and deprived of truth.  

The government of Princes & Priest's are distinct.  If the word governor were common to Bishops with Princes as you would have it, yet are their offices and regiments many ways distinguished. The government of Princes is public, of Bishops is private; of Princes is compulsive, of Bishops is persuasive; of Princes is Lordly with Rule, of Bishops is brotherly with service; of Princes is external and ordereth the actions of the body, of Bishops is internal, and guideth the motions of the mind; to be short, Princes have the sword with lawful authority from GOD, in his name to command and prohibit, reward and revenge that which he prescribeth and appointeth: Bishops have the word and Sacraments committed to their charge with fidelity and sincerity to divide and dispense the same in his Church according to his will. And therefore though Bishops may be called Governors in respect of the soul, 
Governors of this realm none is but only the Prince.  yet only Princes be Governors of Realms: Pastors have flocks and Bishops have Dioceses; Realms, Dominions, and Countries none have but Princes and Magistrates, and so the stile Governor of this Realm, belongeth only to the Prince and not to the Priest, and importeth a public and Princely regiment with the sword, which no Bishop by God's Law may claim or use.  Phi. 
We could grant you with a good will that the Prince is the only Governor of this Realm, but you add, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal: which is most absurd and direct against your own distinction. For if the Prince be the only Governor of all spiritual things and causes, 
This is the profound Logic of Rheims.  Ergo Bishops be no Governors of the word nor Sacraments, rites nor ceremonies, prayers nor preachings of the Church, but all must be as please the Prince: and so you fall into that shameful error again from the which you seek to clear yourselves.  Theo. 

A right Friar that will never be answered, though the Sophism be never so gross.  Is it for weakness of wit, that you cannot, or for rustiness of hart that you will not see the defect of your argument?  Phi. 
The reason to my thinking is very sure. For if only Princes be Governors in those cases, Ergo not Priests.  Theo. 
A childish sophism. Your antecedent hath a special acception of the word Governor, and your conclusion a general. Princes only be Governors in things and causes ecclesiastical, that is with the sword. For so their vocation inferreth, and your assertion witnesseth, and so must you limit your antecedent before it will be good or agreeable to the Doctrine, which we teach, & oath which we take. Then if you conclude, Ergo Bishops be no governors in those things with the sword, your illation is sound and sufficient: for in all things and causes ecclesiastical and spiritual Princes bear the sword, and not Bishops. But if you infer, Ergo Bishops be no Governors in those things, meaning thereby no dispensers, guiders nor directors, of those things, your conclusion is larger than your antecedent, which never maketh good consequent.  Phi. 
I see your meaning: you will have Princes only to be Governors of their Realms & dominions, that is to bear the sword within their Realms and dominions in all things as well spiritual as temporal.  Theo. 
You see what we say, 
Only Princes bear the sword within their own dominions.  pervert it no more, but confute it if you can.  Phi. 
That Princes and none else should bear the sword within their Dominions I mean not to confute, I confess it as well as you: But what hath the temporal sword to do, with ecclesiastical things and causes? Prince's should meddle with common wealth matters, and not busy themselves with Church causes.  Theo. 
Run you back again to this issue, that Princes may not meddle with causes ecclesiastical? Have you forgotten how largely that is proved before; and sealed with your own consent as irrevocable?  Phi. 
Meddle they may with some spiritual things and causes, but when and as they shall be required by the Priest.  Theo. 
We are not at this present to hear what you can imagine, but to see what you can impugn in our oath as absurd. And thus far you agree with us, that Princes be the only Governors of their Realms and dominions, taking Governors for Magistrates which bear the sword in God's behalf with public power to compel or punish. 
If only Princes bear the sword, they bear it in all things as well spiritual as temporal where the sword is required.   Phi. 
And what of this?  Theo. 
Thus much, that if only Princes bear the sword and no man else by God's appointment, ergo they bear it in all things, where the sword must or may be used, as well spiritual as temporal.  Phi. 
No doubt where the sword must or may be borne, they bear it: but how prove you that in spiritual things and causes the temporal sword must or may be used?  Theo. 
Pitch that for the question, and try how well you shall speed with it.  Phi. 
We never denied but in some sort the temporal sword might be used for spiritual things and causes, as namely to defend the faith and Canons of the Church, and to put them in execution. This Princes may do and must do with their royal power, but they may not command what they list in ecclesiastical causes as you would have them.  Theo. 
You snarl still when you see yourself brought to the wall. What we would have Princes to do, shall soon appear, if you cease from slandering, and keep to the matter. Our tongues ache with telling you that we hold no such opinion, and yet you never leave grating at us as if we did.  
The point, 
The sword must be used in spiritual things and causes as well as temporal.  that now we stand at, is this, whether in a Christian common wealth the temporal sword, as you call it, that is the public authority of the Magistrate must be used to receive, establish and defend the true faith of Christ and wholesome discipline of his Church, and to prohibit, displace and punish the contrary: say nay if you dare.  Phi. 
We never meant it.  Theo. 
Then in all spiritual things and causes Princes only bear the sword, that is have public authority to receive, establish and defend all points and parts of Christian Doctrine and Discipline within their Realms, and without their help, though the faith and Canons of Christ's Church may be privately professed and observed of such as be willing, yet can they not be generally planted and settled in any kingdom, nor urged by public Laws & external punishments on such as refuse, but by their consents that bear the sword. This is it that we say, refel it if you can.  Phi. 

Prince's cannot be defenders of the faith & officers of the Church but by means of the sword.  This is not your opinion but ours. We confess Princes to be defenders of the faith, and assisters of the Church with their secular might and power: you avouch them to be supreme moderators and directors of all spiritual things and causes without restraint.  Theo. 
We avouch you to be Supreme liars, and that which is worse, you think with facing in time to get some credit to your fabling. You find no such thing in our words nor deeds as you report of us. We confess Princes to be supreme governors, that is as we have often told you, supreme bearers of the sword, which was first ordained from above to defend and preserve as well goodliness and honesty, 
1. Tim. 2. The sword ordained chief to preserve godliness and honesty among men.  as peace and tranquility amongst men. We give Princes no power to devise or invent new religions, to alter or change Sacraments, to decide or debate doubts of faith, to disturb or infringe the canons of the church. The public power and outward means, which God hath united and annexed to their swords, as namely to command by their Edicts, and dispose the goods and bodies of such as resist them, this power and means, we say, must be converted and used first to the service and glory of God, next to the profit and welfare of their Realms, that is as much or rather more for things spiritual than temporal.  Phi. 
If you give Princes no judicial nor spiritual power in matters of religion but an external and temporal power to permit and establish that which God commandeth, 
The sword of Princes is supreme in that it is not subject to the Pope, & must be obeyed of all in things that be good.  how can they be supreme?  Theo. 
Supreme they be for that by God's Law they be not under the Pope's check and correction, though to lead on the simple sort with a better show, you conceal that superiority which the Pope challengeth over Princes, and enter your whole action for the Church; which word you knew was more gracious, and will in no case be brought to take our meaning right, lest you should be driven either to prove your assertion, which you can not; or to confess ours, which you will not. And therefore you wrist the word supreme against the very grounds of our common faith and rules of your private speech, to make it seem false and absurd; and then as valiant Captains you wrestle with the fancies which yourselves have devised, & fight thus with your own shadows you think your Seminaries the only lights and lanterns of Christendom; but you must go more sincerely to work, before you can win the cause.  Phi. 
Supreme is superior to all and subject to none.  Theo. 
And so be Princes superior to all men within their Realms, and subject to no man without their Realms.  Phi. 
What, superior to Christ, the Church and all?  Theo. 
Have you never done with that idle and elvish objection? We compare not man with God, 
These be right jesuitical conceits.  nor bodies on earth with spirits in heaven; but we confer mortal men with their like, bearing flesh about them which the sword may touch: and in comparison of them we say Princes are superior to all men within their dominions, Bishops and others, and subject to no man without their dominions, Prelate nor Pope, to be commanded, corrected and deposed by their tribunals. 
The true supremacy of Princes.  This is the supremacy which we attribute to Princes, that all men within their Territories should obey their Laws or abide their pleasures, and that no man on earth hath authority to take their sword from them by judicial sentence or martial violence: Leave wrangling and roving and speak directly to this question.  Phi. 
I will, if you first grant that your meaning is not so large as your words be.  Theo. 
You would fain seem with your eloquent nifles to work some masteries: but it will not be. Our words are no larger than our meaning, and both be true.  Phi. 
Why? supreme is superior to all none excepted, no not Christ himself.  The. 
And what are these phrases, 
The Papists in every stile which they give the Pope make him supreme.  the most holy, the most mighty, the most blessed, which you apply to the Pope; do they except Christ or no?  Phi. 
If nothing else be added, they do not by rigour of comparison, but common use of speech understandeth them of earthly men, and always excepteth first God with whom there can be none compared, and next his Saints which be far from us in an other and better life.  Theo. 
I cry you mercy. You may salute your Romish Pharaoh when you will, 
Caus. 25. quaest. 1. § Nulli fas. Acclamationes in fine Concil. Triden. Sess. 25.  with the most mighty Priest, the most blessed father, the chief Pastor, and many such lofty styles, and we must come after with salt and spoons and conceive that Christ is excepted though he be not, because your flatteries be common: and if we to signify that Princes by God's law be not under the Pope's yoke, defend them to be superior to all men at home and subject to no man's Courts or Consistories abroad and therefore call them supreme Governors of their own people and Countries, you sound alarm against us as if we went about to defeat Christ of his kingdom and disseism the Church of her inheritance when yourselves every day if that speech be not tolerable commit blasphemies innumerable.  
If other examples do not stay your wisdoms, 

Supreme governor doth not touch Christ so near as Supreme Bishop doth, which is the Pope's usual stile.  
1. Pet. 5. 1. Pet. 2.  
My Kingdom is not of this world: joh. 18.  
Who made me judge over you: Luke 12.   remember your usual stile for the Pope, is summus Pontifex, Supreme Bishop; summus and supremus being all one I mean not in sense only but in speech also. For they both be superlatives from the same comparative Superior, and summus is nothing else but the very contraction of the word Supremus. So that if Supreme Bishop with you do not spoil Christ of his Priesthood, how can supreme Governor with us lift him out of his kingdom; he claiming expressly to be chief Pastor and Bishop of our souls and renouncing in words, and refusing in deeds to be an earthly Prince and judge in temporal things as the Scripture plainly recordeth? And therefore first confess and correct your own oversight, if not error, which taketh from Christ or at lest divideth with him his special and peculiar title: and then if we prove not that all men have written and spoken in like sort as we do, you shall find us ready, if that be your fear to retract every syllable that is prejudicial to the son of GOD, and to give him as much honour as you can wish, or we devise: which when it is most, is no more than he well deserveth.  Phi. 
You content us somewhat if you stand to this which you say, that you give Princes no Power against the faith nor Canons of the Church, and that the government which you acknowledge in them for spiritual things and causes is nothing else but their temporal and external might and means to see the Rules and precepts of Christ and his Church received and settled in their Realms, and to punish the neglecters and resisters of the same. And yet your terms were so large that your own friends reproved them as well as we.  Theo. 

Prince's must be endured whatsoever they command, but not obeyed against the faith or canons of the church. In temporal things Princes may not frustrate the laws of their progenitors, nor the liberties of the people.  Neither misplace nor mistake my words: Against the precepts of Christ or Canons of his Church we give Princes no power: most true, we do not; marry by the Canons of the Church we do not mean the Pope's Bulls or decrees, nor the partial judgements of such Counsels as he hath assembled for his faction and framed to his fancies: These be late, violent and wicked intrusions, but the ancient and Godly Rules of Christ's Church generally received of all good Christians and generally confirmed of all good Princes, these be the Canons which Princes in duty should not, in equity may not subvert, if they will be taken for faithful defenders and not ●or wilful oppressors of Christ's church. For if in temporal things Princes may not dissolve the Laws of their Progenitors, nor frustrate the liberties of their people against reason and justice, how much less ought they to violate the true Canons and evacuate the good orders and discipline of the Church, concluded by so many Godly Fathers, confirmed by so many worthy Princes, and settled in so many sundry places and ages?  

Lib. 4. cap. 27.  Constantine, saith Eusebius, confirmed with his authority the Canons which the Bishops had agreed on in their Synods, lest the Rulers of (his) Provinces should infringe them. 

Constit. 131. the Eccle. Canon.  
All godly princes have admitted the Canons of the Church.  
Constit. 6. Athanas. ad solitar. vitam agentes.   We decree, saith justinian, that the sacred ecclesiastical Canons concluded and confirmed in the four (first general) Counsels, have equal force with (our) laws. For, we keep the Canons of the foresaid Counsels as laws. And again, It hath been rightly said of Emperors before us and of us also, that the sacred Canons ought to take place as laws. Athanasius objected this to Constantius as a note of a tyrant, that he did abrogate the Canons with violence, and ordered all things against the Canons. And Gregory, when it was written to him that the Emperor commanded an other to be chosen for the Bishop of justiniana within his province, by reason of the sickness which the said Bishop was troubled with in his head, made this answer: The Canons do no where command that a Bishop should lose his office for sickness. 
Gregor. lib. 9 epist. 41.  And therefore it is against justice, if a Bishop fall sick, that he should be deprived of his honour. If the said reverend Bishop for his own ease do require to be discharged of his Episcopal function, when he delivereth that petition in writing, it must be granted. Otherwise I dare not do it, for fear of almighty God. Whatseever the Emperor commandeth, is in his own power. Let him provide as he seethe cause: 
The Pope obeyed the Prince's laws not against the Canons.  only let him not cause me to be partaker of this man's deposition. That which he doth, if it be according to the Canons, we follow it; if it be against the Canons, we bear it (with silence) so long as we may without sin on our parts.  Phi. 
Where have you this place?  Theo. 
Why do you ask?  Phi. 
Because we find the former words in our Decrees but not the later.  Theo. 
In deed you say truth, they were not for your diet; they show that the Bishop of Rome was obedient to the Emperor in ecclesiastical causes, so long as the Prince did join with the Canons, and that he was silent when the Prince went besides the Canons so far forth as he might without sin in himself. 

The Pope's name put in steed of the Princes.  
Caus. 7. quaest. 1. Scripsit.   And therefore the Collector of your Decrees, left out the last words and changed the first by putting the Pope's person in steed of the Princes. For where Gregory beginneth, Scripsit mihi tua dilectio pijssimum Dominum nostrum reverentissimo fratri meo joanni primae justinianae Episcopo, pro egritudine capitis quam patitur praecipere succedi: Your lovingness wrote unto me that our most religious Lord commandeth an other to be chosen in the place of our reverend brother john Bishop of justmiana, because of the grief of his head: Your Law reporteth it thus, Scripsit mihitua dilectio, me reverentissimo fratri Do. etc. Your lovingness wrote unto me that I commanded an other to be chosen, etc. which is a detestable and inexcusable forgery: but my purpose is to show that good Princes observed and esteemed the Canons of the Church no less than their own Laws, and took them for patterns to guide their Edicts in causes ecclesiastical, 
Novel. con. 83. Item con 6.  as saith justinian: Our Laws do not disdain to follow the sacred Rules (or Canons.)  Phi. 
It abateth the supreme power of Princes very much to be bound to the Canons of the Church. 
To be tied to the saith and canons of the Church doth not diminish their supremacy.   Theo. 
No more than it doth in civil regiment to be tied to the grounds of nature, reason and equity, from which no wise nor sober Prince would wish to be loosed. And Princes be Supreme not in respect that all things be subject to their wills, which were plain tyranny, not Christian authority; but that all Persons within their Realms are bound to obey their Laws, or abide their pains, and themselves not deprivable by the Pope but reserved to the righteous and terrible judge, if they abuse their sword to the maintaining of error and oppressing of innocents.  Phi. 
Yet this is clear that the sword which Princes bear is temporal and therefore the power which Princes have is not spiritual. 
The Prince's sword is not spiritual.   Theo. 
We never said that Princes had any spiritual power, it is a false collection of yours, it is no part of our confession, and the sword which they bear we never called but external and temporal. For the true spiritual and eternal sword is the word of God. 
Ephes. 6.  The sword of the spirit, saith S. Paul, which is the word of God; and S. john describing the son of God, saith, 
revelat. 1.  Out of his mouth went a sharp two edged sword. The word of GOD, as S. Paul writeth, 

Hebr. 4.  
The word of god is the spiritual sword.   is more piercing than any two edged sword, and entereth through even to the parting in sunder of the soul and spirit. And as for both these causes it is spiritual, so it endureth for ever and is eternal.  
The magistrates sword compared with this is but corporal and temporal. Corporal in respect it toucheth the body, 
The magistrates sword is corporal. Mat. 10. Mat. 10. And temporal.  but not the soul. Our saviour for warning his Disciples that they should be brought before Governors and Kings for his sake, addeth to encourage them, Fear not those which kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. Temporal it is in respect either of God's ordinance which lasteth no longer than the time of this world, or of man's vengeance which ceaseth by death and rageth no farther, or if you will for that it ordereth the things of this life and praiseth or punisheth the senssible and external actions of the body which be temporal. 
2. Cor. 4.  The things which be seen are temporal, saith S. Paul, but the things which are not seen are eternal.  Phi. 
You take temporal for that which dureth for a season and is not eternal; and we take temporal as it is opposite to spiritual. And in that sense because the sword hath to do with temporal men and matters only, we call it the temporal sword: and have good reason to defend that temporal Princes should not meddle with spiritual Persons or causes.  Theo. 

How the Papists abuse the word spiritual in extending it to men and matters that they should not.  The distinction of spiritual and temporal Persons, things and causes as you limit them sprang first from yourselves without all authority, or rather in deed against the authority of the holy scriptures: and was nothing else but a mere devise of yours to increase your Courts and to wind the sword by little and little out of other men's fingers & hang it at your own girdles. For when you saw that the things which be truly spiritual, as faith, hope & charity with other virtues and fruits of the spirit, belonged only to GOD and not to man, and therefore by the resolution of our Saviour must be given to God and not to Cesar, first you would needs be termed spiritual men, taking the name which is common to all the sons of GOD, as proper to yourselves and your servants, and by that colour exempt not only Priests but also door keepers, torch bearers, bell ringers, Church sweepers, and all your retinue from subjection to temporal magistrates.  


They be spiritual which have the spirit of God.  
1. Cor. 3. 1. Cor. 2. Gal. 6.   But S. Paul calleth them spiritual men which have the spirit of GOD, as all his children have, and the rest carnal or natural men. I could not speak to you brethren as unto spiritual men but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. For where as there is yet among you envying, strife & dissension, are you not carnal? And again, The natural man savoureth not the things of the spirit of God, but the spiritual man discerneth all things. And so, Brethren, if a man be fallen into any fault, you that be spiritual restore such a one with the spirit of meekness. 
Jude epist.  As also S. Jude: These be fleshly men, having no spirit. And likewise Saint Peter: 
1. Pet. 2.  Be you made as lively stones, a spiritual house. What wrong then you do the faithful when you name them temporal, as if the hope of their calling reached no farther than this life, let the wise and Godly judge. That reproach of temporal, and pride of spiritual men, no learned nor ancient father ever used. 
Hieron. ad julian. tomo epist. 1.  Secular S. Hierom calleth them, Laymen & Clerks that were not Monks. Temporal no man ever called the people of God besides yourselves.  
Next, that your lands and livings might speed no worse than yourselves, 

Their lands & livings must be spiritual though Saint Paul call them carnal.  
1. Cor. 9 Rom. 15.   for gain was the mother of your early and daily devotion, you took order to have them go for spiritual things also, notwithstanding Saint Paul expressly called them carnal. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things? And speaking of the poor Saints at jerusalem, If the Gentiles be made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things. And where the Lord himself willed the Scribes and high Priests to give unto Caesar the things that were Caesar's, 
Mat. 22.  and unto God the things that were Gods, you, as if that grant had been too liberal, thought it expedient upon some wiser consideration belike, to set the image and superscription of God and his Church upon your corruptible and earthly Mammon, and by that cunning to keep it from Caesar. 
Ambros. epist. lib. 5. orat. contra Auxent.  far better S. Ambrose: If the Emperor ask for tribute, we deny it not. The lands of the Church pay tribute. If he affect the lands themselves, he hath power to take them, no man amongst us is any let unto him. The alms of the people is enough for the poor. Let them never procure us envy for (our) Landes, let them take them, if they please. I do not give them to the Emperor; but I do not deny them.  
Thirdly to enlarge your kingdom and stretch your wings over all men and matters as far as you needed or listed, 
The Romish calendar of spiritual things.  you took the punishment of incest, adultery, fornication, drunkenness, usury, perjury, simony, sorcery, blasphemy, witchcraft, Apostasy, and such like gross and fleshly vices out of the Magistrates hands under the colour of spiritual things, and fastened them to your consistories: And not therewith content, you caught hold of tithes, testaments, legacies, intestates, patronages, marriages, divorces, dowries, espousals, funerals, affinity, consanguinity, bastardy, bondage as of spiritual causes and questions: and if the matter concerned the goods and Lands of Churches or Church men, you made no bones to venture on gifts, 
See the titles of their Decretals.  sales, exchanges, possession, alienation, restitution, conventions, conditions, exactions, sureties, pledges, payments, damages, injuries, forgeries, hiring, lending, farming, and a thousand such, as if all actions, causes and contracts that any way touched your gain or ease must by and by go for spiritual, and the magistrate by that poor shift be secluded from ordering and intermeddling with those things, which were wont to be wholly guided by the Prince's Laws.  Phi. 
Mislike you that Priests should punish sin, or that Bishops should deal in those cases which be incident to the Laws of GOD and Canons of the Church?  Theo. 

Malefactors of all sorts should openly repent before they be received to the Sacraments.  I do not mislike that malefactors of all kinds, not only drunkards, railers, perjurers, adulterers, usurers and such like, but also thieves, robbers, ravishers, murderers, plagiaries, incendiaries, traitors and all other heinous offenders, when their lives be spared by Princes, should be driven to earnest and open repentance before they be ●eceiued into the Church, or admitted to the divine mysteries: yea rather I th●nke it very needful in a Christian commonwealth that God be pleased and the Church preserved from all fellowship with these monstruous impieties as well as the Sceptre is entreated for their lives; but that you should exempt or save the workers of wickedness from the Prince's sword and their just deserts by your privileges or penances in steed of punishments, that is quite repugnant to the sacred Scriptures. Saint Paul saith, the Prince is God's minister to revenge him that doth evil, 
Rom. 13.  and not the Priest. You may not revenge malefactors, you may separate yourselves from them, and have no communion with them: the Prince must punish them. It passeth your Commission to bear the sword, and without the power of the sword your corporal correcting and afflicting of them is unlawful and wrongful violence.  

The goods, lands, and livings of Clergy men be Caesar's right.  And so for tithes, testaments, administrations, servitude, legitimations and such like, you went beyond your bounds, when you restrained them to your Courts, and without Caesar, made Laws for things that belonged unto Caesar. The goods, Lands, livings, States and families of Lay men and Clerks are Caesar's charge, not yours; and therefore your decrees, judgements and executions in those cases, if you claim them from Christ as things spiritual, 
What things Christian Princes first committed to Bishops for their learning and integrity, the Pope afterward took them up as his own. Bishops the fittest men to deal in these causes, but by the Prince's power and laws.  not from Caesar as matters committed of trust to you by Christian Princes, are nothing else but open and wilful invasions of other men's rights, you changing the names, and calling those things spiritual and ecclesiastical, which in deed be civil and temporal, and shouldering Princes from their cusshins, who first suffered Bishops to sit judges in those causes, of Honour to their Persons and favour to their functions, which on your part is but a bad requital of their Princely graces and benefits.  Phi. 
Affinity, consanguinity, contracts, marriages, divorces and a number of those which you reckon, are things that depend upon the laws of GOD, and have often times such questions incident to them as none but Bishops are fit to resolve.  Theo. 
All virtues and vices, all the parts of man's life both private and public, as namely the duties of Princes, counsellors, Captains, judges, Parents, Husbands, Masters, Subjects, Soldiers, Children, Wives, and Servants, yea the words, thoughts and actions of all men depend in this respect upon the word of God, whether they shall be followed as lawful or avoided as unlawful, and have often times in them such questions, as none but divines are ●it to resolve: will you therefore infer that all crimes, causes and consultations domestical, Political and martial are within the limits of your spiritual jurisdiction, to be guided, ordered and ended, as it seemeth good to your Ghostly fathers?  Phi. 
bishops have power to bind and lose as well in all sins as in some.  Theo. 
bishops are to teach and instruct men what the will of GOD is in all private, 

Bishops by their function may deny the sacraments to such as will not repent, but they may not compel or punish any man without commission from the Prince.  
Compulsion & correction in all things is the Princes right.   public, spiritual, temporal, yea civil and warlike affairs, but their authority goeth no farther than to denounce the word and dispense the Sacraments in such sort as GOD hath prescribed them: It passeth their power to make Laws and appoint external and corporal punishments for any sin: that is proper to the sword, which GOD hath ordained of purpose to compel and punish for the better execution of his will and observation of his Law, which ●ee things of all other most spiritual. And therefore as Preachers by their office have instruction and direction in all things both temporal and spiritual, to compare them and pronounce them consonant or dissonant with the Law of GOD, so Princes have compulsion and correction annexed to their sword as well for spiritual causes as temporal, or rather of the twain to see Godliness and honesty preserved amongst men, than food and raiment provided.  Phi. 
This were a Paradox in deed that the Prince's sword was first ordained by God rather for spiritual things and causes than for temporal.  Theo. 
None at all, 

The sword ordained chief for things spiritual.  
Rom. 7. Ibidem.   if you mark it well. To build and plant, sow and reap, eat and drink there needed no sword on earth; but to preserve the Rules of piety, charity, sobriety and equity amongst men, for this cause were Magistrates first ordained by God, and these be things precisely and properly called spiritual in the sacred Scriptures. The law is spiritual, saith the Apostle, and the commandment (both the whole and every part of it) is holy, just and good, which be the right notes of spiritual virtues. If then the sword were first erected by GOD to defend and execute the parts and branches of his Law, and the contents of his Law be spiritual, ergo the Princes power was first ordained of God for things spiritual and not only for temporal, as you fond dream and are foully deceived.  
And this is the meaning of Saint Paul when he saith that Princes are not to be feared for good works but for evil. 

Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 2. Mark. 10.  
Worldly things be neither good nor evil: for which two causes Princes bear the word.   With whom Saint Peter agreeth calling the king pre-eminent for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well. Now good and evil are to be measured by God's law, not by man's: for as no man is good but only God, so no man's Law is the rule of good and evil but only Gods. And temporal things be neither good nor evil, but altogether indifferent, ergo Princess were not ordained of God for temporal things, but the goods, bodies, and lives of their subjects were committed to their hands for spiritual respects, that is, for the preservation of faith and good manners, which shall go for spiritual things and causes, when your tithes and testaments shall stand back for temporal.  Phi. 
Understand you what temporal is?  Theo. 
It should seem you do not by your dividing temporal against spiritual. 
The spiritual things which the Pope claimeth are temporal.  Repugnant to spiritual is carnal, corporal and natural, not temporal, as you counter set them; and opposite to temporal is not spiritual, but eternal. And here you may see the falseness and absurdness of your division. The spiritual things which your Courts discuss be temporal not eternal: for after this life there be no such questions nor actions. The keys and Sacraments in which consisteth your spiritual power be not eternal but temporal, they serve for the Church in earth, 
1. Cor. 13.  not in heaven. Saint Paul will teach you that Prophesyings, tongues and knowledge, notwithstanding they be gifts of the spirit, 
1. Cor. 14.  and namely rehearsed among spiritual things by the holy Ghost, yet shall they cease and be abolished. So that all the spiritual things which we strive for, are but temporal, and things eternal be neither under the priests power nor the Princes, but reserved only to God and expected only from God.  Phi. 
Eternal they be not, but spiritual they be.  Theo. 
Then may the selfsame things be both spiritual and temporal, which everteth clean your lose division of Temporal against spiritual.  Phi. 


Princes were not ordained to cloa●● the back & feed the bel●●.  
●. Tim. 6.   Temporal we call those things that serve to maintain this temporal life.  Theo. 
The necessities of this life are nourishment and raiment, the rest are superfluities. When we have food and apparel, saith the Apostle, let us be therewith content, whatsoever is above is needless and noisome. Our Saviour willing his not to be careful for their life, expresseth all things that be needful for this present life. Take no thought saying what shall we eat? 
Mat. 6.  what shall we drink? or wherewith shall we be clothed? Your heavenly Father knoweth that you have need of these things. These things we need, and therefore are they promised: other things are not promised, and therefore we need them not. If Princes were first ordained of God for those things only which are needful to maintain this temporal life (for things superfluous are besides the promise and without the protection of GOD,) the power and charge of Princes should consist in meats, drinks and apparel, and Princes have no farther care of their people than they have of their hounds and Horses, to see them well fed and smooth kept, which is a very wicked and brutish opinion.  Phi. 
They are besides to maintain peace and quietness among their subjects.  Theo. 
You might have joined godliness and honesty therewithal, as S. Paul doth, 
1. Tim. 2.  and then had you done well. I exhort, saith he, that prayers and supplications be made for Kings & for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 
Godliness and honesty the chiefest causes why Princes were ordained.  Prayers must be made for kings, that they may discharge their duties according to God's ordinance, which is, that their subjects by their help and means, may lead an honest, godly and quiet life, godliness and honesty being the chiefest ends of our prayers and effects of their powers. For God hath not put the goods, lands, bodies and lives of men into Princes hands to clothe their backs and fill their bellies, but with praise to provoke those that be willing, & to drive those that be not willing, with punishments, to embrace piety towards God, sobriety towards themselves, and charity towards their neighbours.  
This you may learn by the regiment of every private family, 

The Prince hath the same charge in the commonwealth that every private man hath in his family.  
Ephes. 6.  
The parent's charge towards their children.  
Psalm. 34. Deut. 4. Deut. 4.   which is both a part and a pattern of the commonwealth. All parents and masters have a farther charge over their children and servants than to see them defended from hunger and cold. A wicked father is he that feedeth and clotheth; and nour●ereth not his children. Ye fathers, saith S. Paul, bring up your children in the instruction and information of the Lord. Come children, saith David, hearken unto me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord. Moses admonishing the whole people of the jews & as it were speaking to every particular man: Take heed, saith he, to thyself that thou forget not the things which thine eyes have seen, and that they depart not out of thine heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons and thy sons sons: and so God himself said to Moses, Gather me the people together, and I will cause them to hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. This diligence God commended and rewarded in Abraham as the best part of a father's duty: 
Genes. 18.  I know him, saith God, that he will command his sons and his household after him that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and judgement, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that (good) which he hath spoken unto him. If private men be bound to train up their families in the fear of God and love of virtue, much more are Princes (the public fathers of their countries and exalted to far greater and higher authority by God's ordinance than fathers or masters) I say much more are they in conscience charged & by calling licensed to frame their subjects to the true service of God & right obedience of his law, which be things not temporal but spiritual.  
This king David protesteth and promiseth unto God he will do in his kingdom. Him, 

Psalm. 101.  
David's charge in his kingdom.   that privily slandereth his neighbour, will I destroy. Mine eyes shall be to the faithful of the Land, that they may dwell with me, he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me. There shall no deceitful (or proud) person dwell within mine house, he that telleth lies shall not remain in my sight. Betimes will I destroy all the wicked of the Land that I may cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.  
This christian Princes, 

Religion the Prince's chiefest charge.  
Novel. Consti. 6.   as you heard before, made not only a part but the chiefest part of their duty. The true religion of God and honest conversation (even) of Priests (themselves) is our chiefest care, saith justinian. And so Valentinian & Theodosius: 

Legum Theod. Novel. tit. 2. the judaeis & Samaritanis. Aug. epist. 162.  
The sifting & examining of a Bishop did most pertain to the princes charge by S. Aug. judgement   The search of true religion we find to be the chiefest care of the Imperial Majesty. With whom S. Austen agreeth defending Felix a catholic Bishop against the Donatists for that he was cleared at a temporal bar by the Prince's commandment of such crimes as were objected to him notwithstanding they were ecclesiastical. One (of you) saith a Bishop ought not to be cleared at the Proconsul's bar, as though he sought it & not rather the Emperor commanded that kind of trial to be had, to whose charge that matter did most pertain, and whereof the Prince was to render an account to God.  
Of this mind were the Bishops of Rome themselves in former ages. Eleutherius not long after Christ wrote to Lucius king of this realm amongst other things in this wise: 

Epist. ad Lucium inter leges Edward. cap. 17.  
Eleutherius opinion of the Prince's charge.  
Inter leges Edward. Reg. cap. 17.  
Pope john's opinion of the Prince's charge.   You are God's Vicar in that kingdom. The nations & people of Britanny are yours; whom you ought to gather & bring unto concord & peace, unto the faith & law of Christ, & unto his (holy) Church, & to nourish, maintain, protect & rule, & always to defend from injuries, mischiefs & from enemies. A king you shallbe, whiles you rule well, which except you do you shallbe unworthy the name of a king & lose it, which God forbidden. So Pope john made answer to Pippin & Charles. Illos decet vocari Reges, qui vigilanter defendunt & regunt ecclesiam Dei & populum eius imitati Regem Psalmographum dicentem, non habitabit in medio domus meae, qui facit superbiam, etc. We must call those kings, which do carefully defend & rule the church of God & his people, after the example of king David in his Psalms, a proud man shall not dwell in mine house.  

Beda hist. gentis Anglor. cap. 32. Gregory's confession of the Prince's charge.  This Gregory the great earnestly exhorted Edelberth unto, the first that was christened of the Saxon kings in this Land. For this cause the almighty God bringeth good Princes to the regiment of his people, that by them he may bestow the gifts of his mercy upon all that are under them. Therefore glorious son, the grace which you have obtained at God's hands keep with a careful mind, & hasten to extend the faith of Christ in the nations under you. Increase the zeal of your uprightness to their conversion, subvert the worship of idols, overthrow their temples, edify the manners of your subjects by exhorting, threatening, fair entreating, correcting, & showing examples of well doing, that you may find him a rewarder in heaven, whose name & knowledge you have dilated in earth. For so Constantine a most religious Emperor, revoking the Roman Empire from the perverse service of idols subdued the same with himself to the almighty God, our Lord jesus Christ, & turned himself together with the people under him to God with all his heart. And now let your excellency labour to pour the knowledge of one God the father, the son & the holy Ghost into the Princes & people that are subject to you, that he may make you partaker of his kingdom, whose faith you cause to be received and observed in your kingdom.  
This the kings of England before & since the conquest were taught to be their duty & sworn to execute faithfully as the laws of king Edward the good make proof, 

The king of England's oath expressing his charge.  
Inter leges Edward. cap. 17. de Regis off●cio.   which William the Conqueror received & confirmed: where the office & charge of a king are thus expressed: A king, because he is the Lieutenant of the most high king, was appointed to this end that he should regard & govern the earthly kingdom and the people of God, and above all things his holy Church, and defend her from wrongs, and root out male factors from her, yea scatter and destroy them. Which except he do he can not justly be called a king. A king ought to fear God, and above all things to love him and to establish his commandments throughout his kingdom. He ought also to keep, 
Ibidem.  nourish, maintain, and govern the holy Church of his kingdom with all integrity and liberty according to the constitutions of (his) fathers and predecessors, and to defend it against enemies, so as God may be honoured above all, and ever had in mind. He ought to establish good laws and approved customs, and abolish evil (laws and customs) and remove them all out of his Realm. He ought to do right judgement in his kingdom, and execute justice by the counsel of his Nobles. All these things ought the king to swear in his own person before he be crowned.  
The very Heathen perceived & confessed this to be true. Aristotle a profane Philosopher writing of the first institution of kings, 
The very heathen were of the same opinion.  showeth how many things they were by office to meddle with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A king (in old time) was the leader in wars, pronouncer in judgements, and overseer of religion. 
Politic. lib. 3. cap. 11. Ibidem, cap. 5.  And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Divine things were committed to Princes (as part of their charge.) All Monarchies, kingdoms and commonwealths, Assyrians, Persians, Medes, Grecians, Romans, 
In all kingdoms and commonwealths since the foundation of the earth religion hath been settled & defended by the Magistrate's sword.  jews, Gentiles, Pagans, Christians, have ever kept this for a general rule, that religion should be settled and establissed by public laws, and maintained by the Magistrate's sword. So that if you take the defence of piety, the reward of honesty, and balance of equity from the Prince's charge, you run headlong against God and man to feed your own appetites, and see not that which reason and nature taught the heathen to confess, that as every private man is bound to seek and serve God above all things, so every society of men, be it family, city or country, is likewise bound to have a special and principal care of his service, which can not be done, unless it be planted & preserved by public laws: & of these laws as of all other amongst men, only Magistrates be the makers, keepers and revengers.  Phi. 
Princes be charged after a sort with godliness, and honesty.  Theo 
Your delays do not answer our proofs. We show the chiefest part of their charge to be godliness and honesty, which be things spiritual, not temporal.  Phi. 
What if that be granted?  Theo. 
If their duty stretch so far, their authority must stretch as far. 
Their authority must stretch as far as their duty.  Their charge ceaseth where their power endeth. God never requireth princes to do that which he permitteth them not to do: but rather his commanding them to care for those things is a full authorizing of them to meddle with those things. If then godliness and honesty be the chiefest part of their charge, ergo they be likewise the chiefest end of their power, and consequently Princes bear the sword chief for spiritual things and causes, & not, as you defend, only for temporal.  Phi. 
You put all things temporal, spiritual and ecclesiastical into their hands.  Theo. 
In all these things and other things whatsoever, we say, they bear the sword, 
God hath given Princes the sword in those things which himself commandeth.  and why should that displease you? God hath given them the sword even in those things which himself commandeth and prescribeth, as namely faith and good manners, which be the chief contents of his law and respects of our life, and do you think it much that they bear the sword in those indifferent matters which Bishops have agreed on for seemliness and good order to be kept in the church, no way comparable to those things which God hath put them in trust with, and made them defenders and avengers' of?  

The Priest in no cause may bear the sword.  And if Princes shall not bear the sword in things and causes ecclesiastical, you must tell us who shall. The Priest or the Prince of force must do it; and since by God's law the Priest may not meddle with the sword, the consequent is inevitable, that Princes alone are God's ministers, bearing the sword to reward and revenge good and evil in all things and causes, be they temporal, spiritual or ecclesiastical, unless you think that disorders and abuses ecclesiastical should be freely permitted and neither prevented nor punished by public authority, which in these froward ages, would breed a plain contempt of all ecclesiastical order and discipline, and hasten the subversion of those kingdoms and commonwealths where such confusion is suffered.  Phi. 
The Rites and Ceremonies of the Church are not in the Prince's power. 
The confirming of Rites and Ceremonies needeth the sword.   Theo. 
To devise new Rites and Ceremonies for the Church, is not the Prince's vocation, but to receive and allow such as the Scriptures and Canons commend and such as the Bishops and Pastors of the place shall advise, not infringing the Scriptures or Canons. And so for all other ecclesiastical things and causes, Princes be neither the devisers nor directors of them, but the confirmers and establishers of that which is good, and displacers and revengers of that which is evil, which power we say they have in all things & causes, be they spiritual, ecclesiastical or temporal.  Phi. 
And what for excommunications and absolutions, be they in the Prince's power also? 

The abuse or contempt of excommunication revenged by the sword.  
The sword committed to the Prince.  
Rom. 13.  
His Apostles forbidden the sword.  
Mat. 26.    Theo. 
The abuse of excommunication in the Priest, & contempt of it in the people, Princes may punish; excommunicate they may not, for so much as the keys are no part of their charge. But these particulars if we severally discuss we shall never end: the general rules on which our assertion is grounded, may be sooner proposed and resolved.  
First, to whom hath God committed the sword, to the Priest or the Prince?  Phi. 
To whom say you?  Theo. 
S. Paul expressly writeth of the Prince that He beareth the sword not without cause, and is God's minister to revenge him that doth evil. And our Saviour severely forbiddeth Peter & the rest of his Apostles to meddle with the sword: All that take the sword shall perish by the sword; and to them all, You know that kings of Nations reign over them, and they that be great exercise authority, with you it shall not be so. 
Mat. 20.  The sword is but the sign of public and Princely power, and where the thing is not lawful, the sign is unlawful. Since then the Lord interdicteth his Apostles and messengers all princely power, it is evident, the sword which is but a sign thereof, is likewise interdicted them.  
Thus much Bernard sticketh not to tell Pope Eugenius to his face. 
Bernard de considerate. lib. 2.  It is the lords voice in the Gospel: Kings of Nations are Lords over them, and they that have power on them are called gracious, and the Lord inferreth, you shall not be so. It is a clear case, the Apostles are forbidden dominion. Go thou then, 
Dominion interdicted the Pope himself.  saith Bernard to the Pope, and usurp if thou dare, either an Apostleship if thou be a Prince, or dominion if thou be Apostolic. Thou art expressly forbidden one of them. If thou wilt have both, thou shalt lose both. The pattern of an Apostle is this, dominion is interdicted, service is enjoined. Gird thyself with thy sword, the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. And this Pope Nicholas fairly confesseth. 
Caus. 33. quaest. 2. ¶ Inter haec.  The church of God hath no sword but the spiritual, wherewith she quickeneth, she killeth not.  
Your own law saith: 

Ca●s. 33. quaest. 8. ¶ De Episc.  
No clergimen may use the sword no not by the Pope's authority.   It is easily proved of Bishops and other clergimen whatsoever, that they may not either by their own authority, or by the authority of the Bishop of Rome, take weapon in hand (& exercise the material sword) & addeth this reason, For every man besides him and his authority which hath lawful power and which, as the Apostle saith, beareth the sword not without cause, to whom every soul ought to be subject, every man, I say, that without this authority taketh the sword, shall perish with the sword.  
He that beareth the sword may lawfully put malefactors to death, and wage war with his enemies when need so requireth, which Bishops may not do. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, 
2. Cor. 10.  saith S. Paul. Quid Episcopis cum bello? What have Bishops to do with battle, 
Ad solitar. vitam agentes. Ambros. lib. 5. Epist. 33.  saith Athanasius; & Ambrose, Pugnare non debeo: I ought not to fight. If they may not fight much less kill, if they may do neither, they can not bear the sword, which is appointed by God, & received of men to do both.  
The words of our Saviour are clear with us for the negative. My kingdom, saith he, 

The servants of Christ may have no earthly kingdom, since their master had none.  
john. 8. Matth. 10. 2. Tim. 2.   is not of this world. If then your Priests, Prelates & Popes will be the servants of Christ, they must challenge no worldly kingdom as from him or in his name. The servant is not above his master. If the master with his own mouth have denied it, the servants may not affirm it, or usurp it. The soldiers of Christ must not entangle themselves with secular affairs, much less make themselves Lords and judges of earthly matters, which office properly belongeth to the sword and must be sustained of all those that bear the sword.  
The Popes themselves before their power and pride grew so great, were of this opinion with us. 
Distinct. 96. ¶ Cum. ad verum.  When the truth (which is Christ) was once come, after that, saith Pope Nicolas, neither did the Emperor take upon him the Bishop's right, 
A Bishop may not usurp an emperors name, much less his sword  nor the Bishop usurp the emperors name, because the same mediator of God and man, the man Christ jesus, distinguisheth the offices of each power with proper actions and different dignities, to this end that (the Bishop) which is a soldier unto God should not entangle and snare himself with worldly affairs, and again (the Prince) which is occupied in earthly matters should not be Ruler of divine things.  


Distinct. 10. ¶ Quoniam idem. Cyprian writeth to julian an 100 years before julian was borne.  
The Disciples of Christ straightly charged not to meddle with Princely swords.   The very same text, word for word, your Decrees make Cyprian write to julian the Emperor, if those be Cyprians words, and not rather an impudent forgery in his name. For how could Cyprian that died under Valerian 260. after Christ, writ to julian that began his reign 360. after Christ? But such props are fittest to bolster up your kingdom of darkness and error.  
Sure it is, which the words of our Saviour apparently prove, that all the Disciples and Apostles of Christ are straightly charged not to meddle with princely Sceptres and sword, and therefore out of all question only Princes bear the sword within their own Realms and dominions, for so much as that honour and power is expressly prohibited and interdicted by the Lord himself to all Preachers and Bishops.  Phi. 
This we would have granted you with half these words.  Theo. 
And this we would have depend not on your grant, which is fickle, but on such proofs as we might make just account of.  Phi. 
How then?  Theo. 
As the first is apparent, that only Princes have the sword committed to their charge by God's appointment, so the next is as evident that the sword I mean the public authority of Magistrates in Christian commonwealths, 
The sword hath been, may be, and should be used for that which is good in all spiritual things and causes.  hath been, may be, and should be used for the receiving, establishing and de●ending of that which is good, and prohibiting, abolishing and punishing of that which is evil in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things and causes, as well as in temporal: which the sacred Scriptures, the ancient Fathers, the Church Stories, the laws and examples of all ages and countries do sufficiently prove, as you saw before.  Phi. 
This is not it that we stand on.  Theo. 
This is that we affirm, stand you on what you lift.  Phi. 
If this be granted, what will you conclude?  Theo. 
If this be proved, you shall see what we conclude. If it be not, show where the defect is.  Phi. 
That only Princes bear the sword within their own realms, which may be and should be used for the receiving, establishing, and defending of the faith & Cannons of the church & all things incident or pertinent to the same, and for prohibiting and punishing whatsoever is repugnant to either, in this we find no defect; Let us therefore see what you will infer.  The. 
First then the words of our oath, that Her Highness is the only governor of this realm (bearing the sword) as well in all spiritual, 
The oath cleared.  or ecclesiastical things & causes as temporal, be not only tolerable & reasonable, but such by your own confession as we may truly defend, & you can not justly confute. 
Their absurdities returned on their own heads.  Next the absurdities which you bring against us, as if we derived the spiritual power of preaching, baptizing, binding, losing, imposing hands and offering prayers to God, from the Prince's Sovereign right and title, which we do not: all these absurdities I say be mere follies, grounded upon the careless mistaking, if not spiteful perverting of our words. Thirdly, your defacing and improving the Prince's sword, 
The Pope's power over Princes usurped.  and advancing and defending against all Princes one that shall command them and depose them at his pleasure, what else is this but a resisting of the powers which God hath ordained, & erecting and 〈◊〉 in the Church of Christ without authority, that under the covert of binding and feeding shall make himself Lord of all kingdoms and countries?  Phi. 
Supreme is the word that we most impugn.  Theo. 
And Supreme is the word which you shall never overthrow, being a plain and manifest deduction out of the words of S. Paul. Let every soul, 

Rom. 13.  
Supreme is a manifest deduction out of S. Paul.   saith he, be subject to the superior Powers. If all men must be subject to them, ergo they be superior to all, and superior to all is supreme. Consult both your Seminaries, and refel this one sequel if you can: marry cavil not as your Apology doth, that Supreme bringeth Christ and his Saints in subjection to Princes. The Apostle speaketh of mortal men, and so do we: And in comparison, with them if Saint Paul's words be true that every soul must be subject to Princes as unto Superiors; our consequent is irrefutable, that Princes be supreme.  Phi. 
S. Paul maketh them superiors over all persons but not over all things. 
Supreme over Persons, not over things.   Theo. 
That distinction is ours, not yours: we did ever interpret supreme for superior to all men within their dominions.  Phi. 
And so we grant them to be, but not in all things. For in temporal things they be superiors to all men, in spiritual they be not.  Theo. 
That restraint cometh too late. 
We may not limit where we will obey the sword, & where not.  The holy Ghost charging you to be subject to them simply without addition, it passeth your reach to limit in what things you will, and in what things you will not be subject.  
Again we have invincibly proved and you have clearly confessed that Princes may command for truth, 

Where they may command, we must obey.  
We may not resist them, but with reverence endure them, though they command against God and his truth. Heathen Tyrants had power of the sword over Christ and his Apostles.   and that they bear the sword for the perfect observation and execution of God's law, and public defence of the faith and Cannons of the Church, which be things not temporal but spiritual; and out of all question, where they may by God's law command, all men must obey them, not only for fear of wrath; but also for conscience sake.  
Lastly what better proof can you wish that in all things they be superiors to all men, than that their sword may not be resisted for any temporal or spiritual cause, but must be rather endured with meekness & reverence, though they persecute truth, & show themselves enemies to God and his church? For so the Lord in his own person taught us, & his Apostles after him, in their writings & sufferings followed the same course.  Phi. 
Had Heathen tyrants lawful power over Christ and his Apostles in spiritual things?  Theo. 
Lawful power of the sword to reward and punish, they had over Christ and his Apostles in things and causes spiritual. 
Christ submitted himself to the Magistrate.  The Lord of grace and life being delivered by the Priests to the Magistrate for blasphemy which is a spiritual crime, refused not the judge, but submitting himself to the Prince's Deputy, confessed pilate's power over him to be from heaven, notwithstanding pilate's sentence against him was wrongful and wicked. 
So Paul & Peter both did and taught.  S. Paul imprisoned for preaching the Gospel required to be sent to Caesar and to make answer before Caesar concerning his doctrine and doings. S. Peter patiently endured Nero's sword even unto death for teaching the truth, and warned all Christians to do the like. Let none of you suffer (public punishment) as a murderer, 
1. Pet. 4.  or as a thief, or a malefactor, or as a meddler with other men's matters: but if (any man suffer) as a Christian (that is for religion) let him not be ashamed but glorify God in this respect. 
Rom. 13.  They that resist (especially when they be punished for religion) shall receive to themselves judgement) and damnation; for God is then most dishonoured when we make religion a buckler for rebellion. If none must resist that suffer as christians, ergo by God's ordinance, all men be subject to the Prince's sword, even in spiritual causes as well as in temporal.  Phi. 


Whom we must endure in that which is evil, those must we obey in that which is good.  
Aug. Epist. 50. Idem Epist. 166.   To suffer, but not to obey.  Theo. 
Suffering is as sure a sign of subjection as obeying. And yet whom you must endure commanding that which is evil in matters of religion, those you must obey when they command that which is good in the self same causes: which you heard concluded out of S. Augustine before. Whosoever will not obey the laws of Emperors which are made for the truth of God, incurreth a grievous judgement. And again, When Emperors hold truth they command for truth, which whosoever despiseth purchaseth to himself judgement. So that all men are bound to be subject to the sword in all things be they temporal or spiritual, not only by suffering, but also by obeying; marry with this caution, that in things which be good and agreeable to the law of God, the sword must be obeyed: in things that be otherwise, it must be endured.  

The sum of the doctrine which we teach concerning the Prince's supremacy.  This then is the supreme power of Princes which we soberly teach and you so bitterly detest; that they be God's ministers in their own dominions, bearing the sword, freely to permit, and publicly to defend that which God commandeth in faith and good manners, and in ecclesiastical discipline to receive and establish such rules and orders as the Scriptures and Canons shall decide to be needful and healthful for the Church of God in their kingdoms. And as they may lawfully command that which is good in all things and causes, be they temporal, spiritual, or ecclesiastical, so may they with just force remove whatsoever is erroneous, vicious, or superstitious within their Lands, and with external losses and corporal pains repress the brochers and abetters of heresies and all impieties: from which subjection unto Princes, no man within their Realms, Monk, Priest, Preacher, nor Prelate is exempted; and without their Realms no mortal man hath any power from Christ judicially to depose them, much less to invade them in open field, least of all to warrant their subjects to rebel against them.  
These be the things which we contend for, 
The Jesuits jests wherewith they mock the Reader.  & not whether Princes be Christ's masters, or the functions to preach, baptise, impose hands & forgive sins must be derived from the Prince's power and laws, or the Apostles might enter to convert countries without Caesar's delagations, those be jests and shifts of yours, no branches nor sequeles of our opinion. You see the parts & proofs of our doctrine, neither draw back, nor dally, but go to the matter: and say what fault you find with our assertion.  Phi. 
The former branches of your assertion might be received, if it were agreed, by whom the sword should be directed. 
THE DIRECTION of PRINCES UNTO TRVETH.  We ourselves confess that the Prince's sword should permit, defend and execute that which is good in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things, causes and judgements, and repel and punish the contrary. But least Princes should wade too far or tread awry, we would have their swords guided, and if need be restrained by such as have greater experience and better intelligence in those affairs. For ecclesiastical rules and Canons be not incident to the Prince's vocation, and therefore no marvel if Princes be raw in those things wherewith they be not acquainted. And since the danger is great if they command for error, & their skill not so great but that they may soon miss the truth, why should you be loath that others of deeper judgement & exacter knowledge, whom God hath placed to teach both private men & Princes their duties in those cases, should direct & moderate the sword of Princes for fear lest they should be miss to the ruin of themselves, and many thousands with them?  Theo. 
We be not loath they should be directed, but rather exhort all Princes to take great care, 
Prince's must take good care to come by faithful direction.  and spare no pains to come by faithful and true direction in those things that pertain to God. For if in temporal matters where the losses are but temporal, they do nothing without the mature and sound advise of their grave & trusty counsellors, how inexcusable is their negligence, if in heavenly things where the bodies & souls of themselves & their subjects may be lost for ever, they serve their affections & seek not his will that set them in place, & gave them power to maintain his truth, & safeguard his Church?  Phi. 
We then agree on both sides, 
The right directors unto truth must be discerned by their doctrine not by their dignity.  that Princes must be directed.  Theo. 
We do.  Phi. 
If they must be directed, ergo by Bishops.  Theo. 
Bishops for their calling and learning are the likeliest men to direct them right, but yet your ergo doth not hold. It is not enough for them to be Bishops, they must also be teachers of truth, before they may claim to be directors of Princes.  Phi. 
Who be more likely to teach truth than Bishops?  Theo. 
I said before they were likely, but your conclusion enforceth a necessity which you can not prove. Many Bishops have taught lies and seduced Princes in the church of God, and therefore not their dignity, but their doctrine is it that Princes must regard: for neither Prince, nor people stand bound to the persons of men, but unto the truth of God, and unto their teachers so long as they serve not from truth.  Phi. 
And who shall be judge of truth?  Theo. 
Absolute judge of truth, 
No mortal man may  neither Prince nor Priest may challenge to be.  Phi. 
Why so?  Theo. 
God is truth, & of God I trust no man may be judge. The son of God saith of himself, I am truth: 
john. 14.  & S. john giveth this record of the spirit of God, The spirit is truth. Ye can therefore be no judges of truth unless ye will be judges of God. 
1. john. 5.   Phi. 
Who shall then be judge of truth?  The. 
Who but Christ?  Phi. 
He shallbe judge at the last day.  Theo. 
He shall then give general and final judgement of all men, but in the mean time he only is the sovereign and supreme judge of truth. The Father hath committed all judgement to the son, and 
* john. 5. & 8. De Nuptijs ad Valentin. lib. 2. ●ap. 33.  my judgement, saith Christ, is just. This strife, saith Augustine, requireth a judge. judicet ergo Christus: Let Christ be therefore judge. In earth, saith Optatus, of this matter there can be no judgement, 
Optat. lib. 5. ad ●ermenianum.  we must seek for a judge from heaven. But why knock we at heaven, when as we have his will here in the Gospel?  Phi. 
They mean that Christ speaketh in his church at this day by his word, & so judgeth. 

john. 17.  
Bishops no judges of the word of God.  
The church is not judge of the Scriptures  
john. 10.    Theo. 
And we mean that his word is truth, and therefore your Bishops can not be judges of the word of Christ, but they must be judges of Christ himself, that speaketh by his word, which is no small presumption.  Phi. 
Shall not the Church be judge of the Scriptures?  Theo. 
My sheep, saith Christ, hear my voice, they be no judges of his voice. A judge of the law is no 
* 
james 4.  
Aust. in Psal. 2.   observer of the law, as S. james avoucheth: and since the whole church is bound to obey the law of God, they be no judges of the law. Inferius est nobis quicquid iudicamus. It is inferior to us whatsoever we be judges of: 
* Idem de vera religione, ca 31.  Eternam igitur legem mundis animis fas est cognoscere, judicare non fas est. The eternal law of (God) therefore, it is lawful for clean hearts to know, it is not lawful for them to judge. We 
* Idem confess. lib. 13. cap. 23.  must not, saith Augustine to God, judge of so high authority, neither of the book which is thine, because we submit our understanding to it. And again: To the canons of the Scriptures pertain 
* Contra Cresc. lib. 2. cap. 31.  certain books of the Prophets and Apostles, quos omnino judicare non audeamus, the which in any case we may not dare to judge. And this is the reason, there may be no judge of truth, where no danger of error is: And of the Scriptures S. Austin saith, 
Idem Epist. 19 ad Hieronym.  Quod omni errore careant dubitare nefarium est, It is a wickedness to make a doubt whether there be any error in them or no: therefore there may be no judges of them: but the whole church must be subject to them, and with all humility believe them.  Phi. 
The Bishops be no judges of the Scriptures whether they be true or no; that as you prove is no doubt, and therefore needeth no judge: But in this they be judges, whether the Scriptures be mistaken of others or no.  Theo. 
Then be they no judges of truth, which is the thing that I first affirmed, but of themselves and others which be subject to error and ignorance.  Phi. 
Yet they be judges of error, 
judging taken for discerning  though not of truth.  Theo. 
If you take judging for discerning, as the word doth often signify, they can not be teachers of truth, 
Only God must limit what is truth, & what error.  unless they can discern truth from error: But only God is to limit and appoint by his word, what shall stand for truth & what for error. With that Bishops have nothing to do, they must hear and believe the voice of the great Shepherd Christ jesus, as well as the meanest sheep in his fold.  Phi. 
We grant you that, so you grant us this, that only Bishops be discerners of truth.  Theo. 
A liberal offer: You will grant us a known truth upon condition that we shall grant you a manifest untruth. Make earth and ashes, if you dare, to be judges of their Lord and master which is in heaven, or deny Bishops when they be at the highest, to be the servants of Christ; yea happy be they if they be so much: In these things we neither stand at your alms, nor ask your consents, we be right sure and dare not deny them, & therefore our assertion is without contradiction: yours is utterly false, that only Bishops be discerners of truth. 

To discern truth belongeth to all. God willeth all men to try spirits.  
1. john. 4.   For as Bishops ought to discern which is truth before they teach, so must the people discern who teacheth right before they believe.  Phi. 
Shall the people judge their Pastors? you be so new fangled that you say you know not what.  Theo. 
We have the words and warrant of the holy Ghost for that which we say. Believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they be of god: for many false prophets are gone out into the world. Prophet's be teachers, & if they must be tried before they be trusted, ergo Pastors must be discerned before they be believed, & by whom trow you; but by those that should believe them, that is by their hearers? The same precept our Saviour gave to the multitudes that followed him. 

Matth. 7.  
And to discern false teachers.   Beware of false Prophets (or teachers) which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they be ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. If all must beware them, and are taught how to know them, ergo they may lawfully try them, before they believe them. This wisdom the Lord himself commendeth in his sheep. 
john. 10.  My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me. A stranger they will not follow but fly from him.  Phi. 
Yet they be no judges of Doctrine. 

The people must discern teachers by their doctrine  
1. Corinth. 10. 1. Corinth. 11.    Theo. 
If you take judging for discerning, as it is often used, the people must be discerners and judges of that which is taught: S. Paul himself alloweth them that leave. I speak as unto them that have understanding; judge ye what I say. And again, judge with yourselves, is it seemly that a woman pray unto God uncovered? And to that end belongeth this exhortation of the Lord which is often found in the scriptures: 
* Matth. 24. Colos. 8. Ephes. 5. 1. john 3.  Look that no man seduce you. For the people of God should have their senses 
* 
Heb. 5. 1. Corinth. 14.  
Orig in Je●●● Nave. hom. 2.  
The Fathers referred themselves to the judgement of the hearers.   exercised in the word of truth, to discern both good and bad, and in that respect the Apostle sticketh not to say: Let the Prophets speak two or three and let the rest judge.  
Origen in teaching the people, submitteth himself to the Apostles R●le in these words: Vos facite quod scriptum est, ut uno dicente, omnes examinent. Me ergo dicente quod sentio, vos discernite & examinate si quid rectum est, aut minus rectum. Do you that which is written; one speaking, all (the rest) examine. Whiles then I say what I think, try & judge you what is right & what is not. Ambrose when Auxen. offered to dispute before some that were heathen men & not christened, thus traduceth him to the people of Milan. 
Ambros. Epi. li. 5. orat. in Aux.  Auxentius knowing you not to be ignorant of the faith, hath shunned your judgement & chosen four or five heathen men. Then in that he hath chosen infidels, he is worthy to be condemned (of christians) because he hath rejected the Apostles precept, where he saith, Dare any of you having aught against another, be judged under the unjust & not rather under the Saints? You see then that which he hath offered is against the Apostles authority. But what speak I of the Apostle, when the Lord himself proclaimeth by his Prophet, Hear me my people that know (what belongeth to) judgement, in whose hart my law is? God saith, hear me my people that know judgement: Auxentius saith, You know not how to judge: you see that he contemneth God in you, which refuteth the sense of (this) heavenly oracle. For the people, in whose hart the law of God is doth judge. Who then doth you wrong, he that refuseth or he that referreth himself to your audience?  Phi. 
The people must depend on their teacher's mouths & not be judges over them. He that heareth you, heareth me, saith our saviour to his Apostles & their successors, 
Luke. 10.  & he that despiseth you, despiseth me. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words going forth out of the house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it shallbe more tolerable for the land of the sodomites & Gomorrheans in the day of judgement than for that city. 
Matt. 10.   Theo. 
As the Pastors have authority from Christ to preach the truth, & woe be to them that resist the Preachers of truth; 
The people have liberty to discern, and charge to beware seducers.  so have all hearers both liberty to discern & a charge to beware seducers, given them by the same Lord, & woe be to them that do it not. Take heed, saith our Saviour, that no man seduce you. For many shall come in my name, saying: I am Christ, & shall deceive many. Then if any shall say to you, 
Matth. 24.  Lo here is Christ, or there, believe it not. For there shall arise false Christ's & false Prophets, & shall show great signs & wonders. Behold I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, behold he is in the desert, go not forth: behold he is in the secret places, believe it not. He that requireth all men to receive such as he sendeth, chargeth all men to avoid such as pretend his name when they are not sent: and how can the people do either if they have not skill & leave to discern them both?  Phi. 
Our Lord gave that honour to his very enemies, that the people should obey them, 
Matth. 23.  in regard of Moses chair. Upon the chair of Moses have fitten the Scribes and the Pharisees. All things therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye and do ye, but according to their works do ye not for they say & do not.  Theo. 
Think you that Christ commanded the people to believe the Pharisees, 
The people not bound to believe the Pharisees doctrine, except it accorded to the law of God.  whatsoever they taught, or that he affirmed the Pharisees could not teach amiss, because they sat in Moses chair?  Phi. 
He willed the people to believe them for that they succeeded Moses.  The. 
Though the pharisees were wicked hypocrites, yet because it was their function to teach the people in their Synagogues, he willeth them to be obeyed so long as they said nothing but that which the hearers knew to be agreeable to the law of God, but if they speak any thing of their own besides the law, that the people were to reject & detest. And so S. Aust. expoundeth the place, 
Aug. in johan. tractat. 46.  Sua verò si velint docere, nolite audire, nolite facere: But if they will teach their own (devices besides the law,) neither hear (them) nor do (as they did you.) Which is plainly commanded by Christ himself in the Gospel, 

Matth. 16.  
Ibidem vers. 11●   Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees, that is (as the holy Ghost doth interpret in the same chapter) of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Saducees.  
This then is evident. The law of God the people were to receive and obey at the Pharisees mouths, though they were hypocrites, because they were appointed by God for the time to be teachers: But the leaven of the Pharisees, that is their mixtures wherewith they tempered and infected the law of God, the people were to beware and avoid: Ergo the people were required to discern between the law of God and the leaven of the Pharisees, and charged to follow the first and forsake the last.  
And why impugn you that which the holy Ghost so often commandeth and therefore permitteth? 
1. john. 4.  Try the spirits whether they be of God, as you heard before. 
1. Thes. 5.  Try all things and hold fast that which is good. Be not unwise but understand what the will of the Lord is. Be renewed in your mind that you may discern what the good and acceptable and perfect will of God is. 

Rom. 12. Philip. 1. 1. Corinth. 2.  
The whole Scriptures give the people leave to discern the truth and require them so to do.   This I pray that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge & in all judgement, that you may discern the things which are best. He that is spiritual discerneth all things. You may have a thousand like both places & proofs that the faithful should look and take heed that they be not seduced. And except you will excuse the people before God, if you mislead them, why should you bar them all trial & understanding whether they follow faith unto salvation, or withdraw themselves unto perdition? When the blind leadeth the blind and they fall both into the pit of destruction, is not he that followeth as sure to perish as he that leadeth?  Phi. 
We be content they shall be discerners but no judges of their Pastors.  Theo. 
And Bishops themselves be no judges but discerners of truth. 

Princes have the same liberty to discern & try spirits that private men have.  
The former precepts comprise the Prince aswell as the people.  
Heb. 13.    Phi. 
We be from the matter that we began with: we were speaking of Princes.  The. 
We be right enough. Princes have the same charge to obey the truth & beware false Prophets that private men have; ergo they must have the same freedom to discern spirits, and refuse strange doctrines, that all the faithful have. Christ hath not appointed one way for Princes & an other for their people to come by the knowledge of his will, but the same way for both: Ergo the precepts, which I last alleged & also the former, pertain to Magistrates as well as to subjects; & to make the rule more general, in discerning, believing and obeying the truth, there is no distinctions of persons with God.  Phi. 
We receive your rule, & infer upon it, that these words of S. Paul, Obey your rulers, 

Vers. 7.  
No man bound to the Preacher farther than he speaketh truth.   bind as well Princes as private men to be subject to Bishops.  The. 
Take with you this limitation, (which have spoken to you the word of God) which S. Paul giveth even in the same chap. & infer what you can. To Bishops speaking the word of God, Princes as well as others must yield obedience: but if Bishops pass their commission and speak besides the word of God, what they list, both Prince and people may despise them.  
With this limitation our Saviour sent his Apostles into the world: Go, teach all Nations: 
The Apostles tied to that condition.  but what? To observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And this the Apostles themselves do not conceal in doing their message. The word of the Lord, saith Peter, endureth for ever, and this is the word which is preached among you. 
1. Pet. 1.  That which we have seen, saith john, & heard, that declare we to you, that ye may have fellowship with us. Let a 
* 1. john. 1. 1. Corinth. 4.  man, saith Paul, so think of us as of the ministers of Christ & stewards of the mysteries of God. And as for the rest it is requisite in stewards that every man be found faithful. And to the Galat. 

Galat. 1.  
The Angels themselves limited to that rule.   Though we (our selves) or an Angel from heaven preach unto you otherwise than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Preach I now man or God? I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me, was not after man: for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it (by man) but by the revelation of jesus Christ. And this maketh him so diligently distinguish the precepts of Christ from his own counsels, 
1. Corinth. 7.  To the married I command, not I, but the Lord: to the rest I speak, and not the Lord: Yea he requireth of them no more but that they follow him, so far forth as he followeth Christ: Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ, 
1. Corinth. 17.  that is no longer nor farther than I ●ollow Christ.  
Chrysostom alleging the words of S. Paul, Obey your overseeers, doth thus limit them, 
Chrysost. in 1. cap. 2. Epist. ad Timoth. hom. 2.  Si quidem fidei dogma pervertat, etiamsi Angelus sit, obedire noli: But if he pervert any point of faith, though he be an Angel, obey him not. And straight after, Ne Paulo quidem obedire oportet si quid dixerit proprium, si quid hymanun, sed Apostolo Christum in se loquentem circumferenti We must not obey Paul himself, if he speak any thing of his own, or as a man, but (we must obey) the Apostle bearing Christ about that speaketh in him. 
* Tertul. de prescript. advers. heretics.  Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet: It is not lawful for us, saith Tertullian, to devise any thing of ourselves nor to follow that which others have devised. We have the Apostles of the Lord for our authors who devised nothing of their own heads, but delivered faithfully to the nations, the doctrine which they received of Christ. Therefore though an Angel from heaven should preach otherwise, we should count him accursed. 
* 
Chrysost. operis imperfect. hom. 20. in 7. ca Mat.  
Much more teachers that are but servants of the law: and therefore bound unto the law.   Every teacher is a servant of the law, because he may neither add of his own sense unto the law, nor according to his own conceit take any thing from the law, but preach that only which is found in the law. If Apostles and Angels be tied to this condition, much more others, & our first addition (which speak unto you the word of God) is everywhere intended in the Bishop's function though it be not expressed.  Phi. 
If Bishops then speak the word of God, Princes must obey them.  The. 
If princes resist the word of truth in the Preachers mouth they resist not the messenger, but the master that sent him.  Phi. 
Hence we conclude that Bishops be superior to Princes.  Theo. 
By what Logic?  Phi. 
Prince's must obey Bishops speaking the word of God, ergo Bishops be superior to Princes.  Theo. 
If Bishops spoke to Princes in their own names, 
Prince's must obey Bishops because they speak in God's name and not in their own.  your argument were somewhat; but since they speak to them as servants in their master's name, which is Lord of all and over all, your consequent is very foolish. For let any Prince send his servant in a message to the Nobles of his Realm: will you reason thus? The servant speaking in the prince's name that which is commanded him, must be obeyed of the Nobles, ergo the servant is superior to the Nobles. I think you will not, or if you do, you reason very loosely.  Phi. 
If the servant have commission from the Prince though he be never so mean and the Nobles have none, well they may excel him in Nobility, but sure he excelleth them in authority.  Theo. 
He doth in those things which his Commission reacheth unto.  Phi. 
But Bishops have commission from God to rule the church, ergo they be superior to princes in the regiment of the church. Our assumption we prove by S. Paul: Take heed to yourselves & to the whole flock, wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the church of God. 
Act. 20.   Theo. 
Your luck is evil to light on such unperfect proofs. 

Bishops have commission to feed, not to rule their flocks.  
1. Pet. 5.   I told you before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signify to feed the church or flock of Christ, & not to rule, You now catch hold of the same corruption again, & make it the ground of your conclusion. If you trust not us, yourselves in your Rhemish Testament have so translated the word in S. Peter. Feed the flock of God which is among you, which is in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The very children know that these three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A shepherd, (his) flock, and to feed, have one and the same derivation, and therefore one and the same signification. 
john. 21.  The holy Ghost himself useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Synonimons, that is words of the same power & force. For when Christ repeated this charge, feed my sheep, thrise● to Peter in the Gospel of S. john, his words are the second time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: & the third time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now draw your assumption from S. Paul's words rightly translated & what conclude you? Bishops have commission from God to feed the Church (or flock of Christ) which Princes have not, ergo Bishops by their calling may preach and Princes may not. This is all you can infer, and this is nothing against us.  Phi. 
They be superiors to Princes in feeding the flock of Christ: ergo they be their superiors. 

They be superior in teaching, not in power to command and punish.  
Their function is more perfect & excellent because God worketh by their hands and mouths.    Theo. 
That sequel is not good. In building Masons be superior to Princes, in sailing Mariners, in fight, Soldiers; be these men ergo simply superior to Princes? I trow not.  Phi. 
Preaching the word, dispensing the Sacraments & pardoning the sins or men, which are the Bishop's charge, be things far greater & higher than any that Princes have.  Theo. 
The perfection & operation of these things which you name, depend not on the wills of men, but on the power of God, & therefore the honour & estimation of them must serve for the praise of God's glory & not for the increase of man's pride: The Ghostly work is Gods, the bodily service is the Priests: wherein judas the thief, Simon the sorcerer, and Demas the renegade may challenge as much as james the just, Peter the zealous and john the faithful, the three pillars of Christ's church.  
Per ministros dispares Dei munu● equale est, quia non illorum, sed eius est. 
Aug. contra Crescon. lib. 4. cap. 6.  By ministers (far) unlike, the gift of God, saith Augustine, is the same, because it is not theirs but his. 
Aug. in. Psa. 10  Christ sent him that betrayed him, with the rest of his Disciples to preach the kingdom of heaven, to show that the gifts & (graces) of God are bestowed on them, which receive the same with faith, though he that delivereth them be as bad as judas. The things which God giveth, saith Chrysostom, 
In 1. cap. 2. epist. ad. Tim. hom. 2.  can not be made perfect by the holiness of the Priest: for all is done by his heavenly grace. Only the Priest's office is to open his mouth, but it is God that worketh all the Priest doth only accomplish the (external sign or act.) Men, saith Ambrose, 
De spiritu san. lib. 3. cap. 19  in the remission of sins ministerium suum exhibent, non ius alicuius potestatis exercent, do their service, but exercise no right of authority. They pray, God giveth; the service is by man, the gift is from the heavenly power.  
Preaching the word, is a worthier part of apostolic dignity, than ministering the sacraments, by the witness of S. Paul himself saying, 
1. Corin. 1.  Christ sent me not to baptise, but, to preach the gospel. And yet of preachers the scripture saith, 
1. Corin. 3  Neither he that planteth is any thing nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase. So that neither in the word, nor sacraments, you may challenge any thing to man, but only the corporal service which is common to the godly with heretics & hypocrites: the rest is proper to God, & may not be ascribed to men, without injury to him that is the true author of them & mighty worker in them. And therefore the reason which you draw from the perfection of God's graces in the Church, 
The word & sacraments serve not to advance the Preachers person.  to the preferring & advancing of the Bishop's person before the Princes, is very vicious, because the subjection & revenge due to the sword is imparted to the Prince's person, the dignity & virtue of the word & sacraments is not to the Bishops.  Phi. 
The Priest's commission is higher than the Princes, & why should not the priest's person be above the Princes?  The. 
The priest hath his commission as a servant to call for subjection & obedience, 
The Preachers call for subjection & reverence to their master, not to themselves.  not unto himself but unto his Lord & Master that sent him. And this subjection, because it is given to God, infinitely exceedeth that which Princes may look for. But what is this to the Priest's person, who must preach himself to be The 
* 2. Corinth. 4.  servant of meaner men than Princes, & make himself The 
* Mark. 10. ●. Corint. 9  servant of all men, if he note well the words of his commission, and not strive with Princes for superiority?  Phi. 
For their persons I will not greatly stand with you, but certainly their power is above the princes.  The. 
You ●un so fast that you forget where you should be. We were debating who should direct princes in matters of faith: you be slipped from that, & entering a new question who shall correct them, where the former is yet unfinished.  Phi. 
You did confess that princes must obey Bishops so long as they speak truth.  The. 
And you would not deny but princes might refuse bishops if they swerved from faith.  Phi. 
But who shallbe judge whether they serve from faith or no?  Theo. 
That is the question which I said was not yet resolved. If Bishops teach truth, surely princes must obey them, I mean the word of truth in their mouths. If they go from truth, them princes must avoid them. To this we both consent, but the doubt is whether truth be tied to some certain Persons or places where Princes may find it & whence Princes must fet it; 
The truth of God is tied to no certain persons nor places.  or else whether Princes as all others must use the best means they can to discern true Preachers from false, and so be directed by such as they think to be sent from God.  Phi. 
You would have Princes and others lean to their own judgements and follow their own fancies. We would have them stick to the Church, and look to those Pastors whose faith can not fail.  Theo. 
Such Pastors be worth the following if you can point us to them.  Phi. 
Peter's faith can not fail: follow that faith and you can not miss the truth. 
Peter's faith is truth in deed, but that must be taken out of his own writings, not other men's reports.   Theo. 
He that keepeth Peter's faith in deed can not want the truth, because Peter believed the truth: but we be nothing the nearer for this. Paul's faith was likewise truth, and so was the faith of Matthew, james, john, Jude, and others: but who must be credited what faith Peter and the rest preached? Shall we take that at your hands by report, or at their own mouths by writing?  Phi. 
If their writings were not dark or might not be wrested, the Scriptures were the best witnesses of their doctrine: 
No successor may be trusted against or besides the Apostles writings.  but now their successors must rather be trusted than every man suffered to take what faith he list out of their writings.  Theo. 
Rather so than worse, doth not answer my question, but must we trust their successors in matters of faith against or besides their writings?  Phi. 
Against their writings we must not, besides their writings we must. For many things are believed which are not expressed in the scriptures.  The. 
With you, but not with the Church of God.  Phi. 
The church we say believeth many things which she received by tradition and not by writing.  Theo. 
Your Church I know doth, but the Church of Christ I say never did, not doth.  Phi. 
Had the Church of Christ no traditions that were not written?  Theo. 
Rites and ceremonies she had, but no points of faith that were not written.  Phi. 
This is the ground of all your errors: upon this pretence you reject the unwritten verities of the church.  Theo. 
If this be an error S. Paul himself was the first author of it, 
No point of faith unwritten.  and all the fathers of Christ's Church with one consent avouch the same.  Phi. 
Never tell us that tale.  Theo. 
yes we will tell it and prove it to you.  Phi. 
You can not.  Theo. 
We can and will.  
S. Paul is short but sure. 
Rom. 10.  Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God: Whence we collect, ergo faith is by the word of God and not without it nor besides it. You heard S. Basils' opinion before, 
Basil. in sermone de fide.  It is an evident sliding from the faith & a point of the greatest pride (that may be) either to departed from that which is written, or to receive that which is not written. To that you may join this conclusion of his, 
Idem in Ethici● defini●. 8.  If every thing that is not of faith be sin, as S. Paul affirmeth, and faith come by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, ergo whatsoever is without (or besides) the divine Scriptures, because it is not of faith, it is sin. Seekest thou for faith Emperor? saith Hilary to Constantius. 
Hilar. ad Constantium August.  Hear it not out of the late scrolls, but out of God's books. Hear I beseech thee that which is written of Christ, lest under pretence thereof of, things not written be preached. And in an other place pressing his adversary, Thou, 
Idem de Trinit. lib. 9  saith he, which deniest things written, what remaineth but that thou believe things unwritten: counting that for a passing absurdity which you now would establish as the surest way to discern the truth.  
Even so doth Hierom against helvidius. As we deny not those things that are written, 
Hieron. adversus Helnidium. Idem in Psal. 86.  so we reject utterly those things which are not written. For Our Lord & saviour speaketh to us in the Scriptures of his Princes: that is of his Apostles and Evangelists which were, not which are (in the church) to this end that his Apostles excepted whatsoever thing besides should afterward be said, might be cut off and not have authority. Tertullian speaking in the person of all christians, 
Tertul. de prescript. advers. haeretico●.  We need no farther search after the Gospel. When once we believe we desire nothing else to believe: for this we first believe that there is nothing, besides (the Gospel) which we ought to believe. 
Idem adversus Hermogenen.  And refelling the heretic Hermogenes, I adore, saith he, the fullness of the scriptures. Let Hermogenes show me where this (that he teacheth) is written. If it be not written, let him fear the curse provided for adders & diminishers. Yea saith Ambrose, 
Ambros. de virginibus, li. 3.  We justly condemn all new things which Christ did not teach, because to the faithful Christ is the way. So than if Christ did not teach that which we teach, even we ourselves do judge it to be detestable.  

Ireneus, lib. 3. cap. 1.  The rest are of the same mind. The disposition of our salvation, saith Irineus, we knew by none other, than by those, by whom the Gospel came unto us: the which at first they preached by mouth, but afterward by God's appointment they did deliver it to us in writing, that it should be the foundation and pillar of our faith. 

Cyril. de recta fide ad Reginas lib. 2.  
August. de Pastoribus, cap. 11. Idem contra literas Petiliani lib. 3. cap. 6. Caus. 11. quaest. 3. § si is qui preaest.   It is necessary for us, saith Cyril, to follow the divine Scriptures, & in nothing to go from their prescription. The mountains of Israel, (whereon God promised to feed his flock) are, saith Augustine, the writers of the divine Scriptures. Feeding there you feed safely: whatsoever you learn thence, count it savoury, whatsoever is besides them refuse it. Therefore whether it be touching Christ or his Church, or any matters else which concerneth our faith & life, I say not if we, but as followeth (in Paul) if an angel from heaven teach any thing besides that which you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospel, hold him accursed. Isidorus, as your own Law produceth him, 

No person nor place may be trusted in matters of faith besides and without the scriptures. The best direction for Princes is the word of God.  
Psal. 118.   saith, A Prelate, if he teach or bid any thing besides that which is evidently commanded in the holy scriptures, let him be taken for a false witness to God & a committer of sacrilege. Neither Prelate, Pope, Council nor Angel, may be received or trusted in matters of faith, I say, not against the Scriptures, but not without or besides the scriptures. If therefore you seek to lead Princes unto truth you must guide them thereto by the word of truth, otherwise you do but deceive them, you do not direct them.  
King David will teach you, by what means himself was, and all other godly Princes ought to be directed. Thy word is a lantern to my feet & a light unto my paths. I have sworn and will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgements. And God by Moses appointing his law to be the direction of Princes, commandeth a copy thereof to be delivered unto the king sitting on his throne, 
Deut. 17.  that he should read therein all the days of his life and learn to fear the Lord his God & to keep all the words of that law. This charge which God giveth bindeth princess as well as others. 
Deut. 12.  Whatsoever I command, that shall you do; thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take aught there from. And Esay speaketh not of private persons only but of commonwealths also, when he saith, 
isaiah. 8.  Should not a people consult their God? And showing immediately which way they might consult and ask counsel of God, from the living, saith he, to the dead? to the law (rather) and the testimony: & if they speak not according to this word (it is) because there is no light in them. 
Luk. 16.  They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them, is the surest way to save Prince & people from the place of torment, & consequently the best direction for them both.  Phi. 
The word of God is, we doubt not, the best direction for Princes & private men, 
Hieron. Cap. 1. in epist. ad Galatas. Tertullian. de praescriptionib.  if it be rightly understood, but All heresies patch thence the pillows which they lay under the elbows of all flesh, as S. Hierom saith, and They talk of scriptures & persuade by Scriptures as Tertullian noteth: And therefore the Scriptures being but dumble records that may be diversly construed and easily wrested, there must needs be some judge on earth that may be personally, pronounce which is the true meaning and right sense of the Scriptures before Princes may trust that direction. Otherwise men may breach what blasphemies they will and pretend Scripture when they have done as the Arrians, Sabellians, Macedonians and all other heretics did and do.  Theo. 
That heretics covet a show of scriptures is a case so clear that it needeth no words. 
Tertullian. v● supra. Heretics therefore covet a show of scriptures because they be the grounds of all truth. No tribunal on earth to the which truth is fastened. Where truth is in doubt the Church is in more doubt.  For how could they treat of matters of faith, except it were out of the books of faith, or who would trust them in divine causes without some colour of divine Scriptures? But what means the Lord hath left his sheep to distinguish true shepherds from wolves dissembling their habit, and thieves pretending his name, this is the question that now we be in.  Phi. 
It is. And there must, we say, be some certain Tribunal on earth, where truth may be found at all times and of all men that be willing to seek for it; otherwise there should be no stay for religion nor end of contention, every man pretending his faith to be truth, and no man having authority to decide which is truth; which were most absurd.  Theo. 
A Tribunal in earth to decide which is truth? Whose Tribunal shall that be?  Phi. 
The Churches.  Theo. 
We be now as near as we were before. If the truth be doubted of, the church must needs be much more doubted of, because the church is the number of men professing the truth. And how can the professors of truth be severed from others so long as the truth by which they should be known, is in question? You do but waste your breath, if you go not more directly to work.  Phi. 
You would fain call the Church in question but that you can not.  Theo. 
Away with these follies. Where faith faileth, the church faileth; and he that affirmeth your doctrine to be false, denieth your assemblies and multitudes to be the Church. The supposing yourselves to be the Church when your faith should be tried, is a fond and vain delay. Shall that be truth which you profess, though Christ say nay?  Phi. 
We say not so.  Theo. 
Then suffer those to be his sheep, that hear his voice, and claim not his fold, until you be his sheep.  Phi. 
We do not.  Theo. 

The shepherds voice is not known by the sheep, but the sheep by hearing the shepherds voice.  We must be first resolved which is his voice before we can agree who are his sheep.  Phi. 
I know that: and yet which is the shepherds voice the sheep must judge, and not the wolves.  The. 
In deed our saviour saith, 
* john 10.  The sheep follow (the shepherd) for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow but flee from him, for they knew not the voice of strangers: & applying this to himself, My sheep, saith he, hear my voice and follow me. The reason went before, for they know the voice of their shepherd. So that by the position of our Saviour his sheep must be able to discern his voice from a strangers.  Phi. 
What else?  Theo. 
His voice is his word, his sheep are the faithful, his fold is his church. If the Lord himself refer his sheep to their exact knowledge of his voice, for their perfect direction, why would you force the flock of Christ to the court of Rome, there to learn at your hands and upon your only credit the voice of their shepherd?  Phi. 
We would have them follow the direction of Christ's church in discerning the sound of Christ's voice.  Theo. 
And the church of Christ never directed any man by prescribing certain places or persons where truth could not fail but only by the general and constant profession of the same faith from the Apostles downward in all ages and countries.  Phi. 
The church commendeth succession, counsels, and Apostolical Seats, as good helps to hit the right sense of the Scriptures.  Theo. 
But never as infallible notes to discern the truth.  Phi. 

Apolog. Cap. 4. sect. 28. Succession is no sure direction unto truth. Ireneus, lib. 4. Cap. 43.  The Bishops of the universal Church have (as S. Ireneus saith) received with their Episcopal succession the grace and gift of understanding the truth.  Theo. 
You do that ancient father wrong in the place which you bring. Ireneus limiteth succession after the same manner that we do, noting succession to be nothing worth unless sound doctrine and holy conversation be thereunto joined. His words be: We must therefore obey those Priests which are in the Church, I mean those which have their succession from the Apostles, which together with their succession in office, have received charisma veritatis certum, the sure (doctrine or) gift of truth. The rest we must suspect either as heretics or as authors of schisms and pleasers of themselves, or else as hypocrites vain glorious and covetous. 
Cap. 44.  From all such we must abstain and cleave to them as I said which keep the doctrine of the Apostles & with the order of their priestly calling yield wholesome doctrine & conversation without offence. And showing what he meaneth by charisma, 
Cap. 45.  he saith, Vbi igitur charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi dicere oportet veritatem: Where (these) blessings and gifts of God are, there must we learn the truth, with whom is that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles, and also sound and irreprovable Doctrine. So that orderly succession, sound doctrine, and conversation without blame, are the gifts and graces of God which he meaneth, and the one he will not have to be regarded or trusted without the other.  Phi. 
Make you no more account of succession?  Theo. 
We commend succession to exclude ambition and dissension in the Church of Christ, and in that respect we detest such as invade the Pastoral function without lawful vocation and election, but that succession in place should be taken for a warrant of true Doctrine is an error of yours and so palpable that every Child can refel it. For who knoweth not that an infinite number of bishops & those orderly succeeding, if you look to their dignity and not to their doctrine, have been heretics? And that S. Paul thus forewarned the Bishops of Ephesus, 
Act. 20.  Out of yourselves shall rise men speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them. And the Lord when he saith, 
Mat. 7.  Beware of false prophets, noteth, there shall be prophets by their calling, which shall be found false in their teaching; as S. Peter also witnesseth, 
2. Pet. 2.  There were false prophets among the people (of the jews) even as there shall be false teachers amongst you, distinguished from Godly teachers not by office but by Doctrine. 
2. Cor. 11.  S. Paul granteth many to be the ministers of Christ in outward profession and show which in works and deeds be the ministers of Satan. 
2. Cor. 11.  Such false Apostles, saith he, are deceitful workers and transform themselves into the Apostles of Christ. The Prince of darkness that can convey his agents to be Teachers, Prophets and Apostles, in the Church of Christ, can place them in bishoprics at his pleasure, and therefore the chair is no sure defence against error.  Phi. 
We know some Bishops have been heretics, but not all.  Theo. 
Neither do we say that all were: God forbidden. But by this that some were; we prove succession to be no sure direction unto truth. 
Bishops have been heretics.  If Berillus, Paulus, Samosatenus, Photinus, Nestorius, Dioscorus, Petrus, Apameus, Sergius, Cyrus, Theodorus, Macarius, and infinite others canonically succeeding in Seats and Churches of no small account fell afterward into pestilent heresies; that which was often & easy then, is contingent & possible still, & succession which saved not them from erring, can not defend others from the like danger.  Phi. 
Succession alone is not sufficient to keep men in the right faith.  Theo. 
If you join truth and holiness with it as Ireneus doth, no doubt they be marks of faithful and Godly Pastors, but succession of itself, doth neither privilege the Teachers from error, nor conduct their hearers unto truth, because there have been thousands in the Church whose opinions you may not allow, though you cannot disprove their elections.  Phi. 
Admit that, 

Bishops assembled may err as well as Bishops severed.  
Mat. 18.   and how then?  Theo. 
If Bishops singled may err; why not Bishops assembled, which you call Counsels? What assurance hath their meeting to keep them from erring?  Phi. 
The promise of our Lord where there be two or three gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.  Theo. 
Doth our Saviour speak only of Bishops and Counsels, or else of all faithful persons & resorts gathered to prayer, preaching or any other good intent?  Phi. 
The words be general and therefore belong as well to counsels as other convents.  Theo. 
Indeed the words be general and therefore belong no more to Counsels than to any other Christian convents. And did they specially pertain to Counsels, as they do not, a Council of two or three by the purport of the very words hath as much assurance of truth as a Council of three hundred. 
Two or three have the same promise of assistance that two or three hundred have.  It is not the number but the name in which they be gathered, that guideth and directeth them unto truth.  Phi. 
If our Lord have promised to assist three gathered in his name, how much more will he assist three hundred?  Theo. 
And yet three may see the truth, when three hundred may miss it. Which I speak not to deface religious and Godly Counsels, but to stay the multitude from presuming their fancies to be true religion when they be nothing near.  Phi. 

Counsels may err.  May Counsels err?  Theo. 
Why not?  Phi. 
What Counsels?  Theo. 
Yea Counsels. Rebaptising of heretics was defended by Cyprian and a Council of Bishops with him, 
Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 5.  and as Eusebius reporteth out of Dionysius decreed In maximis Episcoporum Synodis, in very great Counsels of Bishops. The Arrians in twenty six years gathered and framed sundry Counsels for their purpose at Tyrus, jerusalem, Philippi, Sirmium, Ariminum, Seleucia, Constantinople, and two at Antioch. In the Council of Milan 
* Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 9  Above three hundred of the west Bishops consented that Athanasius should be thrust from his Bishopric, and only five said nay. To the wicked edict of Basiliscus against the Council of Chalcedon subscribed 
* evag. li. 3. ca 4.  five hundred Bishops. Gregory Nazianzene was so out of love with the Counsels of his time, 
Epist. 55 ad Proropium.  that when he was sent for, he prayed Proropius to have excused to the Emperor for sickness, and addeth, I, to write you the truth, am determined to forbear all Counsels of Bishops, because I have not seen any good event of any Council, but rather an increase than a redress of (our) evils. So that a number of bad Bishops may do much hurt even in Counsels, and the better part is not always sure to be the greater.  Phi. 


A general Council doth not differ from a particular but only in number of persons and places.  
Vide distinct. 16 § sexta § primo.   Particular Counsels have erred, but never general.  Theo. 
If particular counsels may err, why may not general? what difference find you between Provincial and general Counsels but only the number of Persons that be called, and places whence they be called? Now what warrant I pray you have three hundred Bishops more than two hundred, or the Bishops of some countries more than the Bishops of other Countries, that they cannot err? If truth go by tale, particular Counsels have often matched and passed many general for number of Bishops. The second and sixth general Counsels, had present at either but one hundred fifty Bishops, the third had but one hundred, as Beda writeth, and as it appeareth by their 
* Tomo council. primo.  subscriptions, not above one hundred fifty, whereas the Council of Sardica had 
* Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 2.  three hundred, and so had the council of Milan, and the fourth & sixth Counsels of Carthage had above two hundred Bishops in either of them. 
* Idem li. 2. c. 36. Tomo concilior. primo.  If it go by countries, then show us which Countries have this privilege, that their Bishops can not err, and which have it not: For as yet we see no cause why truth should be tied to some numbers or nations and not to others; and before we may grant them that progative, we must see great cause and good proof.  Phi. 
We do not hold that general Counsels are defended from error by reason of any number or nations there gathered, but it is we say more likely, that many men assembled out of divers nations should light on truth, than a few out of one.  Theo. 
You come with likelihoods when we seek for certainties. Can you show forth any grant from God that general Counsels shall not err?  Phi. 
If general Counsels might err, 
A general Council erring the Church doth not err.  the church might err, which is not possible.  Theo. 
As though none were of or in the Church but only Bishope? or all the Bishops of Christendom without exception were ever present at any Council? or the greater part of those that are present might not strike the stroke without the rest? When 300. are assembled in Council, and 149. take one part, and 151. the other, is this your profound learning that the odd voices which make up the greater part can never err? or doth the whole Church err, when falsehood hath for herself ten or twelve Bishops more than truth hath?  Phi. 
If a Council once give judgement in matters of faith, who can reverse it?  Theo. 
The rest present or absent may lawfully contradict the Council if it wade besides truth or against the faith. 

A Council may be reversed by the rest that be present or absent.  
Sozo. li. 1. ca 23.   When the fathers in the great Council of Nice were about to decree that Bishops, Priests and Deacons should not use their wives, Paphnutius alone rose up in the midst of their Council and freely contradicted it. The same Paphnutius, when secret enemies laboured in the Council of Tyrus wrongfully to depose Athanasius caught Maximus the Bishop of jerusalem by the hand, and willed him to rise and forsake that conventicle of evil men. 
Sozo. li. 2. ca 25.  In the Council of Milan when 300. had consented to the deposition of Athanasius, Dionysius, Eusebius, Paulinus, Lucifer and Rhodamus (but five against fifteen score) openly and plainly withstood it. 
Sozo. li. 4. ca 9  The second Council of Ephesus was rejected by many godly Bishops that were not present as injurious and wicked, and Leo himself writeth of the famous and general council of Chalcedon, 
Leo epist. 52. ad Anatholium.  Tanquam refutari nequeat quod illicit volverit multitudo; as though that might not be refused, which a multitude hath unlawfully decreed. And making there no more account of their number, though there were above six hundred fathers in that Council, 
Ibidem.  he saith, Nulla sibimet de multiplicatione congregationis Concilia blandiantur. Let no counsels flatter themselves with the great number of persons assembled.  Phi. 
You are the first that ever were of this opinion that general Counsels might err.  Theo. 
Your own fellows have been of that opinion before us. Panormitane the best of your canonists, 

Their own fellows have confessed that general counsels might oer.  
Panor. de elect. & electi potestate ¶ significasti.   and Proctor for Pope Eugenius against the Council of Basil, affirmeth plainly, Concilium potest errare, sicut alias erravit super matrimonium contrahendum inter raptorem & raptam, & dictum Hieronymi melius sentientis postea fuit praelatum statuto Concilij. A Council may err, as otherwise a Council hath erred about marriage to be contracted between the ravisher and the ravished, and the saying of Hierom as being of the sounder opinion was after preferred before the statute of the Council. And your argument, that the church should fail in faith if counsels should err; 
Panorm. Ibidem.  he rejecteth as frivolous. Nec obstat si dicatur quod Concilium non potest errare quia Christus oravit pro ecclesia sua ut non deficeret. It hindereth us little, if it be said that a Council can not err, because Christ prayed for his Church that it should not fail. For though a general Council represent the whole universal Church, 
A general council is not the Church.  yet to speak truth the universal Church is not there precisely, but by representation; because the universal Church consisteth of all the faithful. And this is the Church which can not err. Whereby it is not unpossible but the true faith of Christ may continue in only one person. Therefore, (the Church) is not said to fail nor to err, if the true faith remain in any one. If you would be farther taught that a general council is neither the universal church, nor representeth the universal church, and that it hath erred and may err, we can send you to a merchant of the same stamp that yourselves are of, where you shall see as much as I say, debated and commended with no small bravery.  


Pigh. hierarch. ecclesiast. lib. 6. cap. 5 & 4.  
Pighius is earnest that general Counsels have erred in decision of faiths.  
Lib. 6. Cap. 7.   Certum est Concilia non esse universalem Ecclesiam. In nullo universalium Conciliorum omnium hoc sibi praesumpsisse Patres invenient ut dicerent Catholicam se repraesentare ecclesiam praeterquam in hijs quae nunc impugnamus, Constantiensi & Basiliensi novissimis. It is certain that Counsels are not the universal Church. In none of all the general Counsels shall you find the fathers to have arrogated thus much to themselves as to say they represented the catholic church besides these two last counsels of Constance and Basil which we now impugn. And that general counsels may err no man more resolute than Pighius. Neque enim haec sola quae nunc impugnamus, Concilia, turpiter graviterque errasse certum est, sed & alia plurima: It is certain that not only these Counsels (of Constance and basil) which we now disprove have shamefully and absurdly erred but also many others. 
Lib. 6. Cap. 13.  And again, In fidei definitionibus errasse, etiam universalia etiam sanctorum Patrum Concilia comperimus. Testimonio sunt de universalibus Concilijs, inprimus Ariminense, universal haud dubie: etc. Insuper Ephesanum secundum & ipsum universal, etc. testimonio inquam haec sunt errare posse etiam universalia Concilia, etiam legitimè congregata. We find that general counsels even of holy fathers have erred in decrees of faith. For example of general Counsels, the Council of Ariminum, universal no doubt, and also the second council of Ephesus, and that likewise universal, these I say are witnesses that even general Counsels and those lawfully gathered may err.  


August. de baptist. lib. 2 cap. 3.  
S. Augustine confesseth that counsels may err.   If Panormitane and Pighius might happily be overseen in impairing the credit of counsels: S. Augustine was not when he said, Who can be ignorant that Provincial and National Counsels yield without any stay to the authority of general Counsels gathered out of the whole Christian world, and that general Counsels themselves are often amended the former by the later, with Catholic peace and Christian charity.  Phi. 
He saith, Plenary counsels are amended but not from errors.  Theo. 
What needeth amending where no fault is? The condition which S. Augustine repeateth in the first, 
Ibidem.  endureth to the last Si quid forte a veritate deviatum est, If in aught they serve from truth. And except that be understood, he answereth not the thing which was objected by the Donatists. They opposed Cyprians letters, Cyprians judgement, Cyprians Council in a matter of Doctrine not of Discipline. S. Augustine replieth, Bishops might be deceived and so might Counsels. In what now but in matters of Doctrine?  Phi. 
Can you name us any general council that erred in matters of doctrine?  Theo. 
Your own fellow nameth the Council of Ariminum and of Ephesus the second, 
The second Council of Ephesus was general.  besides the Counsels of Constance and basil.  Phi. 
I doubt not whether that of Ephesus were a wicked Council, but whether it were general or no.  Theo. 
The patriarchs of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, & Constantinople were called unto it and present at it, with the Bishops of diverse and sundry Provinces, as their subscriptions declare, which are extant in the Council of Chalcedon: The 
* Astio. 1.  Bishop of Rome by his Legates as his wont was in other Counsels, the 
* 
Euagrius li. 1. Cap. 10.  
Reperitur chalcedonens. council. actio. 1.   rest in person, and therefore out of question it was no Provincial Council. Again the Emperor that called the Council in his epistle to the same saith, We thinking it not safe that this question of faith should be handled without your sacred Synod and the Bishops of the holy Churches of all places, thought it needful that your sanctities should assemble.  Phi. 
The Bishops that were present at Ephesus complained after in the Council of Chalcedon that they were threatened and forced. 
Chalced. council. actio. 1.   Theo. 
The greater the disorder that was committed in the Council, the stronger is our argument, that Counsels may be miscarried; if Bishops may be forced, they may likewise be circumvented, as they were in the Council of Ariminum, or deceived in opinion as they were in the Counsels of Carthage, Constance and Basil, by the confession of your dearest friends. If all these ways they may be perverted when they are assembled, ergo they may make both an erroneous and injurious conclusion.  
And for this cause S. Augustine teacheth that ecclesiastical judges may be deceived, 

Ecclesiastical judges are often deceived.  
Contra Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 21.   in that they be but men, and calleth their counsels human judgements which may be circumvented and beguiled. His words be, Non igitur debet ecclesia se Christo praeponere: cum ille semper veraciter judicet, ecclesiastici autem judices sicut homines plerumque falluntur. The Church may not prefer herself before Christ, forsomuch as he always judgeth rightly, and ecclesiastical judges as being but men are often deceived. And rehearsing two Episcopal judgements that passed against the Donatists in the Counsels at Rome and Arle, he addeth, 
August. epist. 167.  Sed haec humana judicia deputentur, & circumuenire, ac falli, vel etiam corrumpi potuisse dicantur. But let these be counted the judgements of men, and let it be said they might either deceive or be deceived; and perhaps corrupted.  

August. contra Maximinum lib. 3. cap. 14.  The like he saith of the Council of Ariminum. This is that which the Catholic fathers in the Council of Nice had established against the Arrian heretics by authority of the truth, and which afterward in the Council of Ariminum, heretical impiety under an heretical Emperor assayed to overthrow, multis paucorum fraud deceptis, the multitude (there) being deceived by the subtlety of a few. 

Ibidem lib. 3 cap. 14.  
The Arrians not bound to the authority of the Nicene council.   And therefore he concludeth, Sed nunc ne● ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praeiudicaturus proferre Concilium: nec ego huius authoritate, nec tu illius detineris. But now (since there be contrary Counsels) neither aught I to produce the Council of Nice, nor you the Council of Ariminum for a prejudice (to either part:) for neither am I bound to the authority of this (later Council of Ariminum) nor you to the authority of that (former Nicene Council:) Confessing not only that counsels might err, but that his adversary was not tied to the authority of the great Nicene council, comparable to the which, no Council ever was or shall be in the Church of Christ.  Phi. 
There was great difference between the Council of Ariminum and the Council of Nice.  Theo. 
In the sincere profession of the true faith there was difference betwixt them, but in the manner of calling those Counsels and number of the persons present Saint Augustine found no great advantage for his side. The Arrians had a council as great and as general for that which they refused as the Catholics had for that which they professed, and therefore this learned father saw no remedy but he must yield up the Nicene Council as no sufficient conviction of their heresy.  Phi. 

The Council of Ariminum was general.  The council of Ariminum was not general.  Theo. 
The council was far greater, as it should seem, than the council of Nice, though the Story of the church do not lay down the certain number of the Bishops that met.  Phi. 
What reason leadeth you to think it was greater?  Theo. 
It is evident by the Story that the Emperor assembled all the Bishops both of the East and of the West church, of purpose if it were possible, to bring them to some concord: and the Bishops of either church, no doubt, far exceeded the number of three hundred.  Phi. 
They were not all at Ariminum.  Theo. 
The number was so great and the journey so long that the Emperor made them sit in two several places, the East Bishops at Nicomedia, the West at Ariminum: but that all the Bishops of both Churches were gathered in these two places Socrates doth witness.  

Socrat. lib. 2. Cap. 37.  (Imperator) universal Concilium congregare voluit ut cunctos Orientis Episcopos in Occidentem accersitos, concords, si posset, redderet. The Emperor intended to gather an universal Council, that all the Bishops of the East coming into the West parts, he might get them to agree, if it might be. And when the length of the journey appeared over tedious, he commanded the council to be divided, & willed the west to assemble at Ariminum, the East to resort at Nicomedia. What a company there were of the west bishops, their own words to Constantius will declare. Ariminum ex cunctis Occidentis Civitatibus omnes Episcopi convenimus. 
Ibidem epistol● Synodi Arimin. ad Constant.  We assembled at Ariminum even all the Bishops out of all the west Cities. S. Hierom writing of this very Council saith, Illo tempore nihil tam pium, nihil tam conveniens servo Dei videbatur quam unitatem sequi, & a totius mundi communione non scindi. 
Hierom. advers. Luciferanos.  At that time nothing seemed so religious, nothing so convenient for the servant of God as to follow unity and not to cut himself from the Communion of the whole world. The communion of the whole world was in the Council of Ariminum: 
In the Council of Ariminum was the communion of the whole world.  no Council therefore could be more general than that was. And this no doubt Saint Augustine saw when he gave over the Council of Nice, as no greater prejudice to his adversaries than the Council of Ariminum was to himself and the faith which he defended.  Phi. 
The Council of Ariminum condemned the error of Arius, 
The Council of Ariminum erred.  as their Epistle to Constantius declareth.  Theo. 
The Bishops assembled at Ariminum were religious and Catholic, but not sounding the drift of some crafty heretics amongst them, and led with a colour of concord and peace which the Emperor urged, they relented from the Nicene creed upon pretence made that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was new and offensive, and consented the word should be abolished, 
Hioron. advers. Luciferanos.  and subscribed to an other Creed that professed the son of GOD to be like to his father, according to the Scriptures.  Phi. 
Wherein then did that Council err?  Theo. 
Not in decreeing any falsehood, but in exacting less to be believed than the Christian faith required, and rejecting that word, which the Nicene Council had established for the righter expressing of the christian faith. In this Council saith Saint Hierom, 
Hieron. advers. Luciferano●  Nomine unitatis & fidei infidelitas scripta est, In the name of unity and faith infidelity was (decreed and) written: and upon the conclusion of the Council, 
Ibidem.  Ingemuit totus orbis, & Arrianum se esse miratus est, The whole world groaned and wondered to see itself in Arrianisme.  Phi. 
The fathers made more account of Counsels than you do.  Theo. 
No father ever said that Counsels could not err.  Phi. 
S. Augustine saith, 
Epist. 118.  their authority is most wholesome in the Church.  Theo. 
But he never said they were free from all error. That is the perfection and reverence which S. Augustine reserveth to the Scriptures only, to be without all suspicion of error. 
Epist. 119.  Solis eis Scripturarum libris qui iam Canonici appellantur didici hunc timorem honoremque defer, 
Only the scriptures ca● not err.  ut nullum eorum authorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. I have learned to yield this fear and honour to the Canonical Scriptures only that I firmly believe none of the Authors of them to have any thing erred in penning them. If this honour to be free from error, be due to the Canonical Scriptures only, then may you not impart it either to succession, Counsels or Sees apostolic. It must stand for a perpetual difference between the precepts of God and decrees of men that God is true and all men liars. 
Rom 3. Epist. 112. ad Paulin.  If (aught) saith Austen, be proved by the manifest authority of the divine Scriptures which in the Church are called Canonical, it must be believed without any doubting: Other witnesses or testimonies, thou mayst believe or not believe, according as thou shalt see cause to trust them.  
And distinguishing the Canon of the Scriptures from the writings and resolutions of all that followed; were they fathers, Counsels or whatsoever, he saith, 
August. contra Faustum Manicheum, li. 11. cap. 5.  In that Canonical pre-eminence of the sacred Scriptures if it appear that but one Prophet, Apostle or Evangelist set down any thing in his writings, it is not lawful to doubt of the truth of it. In the works of those that came after them, comprised in books that be infinite, in which soever of them the same truth is sound, yet the authority is far inferior. Therefore in them, if happily some things be thought to dissent from truth because they be not understood as they were spoken, 
In all other writings the reader is free and not bound to believe them. August. de natura & gratia contra Pelag. cap. 61. Ibidem.  tamen liberum ibi habet lector auditorue judicium, quo vel approbet quod placuerit, vel improbet quod offenderit, yet hath the reader or hearer in those writings his judgement free to allow what he liketh, and reject what he misliketh: So that in all such except they be fortified by evident reason, or by that Canonical authority, if a man mislike or will not believe he is not reproved. Which liberty S. Augustine elsewhere challengeth unto himself In quorumlibet hominum scriptis, in the writings of all men whatsoever, and addeth this reason, Quia solis Canonicis debeo sine ulla recusatione consensum, because I own consent without any stay to the Canonical Scriptures only.  


We may judge freely of Counsels.  
Contra Faustum lib. 11. cap. 5.   The authority to be believed without any refusing is proper only to the Scriptures, because the certainty, not to err, is annexed only to them and to no writings else. The rest must be read, as S. Augustine teacheth, non cum credendi necessitate, sed cum judicandi libertate, not with a necessity to believe them, but a liberty to judge of them, and must be distinguished from the authority of the Canon, for that 
* epist. 48.  the authority of the sacred Scriptures can neither deceive nor be deceived, and by 
* De pecca. meritis & remiss. lib. 1. Cap. 22.  those books, de ceteris literis fidelium vel infidelium libere iudicemus, we may freely judge of (all) other writings both of Christians and Infidels. 
* Contra Cresco. lib. 2. Cap. 3.3.  If we must judge, than they may err. Where no danger of error is, there is no freedom of judgement left us to receive what we see cause, and reject what we think good. The Scriptures we may not judge of, because they can not err: All other writings we must examine before we believe, Ergo they be not free from erring.  


S. Augustine refused counsels both with him and against him.  
De unitate ecclesiae, Cap. 16.   This made S. Augustine disputing with the Donatists to reject the Counsels that were against him and resign the Counsels that were with him as he did before refuting the Arrians and to tie both himself and his adversaries to the Scriptures. Let (the Donatists) if they can, saith he, show their Church, not in rumours and speeches of the men of Africa, not in the counsels of their Bishops, not in the discourses of any writers whosoever, not in signs and miracles that may be forged; but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the Prophets in the verses of the Psalms, in the voices of the shepherd himself, in the preachings and works of the Evangelists, that is in all the canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. And binding himself to the same condition, he saith, 
Ibidem.  Quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quòd in ecclesia Christi sumus etc. Because we ourselves do not say we must therefore be believed, for that we are in the Church of Christ, or else for that Optatus, Ambrose and infinite other Bishops of our communion have commended the church, which we hold, or because our church hath been published in the Counsels of our Colleagues. 
Hilar. contra Auxentium & Arrianos.  S. Hilary was nothing afraid to be condemned in many Counsels. Now let him gather what Counsels he will against me, saith he, and openly proscribe me for an heretic, as he hath often done.  Phi. 
By whom then shall princes be directed if neither by bishops nor counsels? 
Princes are not bound to Counsels.   Theo. 
I do not say that princes should not be directed by them, but only that princes & others are not bound unto them with like subjection, as they be to the word of God. For that can not err, & may command, because God is the author of it. Counsels may err, & can not command, because they consist of men, which be not always assured of truth, and own subjection to the prince's sword.  Phi. 
Were this exception good against counsels, 
Christ hath a vicar on earth that can not ere, which is the holy Ghost.  against Christ's vicar it is not good. He may command, as Christ might if he were present, and hath a promise that his faith shall not fail.  Theo. 
In deed Christ hath a vicar on earth that may command, and can direct unto truth, but I think you mean not him.  Phi. 
I mean the vicar general which Christ left behind him to guide the church after his ascending.  Theo. 
And so do I, and yet I doubt we be of two minds.  Phi. 
What vicar hath Christ left but Peter and his successors in the Roman See, which can not err, and may command as well Princes as others?  Theo. 
His holy Spirit, which hath better right to command and skill to direct than either Peter or Peter's successors.  Phi. 
Call you the holy Ghost his vicar?  Theo. 
Why should I not? Tertullian did so before me. The rule of faith is, saith he, 

Tertul. de praescriptio. advers. haereticos.  
Idem de virginibus velandis.   that Christ was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of his father and sent, Vicarian vim spiritus sancti qui credentes agate, the power of the holy Ghost to be his Vicar and to lead the faithful. And in an other place he giveth him the same title. Vicarius Domini Spiritus sanctus, the holy Ghost the lords Vicar: But what ancient father ever called the Bishop of Rome Christ's vicar? 
The Pope never called Christ's vicar but by his own flatterers.   Phi. 
If Peter were, no doubt he is.  Theo. 
We ask not now for ifs, show one that ever called him so.  Phi. 
What if that very word be not found in them?  Theo. 
Then forbear it till you find it, and go on with some other name.  Phi. 
Call him as you list, but this we be sure that he can not err, and may command both Prince and people. 
The Pope may err and can command neither Prince nor people.   Theo. 
He never biteth that barketh much, you make yourself sure of these things, which when we come to trial will be most unsure. How prove you either of these points which you affirm?  Phi. 
The Gospel proveth the first, 
The Rhemish Testament upon the 22. of Luke.  I prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou once converted, confirm thy brethren, which is to say, that Peter is that man, whom he would make Superior over them and the whole Church.  Theo. 
Which is to say, that you bely the words of the Gospel. For who but jesuits would make this collection, Confirm thy brethren, that is, be Superior over them and the whole Church?  Phi. 
None may confirm but a Superior.  Theo. 

One brother may confirm an other.  Why so good Sir? May not one brother comfort and encourage an other?  Phi. 
yes, but Peter must confirm his brethren.  Theo. 
And what was confirming in this place but recalling them from the fear they were in, when they fled from their master, and leading them by his example to be more constant?  Phi. 
It was his charge so to do.  Theo. 
So is it every Christian man's, in the like case to do no less. David after the defiling of Berseba and murdering of Vriah promiseth to do that which Peter is here appointed to do. 
Psal. 51.  Restore me to the joy of thy salvation, and establish me with thy free Spirit; then will I teach thy ways unto the wicked, and sinners shall be converted unto thee. Will you therefore infer that David was supreme Pastor over all the wicked? Are you not profound men, of a christian duty and common charity prescribed to Peter in respect of them that were fallen into the same temptation with him, to conclude a singularity and superiority for him over his fellow disciples and over the whole church besides?  Phi. 

The Rhemish Testament upon the 22. of S. Luke. Christ prayed for Peter not that he should not err, but that he should not utterly perish. Chrysost. in joh. homil. 72. Idem in Mat. homil. 83.  By this, We learn that it was thought fit in the providence of God, that he who should be the head of the church, should have a special privilege by Christ's prayer & promise never to fail in faith, and that none other either Apostle, Bishop or Priest may challenge any such singular or special prerogative either of her office or person otherwise than by joining with Peter and by holding of him.  Theo. 
By this we learn that you abuse both the providence of God and the promise of our Saviour to serve your wicked fancies. For Christ did not promise that Peter's judgement should never err, but that in this tentation now at hand, his faith shall not utterly fail. Ego pro te oravi ne deficeret fides tua: Hoc est ne in fine pereas. I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail, that is, saith chrysostom, that thou finally perish not. And again, Non dixit quip, non negabis, sed ut non deficiat fides tua. Cura enim ipsius & favore factum est ne omnino Petri fides evanesceret. (Christ) did not say, thou shalt not deny me, but thy faith shall not (wholly) fail. For by his care and favour it came to pass that Peter's faith should not utterly be extinguished. And so Bede, 
Beda in cap. ●2. Luce.  Our Saviour prayed for Peter, not that he should not be tempted, but that his faith should not fail, that is, that after he was fallen by denying him, he might rise again by repentance to his former state. Now frame your reason, as in deed you must, and mark your illation how absurd it is. I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not utterly vanish, though thou shalt thrice deny me and shamefully forswear me; Ergo neither Peter neither his successors can err in any matter of Religion. I ask not what boy, but what bedlam would thus dispute?  Phi. 
Peter denied not the faith but the person of Christ.  Theo. 
And he that denieth the Person of Christ, denieth not a part, but the whole faith of Christ. 
To deny Christ is worse than to be deceived in some point of saith.  It is a sorer and a more dangerous fall to deny the Lord himself, than to be deceived in opinion of faith, even by the very confession of Peter. For thus he placeth them in the second Epistle, 
2. Peter 2.  There shallbe false teachers amongst you, which shall privily bring in damnable sects, yea, denying the Lord that hath bought them. Our Saviour in his admonition to the seven Churches of Asia, 
revelat. 2.  showeth that he which denieth his name denieth his faith. Thou holdest fast my name, saith he, and hast not denied my faith. Wherefore not to hold fast the name of Christ is to deny the faith of Christ. And how can you doubt of this, since the missing of any point of faith, is but heresy, and the denying of Christ's name which Peter fell into, is Apostasy, far worse than the former? See then how lewdly you pervert the words of our Saviour. Where Peter is forewarned of his fall, you make the words a warrant that he shall not fall. And where the Lord promised him repentance, you turn the text as if Peter were free from all such offences.  Phi. 
He offended, but not in faith.  Theo. 
Can he deny Christ and not deny his faith and hope in Christ? Or can there be greater infidelity than to deny the son of God? And yet Peter not only denied him thrice, but with an oath and a curse ratified his denial.  Phi. 
Peter denied that he knew him.  Theo. 
And he that knoweth not Christ, what faith or hope hath he in Christ? 
Peter lost his faith when he denied christ.  S. Ambrose giving the cause why Peter did not speak but weep after his fall, saith, 
Ambros. sermo. 46.  Petrus iam non utitur sermone quo fefellerat, quo peccaverat, quo fidem amiserat. Peter now doth not use speech by the which he had lied, by the which he had sinned, by the which he had lost his faith. And again, 
Idem. sermo. 47.  Fidelior factus est post quam fidem se perdidisse deflevit. Peter became more faithful, after he bewailed the loss of his faith.  Phi. 
The danger (saith S. Leo) was common to all the Apostles, but our Lord took special care of Peter, 
The Rhemish Testament upon the 22. of S. Luke.  that the state of all the rest might be the more sure, if the head were invincible.  Theo. 
Leo may be borne with in showing himself somewhat favourable to Peter, the founder of his Church; but what reason we should bear with you when you corrupt and falsify that which Leo saith? His words are, 

Leo. sermo. 3. in anniuersari● die assumptionis ad Pontificatum.  
Leo corrupted by the Rhemists.   Pro fide Petri propriè supplicatur tanquam aliorum status certior sit futurus, simens Principis victa non fuerit. Prayer is made particularly for Peter's faith, as though the state of others would be the surer, if the mind of the chief were not conquered. For aliorum, you say (all the rest;) for mens Principis, you say (the head;) for victa non fuerit, you say (were invincible;) that is at no time after able to be conquered. These be your forgeries, they be not Leoes words. He speaketh somewhat partially for Peter, but nothing hurtful unto us. That Peter was the chief of the Apostles in order, in age, in zeal, in courage, and such like virtues and dignities, and that the rest are weakened when the chief is conquered, which is all that Leo saith, we can admit: But yet S. chrysostom, 

Chrysost. in Mat. homil. 83.  
Why Christ prayed for Peter by name.  
Ibidem paulo ante.   by your leave, giveth a truer cause way Christ did mention Peter and not the rest. If (Satan) desired (to resist) them all, why did not (Christ) pray for all? It is evident, as I said before, that to touch him the more deeply and to show his fall to be far more grievous than any of the rest, Christ turneth his speech to him in particular. And so he said before, I prayed for thee (particularly) that thy faith should not fail. This (Christ) spoke to touch (Peter) the more vehemently, signifying that his fall would be much fouler than the fall of his fellows, and therefore that he needed the more help.  


Christ prayed for all.  
August. quaest. ex novo Testamento, quaest. 75.   S. Augustine maketh it a plain case that in praying for Peter he prayed for all. Quid ambigitur? Pro Petro rogabat, & pro jacobo & johann non rogabat, ut ceteros taceam? Manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri, quia & in alio loco dicit, Ego pro hijs rogo quos mihi dedisti Pater. Why doubt we of it? Did he pray for Peter, and did he not pray for james and john, to say nothing of the rest? It is manifest that in Peter all are contained, because in an other place he saith: I pray for them whom thou hast given me, O father. The words Pro jacobo & johann non rogabat, must be interrogative, unless you will have S. Augustine to contradict that which he goeth about to prove; though the Print or the Scribe have made there two points, yet your own fellows the Lovanists in their late Plantine edition have mended the points, & made them interrogative for very shame. But how so ever you set the points, certain it is the Lord prayed jointly for them all, and that at this very supper as the 17. of S. john witnesseth, & in as ample manner for all as for one. 
john 17.  I pray for them, I pray not for the world. Holy father preserve them in thy name whom thou hast given me; keep them from evil & sanctify them in thy truth.  
It is a greater grace to be kept from evil and to be sanctified in the truth, which Christ requested for all, than to have their faith not fail and to be converted, which he promised unto Peter. You do therefore very wickedly to teach the people that None other Apostle might challenge any such special prerogative either of his office or Person, 
The Rhemish Testament upon the 22. of Luke.  as to be steadfast in truth without error. The prayer was general for them all by the judgement of S. Augustine, and were it not, the prayer which our Saviour made for them all, and the promise which he made unto them all even the same night that he spoke this, are more effectual than this. The prayer you have heard: the promise is, 

john. 16.  
Christ's promise to all his Apostles.   If I depart not, the comforter shall not come unto you: but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when that Spirit of truth cometh he shall lead you into all truth. To be led into all truth is a better assurance against error, than to fall first and after to be converted, which is all that is promised unto Peter in this place.  Phi. 


The Rhemish Testament in the 22. of Luke.  
Lib. q. novi Testa. quaest. 75. tomo 4.   Saint Augustine also: Christ praying for Peter, prayed for the rest, because in the Pastor and Prelate the people is corrected or commended. Saint Ambrose writeth that Peter after his tentation was made Pastor of the Church, because it was said to him, thou being converted confirm thy brethren.  Theo. 
You might have spared these authorities, but that you must needs have the Father's names in your mouths, though they make nothing for you. The words of S. Augustine, which you cite, are not found in the old Prints nor in their copies, 
The words are enclosed with two lines in Erasmus edition, & not found in the old prints.  but crept into some written books by the negligence and unskilfulness of scribes; and yet were they S. Augustine's, I see not what you gain by them. Peter is there called Praepositus, 
Praepositus & Praelatus common names to all Bishops.  that is, preferred before the rest, as also Praelatus doth signify, both which words in the Fathers be commonly applied to all Bishops, & import no singular prerogative that Peter should claim, but the common charge which all Pastors have. And though the words which you quote be neither many nor material, yet you mistake them. For you say the people is corrected or commended, where the Latin is Semper in praeposito populus aut corripitur aut laudatur, the people is always reproved or praised in their (leader or) Prelate.  
S. Ambrose saith no more but that, 
Ambros. in Psal. 43.  Petrus Ecclesiae praeponitur, post quam à Diabolo tentatus est, Peter receiveth charge of the church, after he was tempted of the Devil. And by these words, thou being converted confirm thy brethren, he saith, 
Ibidem.  The Lord doth signify what it meaneth that he did after choose him to be shepherd of the lords flock: to wit, that he and all other shepherds by his example, should learn to bear with their weak brethren and use that kindinesse and patience in restoring and confirming others, which their Lord and master first showed in suffering & converting them. And this Saint Ambrose did well to make the chiefest point of a christian shepherd.  Phi. 
But S. Ambrose saith in the singular number, Petrus ecclesiae praeponitur: & eum elegit Pastorem Dominici gregis. Peter is set over the Church, and Christ chose him to be Pastor of his flock. Sure you be singular men to quote such places and make such conclusions. Peter was set over the Church, or made Pastor of the lords flock, ergo none but Peter. Even so you may reason: 
1. Tim. 1.  The Gospel of the glory of the blessed God is committed to me, saith Paul, ergo to none but to Paul. And again, 
1. Tim. 2.  I am the teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth, ergo none but he. Or when he saith to the Philippians, 
Philip. 1.  It is given unto you, not only to believe in (Christ) but also to suffer for (Christ): ergo it is given to none but to them. If you play thus with Scriptures and fathers you may make mad work in them both.  Phi. 
Peter was made Pastor of the flock.  Theo. 
And so were others as you heard out of Ambrose before: 
Ambros. de dig. Sacer. cap. 2.  The (Lords) flock not only Peter received, but we all with him.  Phi. 
He was set over the church.  The. 
And so are all Pastors. Our Saviour saith of teachers in general: 
Mat. 24.  Who then is a faithful servant & wise, whom his master hath set over his household to give them meat in season? S. Cyprian speaking of himself saith, 
Lib. 1. Epist. 3.  Ob hoc ecclesiae praepositum persequitur: For this he pursueth the ruler or overseer of the church. S. Augustine saith, 
Aug. de civit. Dei lib. 20. ca 9  Praepositi intelligendi sunt per quos ecclesia nunc gubernatur. They must be taken for overseers (of the church) by whom the church is now governed. 
Idem in johan. tract. 46.  And again, Sunt quidam Ecclesiae praepositi, de quibus Paulus dicit. sua quaerentes, There are some overseers of the church of whom Paul saith, they seek their own. So that Praepositus and Pastor Ecclesiae be not titles proper to Peter but styles common to all Bishops, and therefore by them you can infer nothing.  
But where all this while are your proofs, that Peter could not err, which is the frame that you would fasten on these words? 
This is the Rhemists common use in their Testament tothwack in a number of Father's names to no purpose.  Why prove you things superfluous, and skip that which is most in question betwixt us? What father ever said that these words of our Saviour made Peter free from falling or erring? From desperation & irrepentance, the Lords prayer saved him, & recovered him when he was ready to perish: from falling or erring he was defended no more than the rest, nay not so much. They fled & forsook their master, he presuming farther, sped worse, as the Lord foretold him, & the Gospel reporteth of him.  
And were that proved, which you neither offer nor are able to prove, yet doth it not belong to the Bishop of Rome, which is it that we stick at. For touching Peter's person and office we can soon be entreated to think and speak the best. And though we do not say as you do, that truth was tied to his sleeve only: yet are we of opinion, that he and his fellow Disciples were guided into all truth as by whom the church was first to be planted, and from whom the faithful were to receive the word of truth & the foundation of their faith. And therefore we nothing doubt but as the writings of Peter, Paul, james, john, Jude & Matthew be canonical Scriptures, so the preaching not of Peter only but of all the rest after they were endued with the power of the holy Ghost from above, 
We confess the preachings and writings of Peter and all the rest after the receiving of the holy Ghost, were free from error: will they claim that for the Pope?  was assured truth & void of all error: the same spirit ruling their tongues that guided their pens: But this privilege to teach and write truth without error was annexed to Peter's person, not conveyed along to his successors no more than their writings are canonical because his were.  Phi. 
This was not the privilege of S. Peter's person but of his office, that he should not fail in faith. 
The Rhemish Test. 22. Lucae.   The. 
If you meant that other Apostles which were of the same office with him, were to have the same privilege as well as he, you said right: for the churches of Christ in all places where Peter never preached needed the same assurance of faith & the same direction unto truth that the churches did which were planted by Peter: But you will have this privilege remain to some successor after Peter's death, and for that you show us no authority besides your own, which God knoweth is very simple.  Phi. 

The Rhemish Test. 22. Lucae.  All the fathers apply this privilege of not failing in faith to the Roman church & Peter's successors in the same.  Theo. 
You bely all the Fathers with one breath; & but that you have a privilege to say what you list, 
A noble lie of the Rhemists forced on all the Fathers with one breath.  in other men this were an arrogant & an impudent lie. What fathers, I pray you, apply this promise of not failing in faith to the Roman Church? You say all: for discharge of your credit let us hear some.  Phi. 

Epist. 190.  S. Barnard writing to Pope Innocentius saith, To what other See was it ever said, I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith do not fail?  Theo. 
Can you find no father for the space of 1100. years that ever applied these words to the church of Rome before Bernard? To be plain with you masters, 
They say all the fathers applied this to the Pope, & produce none but poor Bernard.  Bernard is too young to carry the name of antiquity, & too single to have the credit of all the fathers: But with them that have no more, one must go for all. Indeed all the fathers that ever applied this privilege to the church of Rome are poor Bernard more than a 1000 years after Christ, in the midst of corruption: but in this case we require some graver and elder father than Bernard.  Phi. 
To the which (saith S. Cyprian) infidelity or false saith can not come. 
Cyprian foully wrested to make for the Pope.   Theo. 
To which what? church or successors?  Phi. 
Which you wil And where you require fathers that the church of Rome can not ere, Cyprians words be very plain. Post ista navigare audent & ad Petri cathedram atque ecclesiam Principalem, 
The Rhemish Test. 22. Lucae. Cyp. Epi. 55.  unde umtas Sacerdotalis exorta est a schismaticis & profanis literas ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est, ad quos persidia habere non possit accessum. After all this they dare sail & carry letters from schismatics & profane persons to the chair of Peter & the principal church, whence priestly unity had her beginning, & do not remember the Romans to be those whose faith was praised by the Apostles mouth, to whom infidelity can not come.  Theo. 
You do well to repeat the place at large, it will ease me of some pains. What conclude you of these words?  Phi. 
That the Bishop of Rome can not oer.  Theo. 
How fet you that about?  Phi. 
To Peter's chair infidelity can not come.  Theo. 
Those be not Cyprians words.  Phi. 
To the Romans, 
The Romans import the people, and not the Pope.  he saith, infidelity can not come.  Theo. 
He addeth somewhat more, whose faith was praised by the Apostles mouth.  Phi. 
All the better. For if S. Paul praised their faith, it was the truer.  Theo. 
But whose faith did Paul praise? the Bishops or the people's?  Phi. 
Why ask you that?  Theo. 
Because that directeth the sense of Cyprians words.  Phi. 
Whose say you?  Theo. 
I ask you & you return it to me: Well then let S. Paul speak for us both.  
I thank my God, through jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is renowned throughout the whole world. 
Rom. 1.  You all containeth as well the people that received the faith, 
Cyprian spoke of all the Romans, & not of the Bishop of Rome.  as the Preachers that taught it: and of the twain rather the people than the Preachers, because the preaching of the faith was as true elsewhere, as in Rome: but either the zeal & devotion of the people in receiving the faith was greater at Rome than elsewhere as S. Hierom noteth, & that S. Paul commendeth; or else because their city was imperial, the fame of their receiving the gospel was bruited farther abroad than of other smalller cities, & did encourage others to go forward with the more boldness, for the which Paul thanketh God. Take which you will, the people's faith is it that S. Paul praiseth, as his own words witness, 
Rom. 1.  To you all that are at Rome: I thank my God for you all, because your faith is made manifest to all the world. Now if Cyprian say that infidelity can not come to the Romans whose saith was praised by the Apostles mouth, then can none of the people of Rome err because the faith of them all was praised by the Apostles mouth.  Phi. 
The church of Rome can not err, nor the people neither so long as they follow the faith of that church.  Theo. 
But if you build this on Cyprians words you must say, that the church of Rome can not err so long as she followeth the people of Rome, for their faith was praised by the Apostle. And therefore choose whether you will impart this privilege to every Citizen and Artisant in Rome, that they can not err, as well as to the Pope, that he can not err; or else seek for an other meaning of Cyprians saying.  Phi. 
What other meaning should we seek for? be not the words plain enough?  Theo. 
You neither translate them right, nor apply them right. 
The true meaning of Cyprian.  For Cyprian doth not discourse in that epistle whether the Romans themselves may fall from the faith, but whether wicked persons rejected in other places from the communion should have any refuge or find any favour at Rome: & that he largely dissuadeth, bringing this amongst others for a reason, that where the Apostle praised the people of Rome in his time for their zealous embracing the faith of Christ: and encouraging others to do the like, it would now be a great shame, if wicked disturbers of the faith should be succoured by them: which he thought good to express in these words, 

Cypr. lib. 1. Ep. 3  
May not, or ought not have access.   Neither do they remember the Romans to be those whose faith was praised by the Apostles mouth, to whom (wickedness or) unfaithfulness may not have access.  Phi. 
Out upon you: what a gloze have you brought us here?  Theo. 
None but such as the whole Epistle shall justify.  Phi. 
You translate, non possit may not. 
What non poorest doth signify.   Theo. 
A foul oversight I assure you; as though the very children in Grammar schools did not learn that posse doth signify to may or can, or your law itself did not allow us that exposition when it saith, 
De regulis juris 68 In glossa.  Id dicimur posse quod de iure possumus, we can do that which by right we can? And Cyprian himself did not use the word in that sense when he said of a Bishop, 
In senten. Conc. Carth. sentent. 1. Cyprianus.  judicari ab alio non possit, cum nec ipse possit alterum judicare, he may not be judged of an other, since himself may not judge an other? And even in his Epistle, 
* Lib. 1. Epist. 3.  Nequ● potest illis esse frons ad nos accedendi. They can not have the face to come unto us.  Phi. 
You may thus shift out any thing.  Theo. 
It is no shift to tell you that non potest doth not ever signify an absolute impossibility. Nothing is more usual neither in sacred or profane writers, no nor in common speech than that construction of the word which we bring you. 
De orat. ad Att.  Non possum quin exclamem: I can not but cry out saith Cicero: and facere non possum ut nihil ad te dem literarum: I can not but write unto you. Where is no simple necessity in either, but an urgent occasion only.  
The Scriptures every where use the word in like sort. God saith, Non potero celare Abraham quae gesturus sum. 
Gen. 18.  Can I hide from Abraham that which I am about to do? 
Gen. 34.  jacob's sons answer Sichem and his father, Non possumus facere quod petitis: 
Gen. 37.  We may not do that which you request. Of joseph's brethren the text saith, Nec poterant ei quicquam pacificè loqui: they could not give him a fair word. 
Gen. 44.  judas speaking of his brother Benjamin, Non potest puer relinquere patrem suum: and after, Non possum redire adpatrem absent puero: The lad can not leave his father: I can not return to my father without him. So jephta said to his daughter: 
judic. 11.  I have opened my mouth to the Lord, & aliud facere non potero, and I can not otherwise do. When Asaell pursued Abner and would not leave him, Abner said, 
2. Reg. 2.  depart lest I be driven to kill thee, and then can not show my face to joab thy brother. 
3. Reg. 2.  Adonias' to Bethsaba the mother of Solomon, Speak I pray thee to king Solomon, neque enim negare tibi quicquam potest, for he can deny thee nothing. The man of judah said to the Prophet that dwelled in bethel, 
3. Reg. 13.  Non possum reverti, I can not go back with thee, though presently he did it.  
Infinite are the places both of the old and new Testament where the word is so used. In the Gospel he that was in his bed when his friend spoke to him, said, 
Luke. 11.  Non possum surgere, I can not rise, and yet he did. The gh●st that married a wife answered, 
* Luke 14.  Non possum venire: I can not come: and yet he might. The master said to his servant, 
* Luke 16.  Thou canst be steward no longer, when he meant he should not. The Iewes ●aid of Christ: This 
* joan. 6.  is an hard speech, who can endure it: which yet his Apostles did. And Christ himself said to his kinsmen, Non 
* joan. 7.  potest mundus odisse vos, The world can not hate you: meaning it hath no cause to hate you: Non 
* 1. Corinth. 12.  potest oculus dicere manui, The eye can not say to the hand I have no need of thee; S. Paul meaneth if the eye will say truth. So himself saith, Non 
* 2. Corinth. 13.  possumus aliquid adversus veritatem, We can do nothing against the truth, that is we may or will not: So said the Son of God to the church of Ephesus, Scio 
* revel. 2.  quia non potes sustinere malos: I know thou canst not abide them that are evil. A thousand like there are in every part of the Scripture, but these are enough to persuade any sober mind, that we bring no new nor strange interpretation of Cyprians words but such as is familiar and frequent in the books of God and mouths of men.  Phi. 
The words perhaps may be so taken if that were proved to be Cyprians meaning in this place.  Theo. 
The words standing indifferent to both constructions, yours and ours; we shall quickly see, which of them cometh nearest to Cyprians meaning. The sense, which you make, besides that it is absurd in itself, it neither serveth the word, nor matcheth the circumstances of this Epistle, nor agreeth with the main judgement of Cyprian in his other writings, and that which is most of all, it flatly dissenteth from S. Paul, who would neither warn the Romans to fear without cause, nor threaten them with things impossible.  Phi. 
Prove this, and expound the place how you list.  Theo. 
Both Cyprian & Paul name generally the Romans, 
Cyprians words have no agreement with the jesuits sense.  & not severally the Bishop of Rome from the rest. Next, habere accessum noteth not any corruption springing, or not springing within themselves, but only resort of others unto them. Thirdly Cyprian complaineth that this was done, and toucheth the unshamefastness of heretics for doing it, which you would press as impossible to be done. Fourthly the thing which those perfidious persons sought at Rome was not any mutation of the faith, but letters of fellowship and communion, which the Bishops of Africa denied them for their sundry disorders. Last of all, repeating and commending the wariness of the Romans in shunning the poison of heretics, he shutteth up his letter with words very like the former and declareth the true meaning of that he spoke before.  

Cyp. lib. 1. Epi. 3.  Let our most beloved brethren hereafter stoutly decline and forbear (all) speech and talk with such men. Though I know our brotherhood there (at Rome) guarded with your foresight, 
These be plainer words for the people than the former be for the Pope.  and watchful enough of themselves, nec capi haereticorum venenis posse nec decipi, can neither be taken, nor deceived with the venomous devices of heretics. The right cause then why the Romans in Cyprians time could not be caught with the baits of heretics, was not Peter's privilege, or impossibility to er, as you fond dream, but the wisdom of Cornelius directing them, and the people's care neither to speak nor eat with any such men: And this diligence remaining, it was not possible that the impiety or infidelity of others should have access unto them.  

Cyprian affirmeth of the Bishop of Rome, that he did err.  Other opinion of the Romans Cyprian never had, and as for the Bishop of Rome, that he might and did err, if the words of Cyprian to Pompeius against the letters of Stephanus Bishop of Rome be not plain enough in the judgement of any reasonable man, we yield you the whole. In reading the letters (of the Bishop of Rome) you may more and more perceive, saith Cyprian, 
Cypr. ad Pom. contr. Epi. Steph Ibidem.  his error, which defendeth the cause of heretics against the church of God. And so likewise he saith of Stephanus, haeresin contra Ecclesia● vindicat, he bolstereth heresy against the church: Sua prava & falsa defendit, defendeth his evil and false assertion. I respect not which of the twain had the better side, Stephanus or Cyprian, but only whether Cyprian had that opinion of Stephanus and other Bishops of Rome that they could not err; and if you have but common sense you must say no. Much less did Cyprian ever mean to say that the people of Rome could not err, which yourselves dare not say, and yet you would wring it out of Cyprians words. But God be thanked, Saint Paul hath prevented your wicked enterprise.  
Writing to the whole church of Rome, and giving them their due praise for their devotion and zeal, 

S. Paul assureth the Roman church that it might err.  
Rom. 11.   and entering at last into the rejection of the jews for their unbelief, he warneth expressly the Romans in these words: Boast not thyself against the branches: and if thou boast thyself thou bearest not the root but the root thee. Thou wilt say the branches are broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well, through infidelity they are broken off, & thou standest by faith: Be not high minded but fear. For, if God spared not the natural branches, (take heed) lest he spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: toward them which have fallen, severity; but towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.  
Whether the Apostle spoke generally to the Gentiles, and inclusively to the Romans: or namely to the Romans and proportionably to the rest, it is all one to us: 
Origen. lib. 8. in cap. 11. ad Rom.  one of the twain, he must needs. Origen saith upon these words of Paul, I say to you Gentiles: Now he plainly turneth his speech to the Gentiles, but chief to those of the city of Rome, that believed. S. Paul speaking to the Romans, no man may except the Romans; and they being included, his admonition to them, fear and beware least, was utterly superfluous if there could be no danger in them of swerving from the faith; and the condition implied, otherwise (if thou continue not) and the commination annexed, thou also shalt be cut off: were both ridiculous and odious if it were not possible for them to fall or to be cut off. Fight not therefore against the holy Ghost with broken reeds caught here and there out of the Father's works: 
The Apostle threateneth not things impossible.  Look rather in time to this watchword which the apostle giveth you, fear and take heed, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And mark his reason, If the natural branches may be broken off, much more the wild which were planted but in their steeds.  Phi. 
If that had been the Apostles meaning, do you think the Fathers would have gainsaid it? 

Hierom wrested by the Jesuits as Cyprian was before.  
The Rhemish Testament up on the 1. to the Romans.    Theo. 
I think they would not, and I see they do not: and that maketh me to interpret Cyprian in such sort as he may agree with himself, and not confront S. Paul.  Phi. 
His words do surely lean on our side.  Theo. 
They fit your humour, and in that respect you be eager on them: Otherwise I have cleared Cyprian both of that speech & of that intent. And were you not unshamefast wranglers you would perceive that the ordinary use of the phrase both in divine and human writings doth acquit him of that opinion, which you enforce upon him: But such is your profession you must go on as you have begun.  Phi. 
If one alone had said it, we would not urge it so often; but S. Hierom hath likewise testified the same. Know you that the Roman faith commended by the Apostles mouth will receive no such deceits, nor can be possibly changed, though an Angel from heaven taught otherwise being fenced by S. Paul's authority. Tom. 2. Apolog. advers. Ruff. lib. 3. cap. 4.  Theo. 
If S. Hierom say the same that Cyprian did, he must be taken and understood as Cyprian was; and so you ease me of that labour.  Phi. 
He saith the same in effect, but his words are more forcible.  Theo. 
That is, your wilfulness in perverting and racking the words of S. Hierom is more sensible. For S. Hierom speaketh not one word of the persons, that they shall never fall from the faith, but avoucheth only that the doctrine which was first preached at Rome, and then continued, was so exact and perfect that an Angel from heaven might not be heard against it. And to this end he said, 
Hieron. Apo●●● advers. Ruff. 3.  Scito Romanam fidem, Apostolica voce laudatam istiusmodi praestigias non recipere: etiamsi Angelus de coelo a●●ter annunciet quam semel praedicatum est Pauli authoritate munitam, non posse mutari. Know you that the Roman faith commended by the Apostles voice receiveth no such delusions, and that being armed with Paul's authority it may not be changed, if an Angel from haven do preach otherwise, than once was preached.  Phi. 
You run again to your former interpretation: Non posse mutari, it may not be changed, in steed of it can not be changed.  Theo. 
Use which you will, so you grant, which I fully proved before, that non posse doth usually signify as well that which is unlawful, as that which is unpossible.  Phi. 
I know non possum, is used diversely, but how doth that answer S. Hierom?  Theo. 
You take h●lde of a word in Hierom, which in all men's speech and writings hath diverse and sundry significations by your own confession, and then you marvel why we do not receive the untruest and unlikeliest of them all for your pleasures without any farther proof. Non possum doth import that which is either unpossible, unlawful, inconvenient or any way impugnant to the full persuasion and determination of our minds, 
The places of Scripture before alleged if you weigh them, prove all these significations.  as the places before alleged do manfestly declare, and in all those accidents, our common speech is & may be non possum, I can not. You would now by a text of Hieroms, where he saith, Romanam fidem non posse mutari, etiam si Angelus de caelo, etc. The Roman faith may not, or can not be charged though an Angel (came) from heaven, infer that the Romans until the worlds end can not possibly choose but abide in the same faith which was first delivered them; and that do what they will to the contrary, they must be preserved in Christ's truth. This is we say a shameful violence offered to hierom's words against all learning, against his meaning, and against the spirit of God speaking in S. Paul.  
First the words non posse mutari, receive both constructions a like, that is either a change of the faith can never happen in the Romans, which is your sense, or else their faith can not possibly be changed without incurring infidelity, 
The true intent of hierom's words.  which is ours. For it ceaseth to be faith when once it is changed. Next S. Hierom speaketh not of the persons but of the thing: he doth not say the Romans can not change their minds, but the faith which was delivered them, in no wise may be changed. And why? Because it is the truth of God which never changeth. Again the authority of Paul writing to the Galathians which Hierom citeth, doth not warrant that the Romans shall not fall, but only that the faith once preached may not be changed though an Angel from heaven should attempt it, especially since the Apostle commended the doctrine which they reserved to be the true christian faith. What reason then have you besides your partial affection to the See of Rome, to draw these words from their native sense, which is good and religious, to your private conceit, which savoureth altogether of mere vanity and open flattery?  Phi. 
What S. Hierom meant, God doth know, you do not.  Theo. 
No more do you; but that he meant not this which you would father on him, we have his own witness which you must believe unless you can show better. Thus he complaineth of the Romans both Pristes' & people in the epitaph of Marcelia. Haeretica in hijs Provincijs exorta tempestas, navemplenam blasphemiarum Romano intulit portu●, 
Hiero. ad Principiam Marc. Epitapha. tom. 1.  etc. & Romanae fidei purissimum fontem caeno lutosa permiscuere vestigia. Tunc sancta Marcella postquam sensit fidem Apostolico ore laudatam in plerisque violari, ita ut sacerdotes quoque ac nonnullos Monachorum maximeque seculi homines in assensum sui traheret, ac simplicitati illuderet episcopi, publice restitit. An heretical tempest rising in these Countries (of the East) carried full sail into the haven of Rome; etc. & unclean feet did trouble with mud the most pure fountain of the Roman faith. Then holy Marcelia, when she saw the faith praised by the Apostles mouth violated in most things, so that (this heresy) drew the Priests and some Monks and specially laymen into the consent of itself, and deluded the simplicity of the Bishop (of Rome, 
That come to pass in hierom's time which the Jesuits would prove to be impossible. ) she began to resist openly. Note Sir that come to pass in hierom's age and knowledge, which you would prove by hierom's words to be in all ages impossible. The fountain of the Roman faith defiled with mud, the faith praised by the Apostles violated in most things, the Priests, the people drawn into the same consent, & the silly Bishop of Rome abused by them, and the first that openly resisted a poor widow.  
Go then and blaze to the world, 
The Rhemish. Testament is an heap of Fathers abused & wrested to deprave the text of the holy Ghost.  as you have done, in your magistral annotations or rather depravations of the new Testament (which as you have dressed it with your devices and glozes, is now nothing less than the Testament of Christ) proclaim I say that infidelity can not come to the Romans, nor their faith be possibly changed, & that upon the credits of Cyprian & Hierom, when they themselves did see, and say the contrary.  Phi. 
We take no such care for the people of Rome, whether they may stray from the faith or no: Peter's successor is he that our eyes are and aught to be rather bend on; and touching his holiness, we be resolved that he can not err in faith.  Theo. 
His holiness hath very good luck then and better than all his neighbours besides: 

The Jesuits reasons to make the Pope free from error.  
The Rhemish Test. 22. Lucae.   but how shall we know that he can not err? Your word is too weak to be taken for a matter of such weight: fathers you bring none, Scriptures you have none, which way will you make it appear that his holiness can not be stained with error?  Phi. 
No marvel that our Master would have his vicar's Consistory and seat infallible, seeing even in the old law, the high Priesthood and chair of Moses wanted not great privilege in this case, though nothing like the churches and Peter's prerogative.  Theo. 
But we marvel where you find that Christ would have any vicar, or that his vicar's Seat is infallible, or that the Bishop is that vicar which you speak of, and we most marvel that you avouch all this upon your single report without script or scroll to confirm the same.  
The chair of Moses had no such privilege as you challenge. 
Moses chair had no such privilege that it could not err.  The people were to learn the law of God at the priests hands, and he that presumptuously despised the Priest or Magistrate giving judgement according to the tenor of God's law, died the death. But this doth not prove that either the Priest or the Magistrate could not err: or that the Prophets did not justly reprove the Priests when they sat to judge according to the law, 
Deut. 17.  for their manifest contempts & breaches of the Law. God by the mouth o● Malachy both describeth what the Priests should do, & declareth what the Priests had done. The priests lips should preserve knowledge, 
Malach. 2.  and they should seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. But ye are gone out of the way (O ye Priests, 
Moses chair did err. ) ye have caused many to fall by the law: ye have broken the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.  
This proud privilege which you mention, was claimed by the wicked Priests in jeremies' time. Come, say they, let us imagine some devise against jeremy: 
jerem. 18.  for the law shall not perish from the Priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet. But God assureth them by his Prophet for this their arrogant presumption, that the law should perish from the Priest, 
Ezech. 7. 4. Kings 16.  and counsel from the ancient. What gross idolatry Vriah the Priest committed to please king Ahaz, the Scripture will tell you. And were there no special examples, the serious invectives of the Prophets against them and the whole land as well for false religion, as corrupt manners, are evident testimonies that Priests from the lowest to the highest might err. isaiah saith, 
isaiah. 28. Would you have clearer words that Moses chair did err? Matth. 16. Matth. 15. Mark. 7.  The Priest and the Prophet have erred, they have gone away, they fail in vision, they stumble in judgement. Our Saviour charged his Disciples, to beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadduces, which needed not unless it were erroneous. And think you these were no errors which the Son of God reproved in the Pharisees? You have made the commandment of God of no authority by your tradition: & many such like things you do: teaching (for) doctrines the commandments of men. The Sadduces error denying both the resurrection of the body and immortality of the soul, 
Matth. 22.  is often mentioned in the Scriptures, and openly refuted by our Saviour. And yet the high Priests were often Sadduces, and in the chief counsels & consistories of jerusalem, where the greatest causes of religion and matters of weight were determined, sat 
* Act. 23.  half Sadduces, half Pharisees, & sometimes 
* Act. 5.  only Sadduces which were plain Atheis●s and wicked heretics.  Phi. 
That overthroweth not Peter's privilege.  Theo. 
Much less doth it establish Peter's privilege, for the which cause you allege it; but if Moses successor might err, why not peter's?  Phi. 
Our assertion is they can not err: you say they can. Reason is that you prove your affirmative.  Theo. 
The Scripture proveth the general, 

Rom. 3.  
It is presumption against God to make any man free from error without sufficient proof. Christ's promise to Peter pertaineth not to the Pope: & if it did, it maketh him not free from error.   that God is true and all men liars, you except the Bishop of Rome as not subject to error and ignorance: reason is you prove your exception and that strongly, lest you be convicted of insolent presumption to fasten the spirit of truth to the Pope's chair without great and good assurance from him that is the fountain of truth and the giver of the holy Ghost.  Phi. 
We hold by Christ's promise.  Theo. 
Show that and you be discharged.  Phi. 
Thy faith shall not fail.  Theo. 
Prove that to be spoken to the Bishop of Rome.  Phi. 
It was spoken to Peter.  Theo. 
But not to the Pope.  Phi. 
That which Peter had, his successor must have.  Theo. 
The charge which Christ gave Peter to feed his sheep is common to all Pastors: But with the mercy which Christ showed him in converting him and restoring him after his fall, what have his successors to do? Christ promised Peter repentance: will you therefore infer that all Popes have the like promises? Or had they, as they have not, doth this let but they may forswear their master and lose their faith, as Peter did, notwithstanding this prayer, and promise of Christ made unto him?  Phi. 
But they shall also repent as Peter did.  Theo. 
If you could prove that promise to pertain unto them, as you can not, yet might their error be public and their conversion secret as Peter's was; and since they be subject to Peter's fall, namely to deny both their faith and their master, though they were promised repentance with him, as they be not; yet how can you know what things proceeded from the Pope's mouth erring and which from the Pope's hart repenting? Which unless you do, you may err with him, to your eternal confusion, and not repent with him, for that you have not the like promise.  Phi. 
I will be with you to the worlds end saith Christ, 

Matth. 28.  
Christ is with every of the faithful to the worlds end, & yet the faithful may err.   and he forsaketh those that err. So that if the church should err, this promise of his were not kept, which God forbidden.  Theo. 
You show the goodness of your cause when you reel thus from the Pope to the church and from the church to the Pope, and yet find nothing to fit you. Christ is with every one of his, and not only with the Pope, as you would have the place to sound; and yet I think you will not affirm that no christian can err. Many good men have erred, even in matters of faith, and yet not been forsaken of Christ. The longer you reason, the farther you be from proving that the Pope can not err. For this promise concerneth him no more than it doth any other christian, and perhaps not so much; or if it did, yet doth it not free him from error.  Phi. 
The promise which is general to every member of the church, 
They ever dream and never prove that the Pope is head of the church.  concerneth him chief that is head of the church.  Theo. 
Keep this head of yours till the body need it; the church of Christ hath a surer and better head than the Pope, or else it were ill with her.  Phi. 
Christ we know is the head of his church and the only head in such sovereign and principal manner as no earthly man is or can be, yet the Pope may be the ministerial head.  Theo. 
When you prove it, then say it; in the mean while abuse not the word of God to serve your follies. 
Ephes. 3.  Christ dwelleth in the hearts (of all that be his) by faith; with them he remaineth until the worlds end. What is this to the Pope, or how doth this fence him from error?  Phi. 
If he be Christ's he can not err.  Theo. 
This text doth not prove him to be one of Christ's: but if he be, than Christ is with him as he is with all other his members.  Phi. 
And they can not err with whom Christ is.  Theo. 
Be these your demonstrations that the Pope can not err, to show for him no better, nor other privilege, than that which is common to him with women & children, if they be members of Christ? And were he a member of Christ, which as yet for aught that I see you can hardly prove, he might be deceived in some cases of religion, as well as Lactantius, Irineus, Cyprian and others, men of great learning and good account in the church of God.  Phi. 
Our Saviour saith it is not possible that the elect should be seduced. 
The elect may err, but not perish in their error.   Theo. 
Not possible they should be seduced to fall from God as the wicked are: Yet as they may sin but not unto death, even so may they err but not unto destruction. Their error shall either be not final, or not mortal.  Phi. 
May they that err, be saved?  Theo. 
If they hold fast the foundation which is Christ, and err not of wilful obstinacy, but of human frailty, why may they not be saved? S. Cyprian said of those that were before him: 
Cyp. lib. 2. Ep. 3.  If any of our predecessors either ignorantly or simply did not observe and keep that which the Lord by his example and authority willed, his simplicity may be pardoned by the goodness of God. And S. Augustin said of him, 
Aug. Epist. 48.  when an error of his was alleged by the Donatists for their defence: Cyprian either was not all of this opinion, or he after corrected it by the rule of truth, or this blemish in his most beautiful breast he covered with the teats of charity. And farther allegeth and alloweth this saying of Cyprians: 
De Baptis. lib. 4. cap. 5.  Ignosci potest simpliciter erranti, he that erreth of simplicity may be pardoned.  
Of himself and all others S. Augustine saith: 
Aug. de Baptis. lib. 2. cap. 5.  Homines sumus unde aliquid aliter sapere quàm se res habet humana tentatio est. In nullo autem aliter sapere quam se res habet Angelica perfectio est. 
All men may err.  We are men, and therefore to think otherwise than the truth is, is (human infirmity or) a tentation common to man. To be deceived in nothing is Angelical perfection. And therefore writing to S. Hierom, and of S. Hierom, he saith: 
Aug. Epist. 19  Prorsus non te arbitror sic legi libros tuos velle tanquam Prophetarum aut Apostolorum, de quorum scriptis quòd omni errore careant, dubitare nefarium. Absit hoc à pia humilitate & veraci de temetipso cogitation. I am fully of opinion that you would not have your books to be read in such sort as we do the Prophets and Apostles, of whose writings to doubt whether they be free from all error is wickedness. Be this far from godly humility and the true persuasion of yourself. So that set the Apostles aside and their writings, 
It is ungodly pride to think any man free from error.  no man ought to think of himself that he can not err, neither can you have that opinion of any man without a proud & false persuasion above man's state and against God's truth.  Phi. 
What shall we then say to the promise which our Lord made to his? 
john. 16.  When he, the spirit of truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth.  Theo. 
If it be referred to the Apostles then present with him, 

Ibidem.  
The Apostles were guided by a special gift of God's spirit, that in preaching and writing they should not err.   as the words next before do specify, I have yet many things to say unto you, but you can not bear them now; we grant those witnesses chosen by Christ to teach all Nations, were to be furnished with all truth and to be established in the same; but if it be extended to all the faithful, they also shall be led into all truth needful and requisite to salvation, I mean the substantial grounds of faith, though in some questions of Religion happily they shall not all be like minded.  Phi. 
And what for the Church, shall she have no part in this promise?  Theoph. 
If the faithful have, the Church, which is the number and collection of the faithful, must needs have: But that the greater part of those which profess christianity or some special places or persons must for ever be directed unto all truth and preserved from all error, this can not be concluded by these words.  Phi. 
To teach all truth and preserve in truth and from error the holy Ghost is promised and performed only to the church and the chief governor and general counsels thereof. 
The Rhemish Test. 16. john.   Theo. 
In deed you take upon you like Governors to appoint what the son of God shall mean & who must have the holy Ghost, 
How handsomely the jesuits play with Scriptures.  as if the matter were in your hands & not in his.  Phi. 
Do we take upon us to limit the holy Ghost?  Theo. 
What else do you when of your own heads you restrain the words of our Saviour as you li●t?  Phi. 
As we list?  Theo. 
Our saviours words are, When that spirit of truth cometh he shall teach you all truth. 
john. 16.  This say you is promised & performed only to the church, & the chief Governor (the Pope) and general Counsels thereof. As if You in S. john's Gospel did signify none but the Pope, the chief Governor, and such Bishops as the Pope will admit to his conferences, which you call the general counsels of the church; and what is this else but to divide the holy Ghost as you think good?  Phi. 
The rulers of the church must needs have the holy Ghost.  Theo. 
Mean you all or some?  Phi. 
The most part of them.  Theo. 
How prove you that to be Christ's meaning, that the most part of them which can procure themselves mitres, 
A mitre is no buckler against error.  or rather catch up bishoprics shall be sure of the holy Ghost in such measure that they shall never mistake the saith, nor any part thereof?  Phi. 
If they should err, the church should err.  Theo. 
You run from bad to worse. Your own law will show you the falseness & perverseness of your Rhemish observations and expositions: 
Caus. 24. quaest. 1. §. A recta in gloss. ¶ Novitaetibus.  Quaero de qua Ecclesia intelligas quod hic dicitur quod non possit errare. Side ipso Papa, certum est quod Papa errare potest. Respondeo, Ipsa congregatio fidelium hic dicitur Ecclesia, & talis Ecclesia non potest non esse. I demand of what church it is meant when it is said, as here, that the church can not err. 
What church can not err.  If of the Pope himself, it is certain that the Pope may err. I answer the congregation of the faithful is here called the church, and that church can not chose but continue. The spirit of truth is not promised to the Pope, nor to his counsels, but to the faithful whether they be severed or assembled, and they shall not err, that is they shall not perish in error as the wicked do; but shall either be recovered from their error, or find mercy for their ignorance.  Phi. 
May the whole church err?  Theo. 
If we should grant you that the whole church can not err, 
That the whole church can not err, is no help for the Pope and his Cardinals.  to wit that all the faithful on the earth at one time can not be deceived in any necessary point of faith, but that Christ for his promise sake will preserve truth amongst them, what is this to the Pope, or his Cardinals, or Conventicles, to whom you convey the holy Ghost by inheritance?  Phi. 
Never delude us with ifs, but tell us whether you think the whole church may err or no.  Theo. 
In matters of faith we think it can not.  Phi. 
If the church can not ere, the Governors of the church can not.  The. 
Leave trifling and fall to reasoning: The whole church can not err; ergo what?  Phi. 
Ergo the Pastors, & Preachers can not err.  Theo. 
Conclude you all or none?  Phi. 
To say no Pastor can err, were apparent madness.  Theo. 
And the next which is, all Pastors can not err, doth you no pleasure. For the Bishop of Rome may err & so may the rest of his mitred and twiforked creatures; & yet many good Pastors and Preachers keep fast to the faith. Howbeit this conclusion doth not follow upon my confession. 
Counsels and Popes may err though the whole church do not err.  The whole church (I grant) can not ere, that, is all and every the faithful can not ere, therefore all Pastors can not ere, this is no kind of consequent. For some of the faithful may be directed unto truth, & they no pastors nor preachers; & many preachers may be preserved from error, & they no Bishops; & many Bishops may be kept in the faith, and they not assembled; & a great number of those that be assembled may be rightly affected, and yet not the most part of them; and the greater side may be well disposed, and yet not the Bishop of Rome, whom you make to be the moderator and guider of all counsels: And therefore your argument is very childish: The whole church can not err, ergo general counsels can not err, and specially the Pope: which later part your best friends have not only refuted as false, but also detested for incredible and shameful flattery.  Phi. 
So say you.  Theo. 
So say they. Alfonsus that wrote bitterly against Luther, 
Alfon. advers. haereses lib. 1. cap. 4.  when he came to this point, dealt plainly in these words. Non credo aliquem esse adeo impudentem Papae assentatorem, ut ei tribuere ho● velit ut nec errare possit: I can not think any man to be so impudent a flatterer of the Pope, as to attribute this unto him that he can not oer. 
The wiser sort of Papists condemn them for flatterers that say the Pope can not err.   Phi. 
Alfonsus hath no such words.  Theo. 
You say truth, Alfonsus now hath not, but Alfonsus had those words in his former editions. And this commendeth your cunning that you can curtail the writings of your fellows & leave out what you list when you new print them.  Phi. 
It was his own correcting in his second edition.  Theo. 
Whether it was his doing or yours we care not: 
Sub prel● Ascensiano, anno Dom. 1534.  the words remain in the old Prints to the manifest condemnation of your folly and flattery in this behalf: And in his new copies though he qualify his terms, he holdeth flatly the same opinion. Omnis homo errare potest in fide, etiam sipapa sit. Every man may err in faith, 
Alfon. li. 1. ca 4. Ca●s. 24. quaest. 1. ¶. A recta. in gloss.  even the Pope himself. And so you heard your own gloze before affirm, It is certain, the Pope may err.  
The same is confessed by the best of your side both canonists and divines. Panormitane saith, 
De electio. ¶ significasti.  Concilium potest condemnare Papam de haeresi, ut in cap. Simo Papa. Distinct. 40. ubi dicitur quod Papa potest esse haereticus & de haeresi judicari. A council may condemn the Pope of heresy, as appeareth in the 40. Distinct. cap. Si Papa. Where it is said that the Pope may be an heretic, & judged of heresy. Lyra saith, 
* Lyra in ca 16. Matth.  Multi summi Pontifices inventi sunt apostatasse à side: Many Popes have proved apostates. Augustinus de Ancona: 
* Aug. de Anco. de potestat. Ecclesiast. quaest. 1.  Papa est deponendus pro haeresi: ad Concilium spectat Papam in haeresi deprehensum condennare, vel deponere. The Pope may be deposed for heresy: A council may condemn or depose the Pope deprehended in heresy. Antonius' Archbishop of Florence, 
* Anton. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 3 ¶. 3  Pro haeresi (Papa) congruè ipso facto deponitur. For heresy the Pope is ipso facto deposed, and no inconvenience. And to that end he allegeth Petrus de Palude, saying, 
* In lib. de Potestat. Papae citatur ab Anton.  Papa quando labitur in haeresin tunc ●o ipso est praecisus ab Ecclesia, & desinit esse caput. The Pope when he falleth into an heresy, is presently cut off from the Church and ceaseth to be the head of it. So Gerson the Chancellor of Paris: 
* Gerson in trac. An liceat in ca●s. fidei à Pontifice appellare.  Tam Papa quam Episcopus deviabiles à fide. The Pope may serve from the faith as well as an other Bishop.  
The general council of basil saith, 
Concil. Basilien. epist. Synodalis 3. de authoritate Concil. supra Papam.  Saepe experti sumus & legimus Papam errasse. We have often both found out by experience and read that the Pope hath erred. And again, Cum certum sit Papam errare posse. For so much as it is certain the Pope may err. Aeneas Silvius afterward Pius the second inveighing against them that would not have counsels gathered without the Pope's consent, saith: 
Aen. Sylu. de gestis Conc. Basil. lib. 1.  What remedy shall there be if a sinful Pope trouble the Church, if he destroy souls, if he pervert the people with his evil example? Si denique contraria fidei praedicet, haereticisque dogmatibus imbuat subditos: If he teach against the faith and infect those that be under him with heretical opinions.  
Cardinal Caietane and Pope Innocentius the fourth though they had good cause to favour the See of Rome, 
Caiet. de authoritate Papae & Conc. cap. 26. & 27.  yet were they clearly resolved, the Pope might err, and so were all the writers of your own religion before this our age that ever I heard of, and even at this day the sincerest of them dislike the unshamefastness of your assertion. 
Alfon. lib. 1. ca 2.  Papa in fide errare potest, ut melius sentientes tenent, etiam ex hijs qui Papatui plurimum favent. Inter quos est Innocentius eius nominis quartus Pontifex in cap. 1. De summa Trinitate. The Pope may err in faith as the truer opinion is even of them that favour the popedom very much. Amongst whom is Innocentius the fourth of that name Bishop of Rome, 
Theosoph. lib. 4. cap. 32.  writing upon the first chapter De summa Trinitate. Arboreus a Doctor of Paris and one of your chief Sorbonistes: Papa in fide errare Potest. Et tota mihi aberrare via videtur qui aliter sentit. Assentantur sane Romano Pontifici qui faciunt cum immunem à lapsu haereseos & schismatis. The Pope may err in faith. 
Then surely masters you do but flatter when you make the Pope free from error.  And he seemeth to me to be in foul error that thinketh otherwise. Surely they do but flatter the Bishop of Rome, that make him free from falling into heresy and schism.  
Erasmus pithily impugneth your inconsiderate folly, 
Erasmus annot. in 1. Cor. ex cap. 7.  If it be true which some say, that the Bishop of Rome can never err judicially, what need general counsels? Why are men skilled in the laws and learned in divinity sent for to counsels, if he pronouncing can not err? To what purpose are so many Universities troubled with handling questions of faith, when truth may be had from his mouth? Nay how cometh it to pass that the decrees of one Pope are repugnant to the decrees of an other? This persuasion of yours must needs be nought which so many of your own side have condemned before our days, and the sobrest of yourselves that have written since our time do utterly disclaim. And therefore advise you, whether you will faierly resign this fancy, or be convinced by the verdict of your fellows, for men-pleasers and flatterers. It is far from a Catholic position which your own church in the midst of darkness would never acknowledge, and at this day none defend, 

And yet the Jesuits make it an high point of their faith.  
The Jesuits re●use Counsels and Fathers, because they will not acknowledge the Pope hath erred. Clement's erroneous decree.  
Caus. 12. quaest. 1. § lectissimus.   but such hungry guests as you be that gape for thanks, and seek to please.  Phi. 
You falsely charge us with unhonest respects.  Theo. 
It is not my judgement of you, but theirs that otherwise have no cause to think evil of you.  Phi. 
The reason that moveth us so to say is for that we find no Pope that ever erred.  Theo. 
You refuse Counsels, Fathers, Stories and all that come in your way, because you will not find it.  Phi. 
We refuse not that is ancient or indifferent: but only such as we think partial.  Theo. 
Then if there be no cause why they should be partial; you will admit them for credible.  Phi. 
We will.  Theo. 
We expect no more.  
What say you then to Clemens the first of that name as you make your account, though we think it a lewd forgery in his name? Do not your own Decrees report out of his decretal epistles, that amongst christians all things ought to be common, even wives and all? Communis vita omnibus fratres necessaria est: Communis enim usus omnium, quae sunt in hoc mundo omnibus esse hominibus debuit. In omnibus autem sunt sine dubio & coniuges. A common life is necessary for all men, brethren: the use of all things that are in this world ought to be common to all men. And in all things no doubt are wives contained.  Phi. 
He meaneth not the carnal use of women, but their domestical service ought to be common.  Theo. 
So your gloze would make up the breach, but all in vain. For Socrates in Plato's common wealth (whom your Clemens in this place citeth and calleth Graecorum sapientissimum, the wisest of the Grecians) rehearsing the proverb which Clemens here useth, 
Plato dialog. 4. de Repub.  inferreth that the conjunction of men & women, and procreation of children ought to be common, 
That allthings ought to be common among christians is a gross error.  which is a monstruous and heinous error. And were that excused, the the rest is a shameful absurdity that all other things ought of necessity to be common amongst christians. For the Scriptures do not exact that no man should possess any thing, but only that charity should gladly distribute & supply the wants of such as need.  Phi. 
Yourself think this to be forged in Clementes name.  Theo. 
We do, but you do not, and therefore against you the instance is good.  
The next is Tertullian'S testimony who saith of the Bishop of Rome that he agnised the prophecies of Montanus and sent (letters of communion) and peace to the churches in Asia and Phrygia that were of that sect. 
The Bishop of Rome a Montanist.   Phi. 
But he revoked those letters, and ceased from that purpose, as Tertullian also confesseth.  Theo. 
He revoked them after they were sent, and ceased from that which he first acknowledged. Episcopum Romanum tunc agnoscentem prophetias Montani, 
Tertul. adver. Praxeam.  & ex ea cognitione pacem Ecclesiis Asia & Phrygiae inferentem, falsa de ipsis prophetis adseverando coegit, & literas pacis revocare tam emissas, & a proposito recipiendorum schismatum concessare: (Praxeas the heretic) forced the Bishop of Rome then agnising the Prophecies of Montanus, and upon good liking (of them) giving peace to their Churches in Asia and Phrygia to revoke his letters of communion when they were sent, and to cease from his purpose of embracing their doctrine.  Phi. 
Tertullian was of that sect himself, and therefore no indifferent witness.  Theo. 
Indifferent enough to report the fact, though not to judge of the cause: and we bring Tertullian not to commend Montanus' error, but to show what the Bishop of Rome did.  Phi. 
He began to like them, but it took not effect.  Theo. 
He wrote letters of peace to the Montanists, and sent them away, which is enough to convince that he erred, though he after relented from his former enterprise.  
How Mercellinus Bishop of Rome sacrificed unto Idols and denied it when it was objected to him, 

The Bishop of Rome an Idolater.  
Marcellini Papae condemnatio tomo council 1.   and was after reproved by sufficient witness and condemned for it, the Synod extant in your first book of counsels doth declare, and Damasus writing the lives of his predecessors doth testify the same.  Phi. 
He fell in persecution, but he repented after and suffered for Christ, as Peter did.  Theo. 
And therefore the Bishop of Rome may fall from the faith, for so did Peter and Marcellinus: but whether he shall be renewed by repentance as they were, that is neither known to you, nor believed of us.  Phi. 
We care not if they fall, so they rise again.  Theo. 
We prove they may fall: Prove you they shall not choose but rise again.  Phi. 
They have all done so that yet are mentioned, 
The Bishop of Rome an Arrian.  and so did Liberius whom I know you will name next; although we may worthily doubt, whether ever he fell or no.  Theo. 
You and your fellows make a doubt of it, but I see no reason why you should. For it is confirmed by many sound and sufficient witnesses, who both for the time when, and place where they lived, did and might best know the truth of that matter.  Phi. 
Ruffinus doubteth of it, Theodoretus denieth it, and Socrates inclineth rather to us, 

Ruff. li. 1. ca 27. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 37.  
Theodoret. lib. 2 cap. 17.   than otherwise.  Theo. 
Ruffinus saith, whether it were so or no pro certo compertum non habeo, I know not for a certainty. Socrates maketh neither with it, nor against it: but passeth it over with silence. And so doth Theodorete, only he saith the Emperor at the supplication of the Gentlewomen of Rome, Flecti se passus jussit optimum quidem Liberium de exilio revocari. Suffering himself to be entreated, commanded the good bishop Liberius to be called from banishment. But this excludeth not his subscription before he received his place, which Sozomene writeth.  
The Emperor at the intercession of the West Bishops recalleth Liberius from Beroea (whither he was banished) and assembling the Bishops that were in his tents compelleth him to confess the son (of God) not to be of the same substance with his father. 
Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 17.  Basilius, Eustathius, and Eleusius induced Liberius to consent by this means that some under the colour of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, did labour secretly to confirm heresy. When this was done the Emperor gave him leave to go to his Bishopric.  Phi. 
Will you believe Sozomene before the rest that report no such thing?  Theo. 
Their silence doth not prejudice his Story. And yet Sozomene is not the first author of this report. Athanasius who lived in the same age with Liberius, and for whose cause Liberius was banished & therefore would say no more than truth by him, witnesseth no less. 
Athanas. epist. ad solitar. vitam agentes.  Liberius post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est, minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus est. Liberius after two years spent in banishment inclined, & by fear of death was induced to subscribe. Damasus that was Bishop of Rome, next after Liberius, and therefore could not be ignorant of the truth, and would not bely his own See, saith of him, Ingressus Liberius in urbem Roman● 4. nonas Augusti consensit Constantio haeretico. 
Ex pontificali Damasi in vita Liberij.  Non tamen rebaptizatus est, sed consensum praebuit. Liberius entering the city of Rome the 4. of the nonce of August consented to Constantius the heretic. He was not rebaptized, but he gave his consent. Hierom brought up at Rome in the time of Liberius and after so near Damasus that he was his right hand in answering all Synodal consultations, and in that respect had often and easy access to the Records and monuments of the Church of Rome, writeth of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia. 

Hieron. de ecclesiast script. in Fortunatiano.  
The Jesuits neglect all this to save the Pope from error.  
Hieron. ad chronicon Euse. adiectio.   In hoc habetur detestabilis quod Liberium Romanae urbis Episcopum pro fide ad exilium pergentem primus solicitavit ac fregit, & ad subscriptionem hareseos compulit: In this he is counted detestable, that he first attempted Liberius the Bishop of Rome going into banishment for the faith, and prevailed with him and gate him to subscribe to the (Arrian) heresy. In his addition to Eusebius Chronicle he saith as much: Liberius taedi● victus exilij & in haereticam pravitatem subscribens Roman quasi victor intraverat. Liberius wearied with his banishment and subscribing to heretical pravity had entered Rome as a conqueror.  
We ask not what authority you have to countervail these; we know you have none: but what reason have you to resist these?  Phi. 
The rest agree not with them. 
Omission in one writer is no disproof in an other.   Theo. 
Omission in one writer is no good argument against an other: four affirm it, and every one of them elder and likelier to come by the truth than Theodorete: & yet Theodorete doth not gainsay, but only overskip the fact. If therefore to claw the Bishop of Rome, you refuse the consent of Athanasius, Hierom, Damasus and Sozomene, you do but discover your folly to the wiser sort, and hazard your credit with the simple: If you receive their testimony touching this fact, then is there no doubt, but the Bishop of Rome subscribed unto Arianisme: and whether he repented or no, we may worthily doubt, since your own Stories avouch the contrary.  Phi. 

Martin. Polon. in Liberi●. Vincentius specul. histor. lib. 15. Cap. 11. & 12.  Which of our Stories?  Theo. 
Martinus Polonus, Vincentius and others. Martinus saith, Constantius recalled Liberius from banishment, because he had agreed to him and to the Arians, and placed him again in his Seat, and so unhappy Liberius held the Church of Peter six years by violence: then was the persecution great in the city, in so much that the Clergy men which were against Liberius, were Martyred: then also Eusebius a Priest suffered death, for declaring Liberius to be an heretic. And Damasus when he came to the Bishop of Rome next after Liberius, 
Idem in Damaso. Believe none but yourself, & then you may be sure the Pope shall not err.  with open voice condemned Liberius and all his acts.  Phi. 
I believe neither Vincentius nor Martinus in this case.  Theo. 
Your not believing them showeth yourself to be partial, not their report to be false.  Phi. 
Liberius surely continued not an Arrian.  Theo. 
That he subscribed to the Arrians we prove: that he recanted his subscription you can not prove.  Phi. 
No doubt he did it, though it be not written.  Theo. 
So you presume, though you want all proof for it.  Phi. 
Never Bishop of Rome died an heretic.  Theo. 
What did Honorius, 
Honorius died an heretic.  whom the sixth general Council condemned, and accursed after his death for heresy?  Phi. 
That Council is shamefully corrupted by the Grecians.  Theo. 
If the Grecians copies did differ from yours, you had some reason to charge them with corruption: but since your copies confess the same, how could the Grecians invade your libraries without your knowledge and raze the Records that lay at Rome in your own keeping, and the thing not spied?  Phi. 
A name is soon thrust in.  Theo. 
But whole sentences and whole leaves can not be thrust in, without stealing away the original & laying a counterfeit in place thereof, which was easy to be discerned. 
6. Synod. actio. ti●. 12.13.16.17.18.  Honorius cause is mentioned & discussed in 26 several places of the council, & two of his epistles repeated at large, one of 
* Actio. 12.  9 score & 12. lines, the other of 
* Actio. 13.  threescore and sixteen lines, which argue the whole council to be forged, or these branches concerning Honorius to be as sincere as the rest.  Phi. 
One Council is soon corrupted.  Theo. 
But may you reject your own Records as forged, and bring neither reason, suspicion, nor probability, when, by whom or how this was or could be done? Give us leave to do the like to the rest of your Romish Records where good cause leadeth us, and see what will become of your Religion. 
And for no cause but ●or that it condemneth the pope as an heretic.   Phi. 
In deed this one we think to be forged.  Theo. 
A general Council repeating the matter which you stick at more than twenty times, and lying safe in your own custody, you suspect to be forged and upon no ground but only because it condemneth a Bishop of Rome for an heretic, and yet you can not deny that but you must deny more. Leo the second 
* 6. Synod. actio. 18. habet haec epist. Leon. 2. ad Constant. Augustum.  accursed Honorius his predecessor for the same heresy. The second Council of Nice which you greatly reverence and call the seventh general Council, 
* Nicen. Synod. 2. Actio. 3.  confesseth Honorius was condemned in the sixth general Council, and 
* Nice. Synod. 2. actio. 7.  themselves reject him by name for an heretic, whereto the Legates of Adrian then Bishop of Rome there present consented and subscribed. Adrian the second in a Council at Rome confessed that Honorius once Bishop of Rome was accused of heresy and condemned after his death by the consent of the Roman See; and this his confession was read and allowed in the eight general Council of Constantinople. 
8. Synod. acti. 7.  If all these be forged, & that at Rome, where yourselves were the keepers, how good cause have we to suspect the rest of your evidence, which tend chief to uphold the Pope's pride & to increase his gain, & agree neither with themselves, nor with the state of those times wherein they should be written, nor with the best and approved stories of the Church.  Phi. 

If you would forge against yourselves, how much more for yourselves?  Since three general Counsels reckon Honorius as condemned of heresy, and specially the Decretal of Leo the second, which the Bishops of Rome would soon have disclaimed, if it had been suspected, I dare not say that all these are forged, for fear lest I overthrow the credit of all Roman Records: and therefore I think rather the Council that first condemned him, mistook his meaning, or that the letters which they saw, were written in his name by some evil willers of his, both which cases are possible.  Theo. 
You mend this gap, and make a bigger. You save the Roman Libraries from corrupt Records, and upbraid a general council with rash judgement, and lack of understanding; for if they condemned Honorius not only their brother, but also their better as you take him, and the head of the Church for an heretic, and that after his death, and either conceived not the sense of his words, or took not heed to the seal and subscription of his letters, that those were Authentic, they deseru●d not to be counted Christians, much less to go for a lawful and general Council: And the Bishops of Rome that came after and confirmed the same, when they might and should have reproved the Council of indiscretion or malice, and defended the innocency of Honorius, were not successors to him but conspirators against him: and so none of your shifts are either sound or likely.  

Though Honorius were innocent, yet three general Counsels confess the Pope might err.  Howsoever you wrangle with the fact, yet this is evident and without contradiction, that three general Counsels, each after other were of opinion the Pope might live and die an heretic, and Agatho, Leo, Adrian the first and second, all Bishops of Rome confessed thus much by their Decretals, and yielded thereto by their subscriptions: Which if you grant, condemn or acquit Honorius of heresy at your pleasures. We have the full consent of the East and West Churches that the Bishop of Rome may err, which you at this present so stiffly deny.  Phi. 

If one did oer, others may.  If one did err, the number is not so great.  Theo. 
If one did, others may, yet I have named three that were condemned for heresy and Apostasy, Marcellinus, Liberius, Honorius: and more I might that erred in like manner, as Vigilius, Anastatius, Celestinus and others: but I see you are determined to believe none that make against you in this point: and therefore I were as good save my labour as spend longer time with one that is past all sense.  Phi. 
If you prove they erred, I will not defend them.  Theo. 

What reason we should believe late Papists speaking in favour of the Pope against the ancient stories▪  But in reporting their sayings and doings, you give credit to none, be they never so indifferent and ancient.  Phi. 
We credit them, if a greater number of writers do not contradict them.  Theo. 
If certain late favourers of the Pope without truth or shame do gainsay the Stories that went before them, think you the partial and corrupt writings of such men worthy to be taken against others that be both elder and syncerer?  Phi. 
I ever go with antiquity and universality.  Theo. 
But when you come to the push, 
How Papists esteem antiquity and universality when the Pope is touched.  you care neither for fathers nor Counsels Provincial nor general if they cross your affections, or touch the Pope's ambition. There ancient writers living in the same time with Liberius affirm that he subscribed to the Arrians, and Sozomene that wrote within 40. years of the deed doing saith no less: you believe neither them nor your own stories which with one consent followed that report, till some in our age, to make the Pope's Tribunal infallible, began not only to doubt but also to deny Liberius fact. Two general Counsels condemn Honorius for an heretic, and the third avoucheth him to have been condemned not without the knowledge of his successors, the bishops of Rome that came after him. You regard neither Popes nor Synods, where they say that Honorius erred; in other things where you think they make with you, they shall be sacred and ancient fathers & Counsels, as though you were not bound to yield unto truth, but that only were truth which liked you.  Phi. 
Liberius was forced and Honorius deceived with a likelihood of truth; this is all you can get of these sacred and ancient fathers and Counsels,  Theo. 
We need no more. No man falleth from the faith but he is either forced or deceived; and yet this we get besides, which we most esteem, that these fathers and Counsels were of opinion, and saw by experience the Bishop of Rome did and might err: Yield to this, and we remit you the rest.  Phi. 
Not till I see what else you will bring. You talk of Vigilius and Anastasius, but I think more than you can prove.  Theo. 
Of Vigillius, 
Vigilius an heretic.  that he secretly favoured such as were condemned heretics, & refused the faith established in the great council of Chalcedon, Liberatus who lived in the same time with him, beareth manifest record. 
Liberati breviarium, cap. 22.  Vigilius implens promissionem suam quam Aug●stae fecerat, talem scripsit epistolam etc. Eam fidem quam tenetis, & tenuiss● & tenere significo. Oportet ut haec quae scribo vobis nullus agnoscat, sed magis tanquam suspectum hic me ante alios sapientia vestra existimet habere, quo facilius possum haec, quae caepi, operari & perficere. Haec Vigilius scribens ad haereticos occult permansit sedens. Vigilius fulfilling his promise which he had made to the Empress (which was to write to Severus and Anthemius, & by his letters to confirm their faith) wrote this epistle etc. I signify to you that I have held and do hold the very same faith which you also do hold. No man must know that I writ these things unto you, but your wisdom must think it best, to have me in suspicion before all others, that I may with more ease work and bring that to pass which I have begun. This Vigilius wrote privily to heretics, and continued Bishop (of Rome).  Phi. 
The Pontifical faith that he promised so to do: 
Ex libro Pontificali in vi●● Vigilij.  but after when it was exacted at his hands, he answered: Absit hoc a me domina Augusta. Prius locutus sum male & incipienter, modó autem nullo modo tibi consentio ut revocem hominem haereticum & anathematizatum. Be this far from me Lady and Empress. I spoke at first not well and like a fool. I can now by no means consent to restore a man that is an heretic and condemned.  Theo. 
Your Pontifical in this place would feign cover Vigilius lewdness with some remorse of conscience. He falsely accused Syluerius his predecessor, & not only thrust him from his seat but also famished him in exile. 
Vigilius a lewd Pope.  He promised the Empress to restore Anthemius & others that were condemned and deposed, & gave it under his hand. He slew his Notary & likewise his Nephew. The people cast stones at him and cursed him when he was sent for to the Emperor. All this your Pontifical confesseth of him. Now to leave some good thing in him it maketh him repent the wicked promise which he gave the Empress for joining with those heretics, but Liberatus denieth that, and so doth Syluerius his predecessor in his decretal Epistle or rather excommunication against him, where he chargeth him not only with murder, ambition, and Simony, but also with heresy. 
Epist. Syluerij Papae ad vigil. ●omo Concil. 2.  Nowm scelus erroris in Apostolica Sede rursus niteris inducere. Thou labourest to bring into the apostolic See a new wickedness of error. Whether now think you reason we believe your Pontifical, a collection of Pope's lives we know not by whom, or Liberatus a writer of that time alleging his own epistle, & his predecessor Syluerius affirming the same?  Phi. 

Pontificale in vita Vigilij. Vigilius drawn by the neck round about Constantinople.  It seemeth by his punishment that he never consented to accomplish the emperors desire. For the Prince very cruelly caused him to be drawn by the neck round about the City of Constantinople and cast into prison where he was fed with bread and water.  Theo. 
He well deserved that and more: & it may be the Empress when she saw he would not stand to his word, did help forward the matter, and assisted the Romans in their complaint to the Emperor against him, and by that means he came to suffer his deserts; but this is no reason to refel that which Liberatus and Syluerius report of him.  Phi. 
His heresy was not open but secret, and therefore it hurt himself and not others.  Theo. 
He concealed his heresy till he saw opportunity. This doth not diminish but rather aggravate his error. For our question is not whether the Pope may infect others, but whether he himself may err in faith; so did Vigilius, though for fear to lose his Popedom he dissembled a season that he might do the more mischief.  

Distinct. 19 § Anastasius.  And so did Anastasius the second, whom many of the Clergy forsook, because he did communicate with heretics and went about privily to restore Acatius already condemned by some of his predecessors for heresy.  Phi. 
This was a fault, but no error.  Theo. 
He that joineth with an heretic, as if he were a Catholic, doth he not account heresy for truth? And call you that no error? Your own gloze giving the cause why his clergy might forsake him saith, Inciderat in haere sim iam damnatam, 
Ibidem glossa ¶ abegerunt. Dist. 19 § Anastasius. Ibidem glossa ¶ divino.  he was fallen into an heresy already condemned.  Phi. 
The book saith, Voluit, & non potuit, he would have done it, but he could not. For he was strooken by the hand of God as Arius was, and so never brought it to pass.  Theo. 
Then may the Bishop of Rome die an heretic as Arius did, and the likeness of their plagues noteth the loathsomeness of both their errors.  Phi. 
But the See of Rome did not err all this while.  Theo. 
That is most true. The See never erreth, 
The See was not free from error, when the men did err, that sat in the See.  it is made of timber or metal, which is void of sense and free from error: but the men have erred that were the lawful occupiers of that See.  Phi. 
You jest at your speech, but you shall find it true, that the See of Rome never erred.  Theo. 
I may jest at it well enough, except you give us some better understanding what you mean by the See of Rome.  Phi. 
I mean the Pope never erred.  Theo. 
Of whom spoke we all this while but of the men that were Popes? And they have erred, as I have showed.  Phi. 
They did err but not as Popes.  Theo. 
No more doth any Christian man or woman. They err not as Christians, but as they forsake the faith, and in that point are not christians, or at least shrink from the christian faith so far forth as they be entangled with error. These be childish toys, you were best take surer handfast, you may chance else to mar all.  Phi. 
Let me first hear what you can say, and I will answer it all with a word.  Theo. 
That were quick work, but I read it your best way first to disburden yourself of these examples, and after you shall sooner pass through the rest.  Phi. 
Liberius in persecution might yield; 
The Rhemish Testament 22. Luke.  Marcellinus for fear might commit Idolatry; Honorius might fall to heresy, and more than all this, some judas might creep into the office, and yet all this without prejudice of the office and Seat.  Theo. 
Very well. If they might fall to heresy and idolatry, Ergo others may do the like.  Phi. 
They may, but without prejudice to the office and Seat.  Theo. 
Who doubteth that? 
The office i● not the worse though the man be nought  The office and sceptre of Princes is not the worse though some be Tyrants: The art and use of Physic is not dispraised though some do kill and not recover their Patients: The vices and oversights of men are incident to all degrees, States and professions, and yet no man so mad to mislike the one for the other. Why then should the lose life or false doctrine of some Bishop's prejudice others either in the same office with them, or in the same place before and after them, since the things be needful, though the men be sinful? The chair is not the worse though the Bishop may err: But you stand in contention with us that the Bishop of Rome can not err: and now you say he may err without prejudice to his office and Seat: which we grant. For his charge to teach, and power to bind common to him with all Bishops, is not abolished nor abated, though some did or hereafter should abuse it.  
In the mean time this shaketh the Pope's Tribunal which you give him over the whole Church. 
He that may err cannot be supreme judge over the whole Church.  For if he may err in faith, which you confess, then can he not be supreme judge of all others in matters of faith: lest the whole church should be bound to forsake her faith, which she may not, upon one erroneous judgement of his, which is possible, and east to happen.  Phi. 
Not possible. 
The Rhemish Testament upon the 22. of S. Luke.  Pope's may err personally but not judicially, that is, they may err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writings, but they neither can, nor ever shall judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Counsels, Decrees, Deliberations or consultations kept for decision and determination of such controversies, doubts or questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them, because Christ's prayer and promise protecteth them therein for confirmation of their brethren.  Theo. 
What prayer or promise of Christ is it that you speak of?  Phi. 
I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.  Theo. 
Are you in your five wits to make such constructions of Christ's words?  Phi. 
Why so?  Theo. 
Where lieth faith? in a man's heart, mouth or hands?  Phi. 
What a wise question that is; ask it not for very shame.  Theo. 
Nay answer it with shame enough. Or if you will not, S. Paul will: 
Rom. 10.  cord creditur, we believe with the heart, saith he, and confess with the mouth. So that if faith be not in our lips, much less in our fingers.  Phi. 
Who ever doubted of that?  Theo. 
Then is there no doubt but your depraving the prayer and promise of Christ will soon be perceived of all men. For if Christ prayed for Peter, and as you rack it for his successors, 
Faith faileth where the hart erreth.  that their faith should not fail: Ergo, the true faith of Christ must always be kept in their hearts, though their mouths fail as Peter's did when he denied his master with his lips, whom in hart he knew to be the son of the living God. Now you turn it clean contrary. You grant the Pope's heart may fall from faith to infidelity and heresy, but his mouth you defend shall be kept from pronouncing it, as if Christ had prayed not for Peter's hart where his faith remained, but for Peter's mouth which failed thrice before the cock crew, notwithstanding his master's prayer and promise that very night.  

The Pope may err with hart & mouth: but his Court, the jesuits say can not err. Luke. 22. Oravi pro te: what place doth te signify?  This is absurd enough, and yet the rest is more absurd when you grant the Pope may err in person, that is both with heart and mouth: but if he once get on his robes and ascend his Tribunal, he can not err. As if Christ had prayed not for the men but for the walls, neither for the Persons but for the Places, which is direct against the words of our saviour. For he saith not, I have prayed for thy Tribunals, Courts, and Consistories, that they shall not err, but I have prayed for thee, noting his person, that thy faith, that is the persuasion of thine heart believing and trusting in me, shall not utterly fail, but the sparkles of my grace remaining in thee shall renew thee by repentance. Christ prayed for the person & not for the place. How then can you say that the Person may err, 
This is rather a plague upon Peter & his successors, than a prayer for them.  but not the place?  Phi. 
The Person shall be strooken with fear as was Vigilius, or prevented by death as was Anastasius, that he shall not be able to accomplish his wicked intent in open place.  Theo. 
Call you that the prayer of Christ for the Pope's faith, or the plague of God upon him for his infidelity?  Phi. 
Call it what you will. God will not suffer him to give definitive sentence for heresy against the faith.  Theo. 
Show us the warrant that God will not suffer it, and we are answered.  Phi. 
The promise of our saviour that Peter's faith should not fa●le.  Theo. 
Then this you make to be the effect of Christ's words, 
How the jesuits const●r Christ's words.  I have prayed for thee that thy faith shall not fail, that is, notwithstanding my prayer for thee, thy successors may be heretics, idolaters, Apostates and runnegates from me, but I will strike them with fear or pervert them with death, that they shall not in open Court by definitive sentence iniect ●y Church. Are you not religious interpreters of the Scriptures, when you delude them and interlace them with such commentaries?  Phi. 
Caiphas' by privilege of his office prophesied right of Christ, 
The Rhemish Testament upon the 22. of S. Luke.  though according to his own knowledge and faith he knew not Christ. And why may not the Pope have the like privilege?  Theo. 
balaam's Ass reproved the madness of his master: Why should not the Pope's Ass have the like privilege?  Phi. 
You scoff at our reasons, you refel them not.  Theo. 
They need no better refutation. For out of a particular fact, 
Of a particular & extraordinary fact, no general rule can be gathered.  that is rare and uncertain, you conclude a general and constant Rule. God used the mouth of Caiphas the high Priest without his meaning to declare the necessity and utility of Christ's death. Hence you would infer that no high Priest could err in judgement, and consequently not the Pope as being belike successor to Caiphas that put Christ to death. By the same cunning you may conclude, God used balaam's mouth against balaam's will, to bless Israel, therefore no false Prophet can have a lying spirit in his mouth: Or God stirred up the spirit of Daniel when he was a very child to convince the two judges of their unrighteous proceeding against Susanna; therefore children cannot want the spirit of direction in judgement: Or Pilat's wife perceived by her dreams that Christ was innocent, therefore woman's dreams are always true.  Phi. 
These illations be very foolish.  Theo. 
Yours is scant so good. For in your example, 
God ruled Caiphas' mouth against his hart.  God overruled the hie-Priests mouth in such sort that in giving the jews wicked and heinous counsel to kill the son of God, his words received a double sense. One cruel & bloody persuading them to murder the author of that new doctrine for fear lest the Romans should take it as an occasion to destroy the whole nation; which was Caiphas' mind and purpose: The other confessing that his death should save the people from destruction; which declareth the virtue and force of his Passion. Which he neither meant, nor knew; but God so tempered his tongue that in writing his furious malice against Christ, his words stood indifferent for both constructions. Thus S. Cyril largely showeth, 
Cyril in johan. lib. 8. cap. 3.  In the proposition of Caiphas there is contained a double sense, one which Caiphas himself meant, that it was expedient Christ should die by the hands of the jews, lest the whole Nation should be destroyed by the Romans: This was a false and wicked meaning, coming from the lewd intention of Caiphas. another sense of the same proposition was intended by the holy Ghost, that it was needful that only Christ should die, for the salvation of the whole world. This Caiphas neither understood nor meant, yet his words were such as might fitly serve this sense of the holy Ghost. 
Ibidem li. 8. ca 2.  For Caiphas himself as crueler, readier to wickedness, and bloodier than the rest, encourageth others staggering at it, by saying, you perceive nothing, neither understand you that it is expedient the life of one man should be neglected for the whole country. 
The devil possessed Caiphas' hart, but God ordered his words.   Phi. 
He spoke this by the holy Ghost.  Theo. 
The devil possessed his hart, but the power of God restrained and ordered his speech.  Phi. 
Had he not the Spirit of prophesy?  Theo. 
No more than Saul the bloodsucker had when he prayed for David whom he sought to kill: 
1. Kings. 24. Mat. 27.  than judas the traitor had, when he justified his master and hanged himself: yea than the devil had, when he confessed and entreated the Son of God not to torment him before his time.  Phi. 

Luke. 8. ●. john. 11.  Why then doth S. john give this note of him that he was high Priest for that year?  Theo. 
S. john noteth this that it pleased God so to temper the high Priests words, that where he spoke to hasten the death of our Saviour, his words sounded, that the people should utterly perish without the death of Christ, which was most true, but not his meaning.  Phi. 
His tongue spoke truth, though his hart did err.  Theo. 
Satan poisoned his hart, but GOD bridled his mouth.  Phi. 
Can not God do the like to the Bishop of Rome?  Theo. 
No doubt he can: but you must prove that he will.  Phi. 
If he did so to Caiphas, much more will he do it to the head of his Church. 
God can do the like when he will.   Theo. 
How hangeth this gear together? He did once so to Caiphas, ergo he will always do the like, where you list to have it.  Phi. 
Not where we list, but where he will.  Theo. 
That helpeth you little. God can do the like where & when he wil What is that to the Bishop of Rome? We doubt not of God's power; but smile at your folly which conclude this to be ordinary in the Pope, which was extraordinary in Caiphas.  Phi. 
It was ordinary in Caiphas by reason of his office, and so saith S. john.  The. 
S. john doth not say it was ordinary either in all high priests, or in Caiphas; for Caiphas himself the very same year, 
Caiphas' condemned our Saviour for a blasphemer. Matth. 26.  as S. Matt. witnesseth, judicially pronounced our Saviour to be a blasphemer, which I hope you will not say came from the direction of the holy Ghost. The high Priest therefore did err, and that most heinously in judgement: and if this be all your hold, the Pope may do the like.  Phi. 
What may be, is hard to determine: But this we know, the Pope did never yet err sitting in his Tribunal to give judgement.  Theo. 
As though the place and not the Pope had assurance of truth annexed unto it? What holiness hath the Consistory to safeguard the judge from error? The promise of Christ was made to the person and not to the place.  Phi. 
To the person but sitting in judgement.  Theo. 
Did Peter sit in judgement at that time when he denied his master? 
Christ's promise was not made to peter sitting in ●udgement.   Phi. 
We say not so.  Theo 
But that night was the promise made unto him, and that night performed in him, when Peter poor man stood warming himself amongst the many, and durst not answer the first interrogatory that a silly wench proposed to him. And therefore Christ never spoke of your Courts nor Consistories: but promised Peter to pardon his fault and to strengthen his faith, lest he should persevere in that his Apostasy.  Phi. 
Had we no warrant for the Bishop of Rome that his faith shall not fail, yet experience proveth this which we say to be true: that he never erred judicially, that is sitting in his Consistory.  Theo. 
What need we care where he sat so long as we be sure he did err? What wrangling is this to ask for the place where; and the time when the Pope spoke the words? He that may err at home, may likewise err abroad; If the Pope be an heretic in his chamber, he can be no Catholic in his Consistory.  Phi. 
Definitive sentence he never gave any against the faith.  Theo. 
What are his decretals but definitive sentences? And in those he hath erred. 
Erroneous Decretals.   Phi. 
Never.  Theo. 
The Decretal of Clemens which I before alleged is altogether erroneous. They were two Decretal Epistles, for the which Honorius was condemned. The decretal of Vigilius, which Liberatus remembreth, is expressly against the faith. Celestinus erred judicially as your own friends confess, but you have pared that Decretal as you have done many others, and left out the later part, lest we should spy the fault. 
The decretals of Celestinus lately pared and his error left out.   Phi. 
Who told you so?  Theo. 
They that had no cause to bely you.  
Alfonsus a great Patron of your side saith, 
Alfons. advers. haereses, li. ●. cap. 4.  It is a thing manifest to all men that Pope Celestinus erred touching the marriage of the faithful when either part falleth into heresy. Neither was this error of Celestinus such as aught to be imputed only to negligence, so that we may say he erred as a private person, and not as Pope, because this decision of Celestinus was in the ancient Decratals which I myself have seen and read. 
Decretal. lib. 4. de divortiis § quanto. Ibidem ¶ praedecessor.  Innocentius the third when he decided the case, confessed that one of his predecessors had decreed otherwise, which saith the gloze was Celestinus: whose resolution was in the old Decretals and it was evil that Celestinus said.  
Alexander the 3. in a matter of great importance said, 

Decretal. lib. 4. de sponsa duorum § licet praeter. To decide of marriage against the truth is an error in faith. Sixti Decretae. lib. 5. tit. 12. § exijt.  
extravag joh. 22. tit. 14. § cum inter nonnullos. Ibidem.  
He should have told us what right they might have besides the propriety. Christ and his Apostles renounced the propriety and reserved the use:  
Is not this good divinities   Quamuis aliter a quibusdam praedecessoribus nostris sit aliquando iudicatum, though some of our predecessors have heretofore otherwise given judgement.  Phi. 
These were matters of marriage, and not of faith.  Theo. 
As though the severing of those, whom God hath joined, did not touch the faith; and so did some of these Popes and that judicially, by their contrary Decrees.  
Again Nicolas the fourth saith in his Decretal that To renounce the propriety of all things not in special only but in common also is meritorious and holy, which Christ taught by word and confirmed by example, and the first founders of the militant church derived to others by the pattern of their doctrine & life. john the 22. saith it is heretical to affirm that Christ & his Apostles had nothing in special nor in common.  Phi. 
The next extravagant reconcileth them both.  Theo. 
The Pope laboureth for life to shift off the matter, & at last cometh with a very jest, De sola abdication proprietatis, non juris alterius in praefata declaratione mentio habetur. In the said declaration (of Pope Nicolas) there is mention made of renouncing the propriety only but none other right. And so Ius aliud a proprietate habuisse potuerunt; they might have some other right besides the propriety.  Phi. 
So they might.  Theo. 
As if Christ and his Apostles had been cunning in the civil Laws to renounce the propriety for a fashion, and yet to reserve an interest in those things which they seemed to renounce, so that they might both keep and use them at their wills. This exposition that Christ taught men to renounce the propriety of their goods and reserve the use, is as false and heretical as the former assertion of Pope Nicolas, that Christ and his Apostles renounced their right in all earthly things both in special and common, 
Extra. § cum inter nonnullos gloss. ¶ declaramus.  and taught others to do the like. Your gloze tumbleth a long while in the mire after he hath confessed the one to be 
* Expressè contrarium in●uit.  expressly contrary to the other, & at length submitteth himself to the Church of Rome though he see not how to lose the knot.  

De consec. dist. 2. § Ego Beren.  Nicolaus the second in a Council of 114. Bishops appointed Berengarius to confess that The very body of Christ is in truth and sensually broken and bruised in pieces with the teeth of the faithful; & this confession the Pope received, allowed and sent to the Bishops of Italy, Germany and France as catholic, 
Ibidem ¶ dentibus.  which your own gloze saith is a greater heresy than ever Berengarius held.  Phi. 
He saith it is, unless you understand it soberly.  Lheo. 
And that sober understanding he granteth must be clean against the text. 
A sober understanding to expound the words clean contrary to the text.  For where the text affirmeth this of the very body of Christ, & excludeth the outward sacrament as the words declare, your gloze saith that unless you understand this of the outward forms of bread and wine and not of the body of Christ, it is a greater heresy than that of Berengarius; and so is it in deed a very palpable & a brutish error, and can no way be salved, except you take the words clean contrary to themselves, which convinceth the Pope and his whole Council of a monstruous error.  Phi. 
This was Berengarius fault in his confession, but not the Pope's judgement or resolution.  Theo. 
You would feign wind out if the text itself did not hold you fast; 
Ibidem ¶ quam Dominus Nicolaus & haec sexta Synodus tenendam tradidit, mihique firmavit.  but there it is said that Pope Nicolas and the Synod delivered this faith and assured it to be apostolic and evangelic. And therefore if Berengarius erred in subscribing this form of confession, the Pope & his Council erred in prescribing the same.  Phi. 
You take nice advantages of words, which men may soon miss.  Theo. 
The heresy of Arius differed but one letter from the truth, and yet his doctrine wa● very blasphemous. One word may contain a whole kingdom of impiety.  Phi. 

They print no more than they list and mind to defend, & then they ask us what errors we find in the Pope's decres. You might as well say: the Pope may er in his shoes, but not in his slippers: or in the shade, but not in the sunshine.  The best is, you find not many such oversights in the Pope's decrees.  Theo. 
You print and publish none but such as you think yourselves able to defend, suppressing the rest that might be challenged, and then you ask us how we prove that ever the Bishop of Rome gave definitive sentence against the faith, in open Court or Council; which refuge of yours is very ridiculous. For what hath Christ's prayer for Peter to do with definitive sentences and open Consistories? If the Pope may believe, defend and preach an error, what need we care whether his sentence be conclusive, or persuasive, definitive or interlocutory? And so for the place what skilleth it where and in whose presence the words be written or spoken if they be certainly his?  
And where you think it maketh much for the Bishop of Rome, that we can not prove these errors of Popes to have been definitively pronounced in their public Consistories, if that were true, as it is not, you show yourselves to be but wranglers. For we can name an infinite number of Bishops and Churches, that never erred in this special & precise manner which you propose. How prove you that ever the Bishops of York or Durham in England, 
We can propose them a thousand Sees, which they shall never prove to have erred in open Consistories by definitive sentence. Heretics ever condemned for their writings & preachings, not for their definitive sentences.  of Poycters or Lions in France, of Valeria or Carduba in Spain, of Ravennas or Rhegium in Italy, of Corinth or Athens in Greece, of Miletus or Sardis in Asia, gave definitive sentence against the faith in their public consistories? A thousand others I could object on whom that thing shall never be fastened, which you crack can not be proved by the Bishop of Rome. Heretics have been ever convinced by their confessions & writings, not by their definitive sentences, or judicial proceed. And therefore if Popes have erred in writing and teaching, they were as right heretics as ever were Arius, Sabellius, Nestorius, Eutiches and such like which never gave definitive sentence against the faith in Courts and Consistories, but only taught or wrote against the truth.  Phi. 
Though one or two Bishops of Rome were deceived, they erred not so often there as in other places.  Theo. 
Set Constantinople aside, and in no one See did the bishops err oftener than in Rome, but this is not our mark. If one or two have erred, why may not others? 
Though no Pope had erred, yet they may err, and so long they can be no judges of faith.  Yea though none of them had erred heretofore, yet that which is possible may happen hereafter, and so long they can be no absolute judges of truth.  Phi. 
If they might err, they were no fit judges of faith; but because their Tribunal is the highest, that is in the Church, they must therefore be free from error.  Theo. 
You ever prove that which we doubt of, by the which is more doubtful. We deny the Pope's Tribunal to be the highest, that is in the church. Provincial and general Counsels by the Canons are above him. And in matters of faith the highest Court that is in earth may miss: 
The highest court in earth may miss the truth.  & therefore no man is bound to Pastor, Prelate or council farther than their decrees be coherent & agreeable with the faith. For against God we own neither audience nor obedience unto the persuasions or precepts of any men.  Phi. 
No question we must as well in faith as in manners obey rather God than man; and therefore if the judgements of bishops and conclusions of Counsels might be repugnant to the word of God, duty bindeth us to prefer the precepts of God before the pleasures of men; but it is not possible that God should leave his Church without direction, and directed she can not be but by judgement, and in giving judgement the head must be highest and so the soundest, left that pervert the rest, and endanger the whole body.  Theo. 
The church of Christ never was nor ever shall be without direction: but that direction proceedeth from the word and spirit of Christ, 
The Church is directed by the word and spirit of christ not by the Pope's consistory.  not from the courts and Consistories of Popes. assemblies of learned Bishops void of pride and strife, are good helps to try the faith and moderate the discipline of the Church, and the greater, the better: yet the direction of God's holy Spirit, and infallible determination of truth is not annexed to any certain places, Persons or numbers; neither can you of a promise which is common to all, establish a private Tribunal for one man from the which the spirit of truth shall not departed, as you profess of the Pope's Consistory.  Phi. 
If he may err how can he be judge of all others?  Theo. 
You say well: & since by the consent and confession of your own church fourteen hundred years after Christ he may err, we conclude he can not be supreme judge of faith; nor Sovereign director of Princes in those cases.  Phi. 

Their own Church 1400. years after Christ stoutly avoucheth the Pope might err.  Was our whole Church of that opinion so lately?  Theo. 
Show ever any learned man of your side, that said or held otherwise.  Phi. 
Nay show you they held so.  Theo. 
I have already showed so much.  Phi. 
You have named some private men that wrote so.  Theo. 
The strongest pillours of your Church.  Phi. 
But you say this opinion was general.  Theo. 
If you consider how earnestly and openly this was asserted by the best, and never contradicted by any, no not by those that took upon them to be the chief Proctors and patrons for the Pope, yourself will say it was general, and confessed on all sides.  

Distinct. 40. § Si Papa.  Your own Decrees that will not have the Pope reproved for any fault, add this exception, Nisi deprehendatur a fide devius, unless he be found to serve from the faith. The Bishops of France and Germany gathered at Brixia and Mogunce against Gregory the seventh, 
Abba● Vrspergens. anno 1080.  condemned him as, The ancient disciple of the heretic Berengarius, & a vera fide exorbitantem, and swerving from the true faith. His own Cardinals and Bishops that were at Rome made this profession against him. 

Fasciculus rerum sciendarum in vita & gestis Hildebrandi.  
Ibidem.   Ad destruendas haereses noviter ab Hildebrando inventas consedimus. We assembled to destroy the heresies lately devised by (Pope) Hildebrand. And in special words, Hoc est decretum Hildebrandi in quo a Doctrina & fide Catholica aberravit. This is Hildebrands decree, in which he erred from the Catholic doctrine and faith.  
Robert Grosseteste Bishop of Lincoln reverenced of your Church for a Saint, lying on his death proved the Pope not only might be, but was an heretic by sundry reasons, and by the very definition of heresy, and for the possibility of the matter allegeth the Pope's own testimony. 
Matth. Paris. in Henrico 3. sub anno 1253.  Item dicit Decretalis quod super tali vitio, videlicet haeresi, potest & debet Papa accusari. The Decretal saith that for heresy the Pope may and aught to be accused.  

Massei Chronic. in anno 1409.  But what speak I of one Bishop? Six hundred Prelates, an hundred four and twenty Divines, and almost three hundred Lawyers, with the whole College of Cardinals in your general Council of Pisa deposed two Popes, Gregory the twelfth and Benedict the thirteenth, as 
* Naucler. Chronograph. generatio. 47. anno 1409.  schismatics and heretics. Your Council of Constance, where as you say were 
* Gen●brard. li. 2 Chronograph. anno 1414.  4. patriarchs, 29. Cardinals, 47. archbishops, 270. Bishops, 564. abbots and Doctors, in all above nine hundred deposed the same Benedict, (persisting in his Popedom notwithstanding the former sentence) as being 
* Concil. Constan. sessio. 37.  schismaticum & haereticum, ac a fide devium, & articuli fidei unam sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam, violatorem pertinacem, notorium & manifestum; a schismatic and an heretic, swerving from the faith, and a wilful, notorious & manifest subverter of the Article of (our) faith, one holy Catholic Church. 
Concil. Constan. sessio. 11.  And in the same Council it was objected to john the 23. Quod dictus johannes Papa 23. saepe & saepius coram diversis Prelatis & alijs honestis & probis viris, pertinaciter Diabolo suadente, dixit, asseruit, dogmatizavit & astruxit, vitam eternam non esse, quin imo dixit & pertinaciter credidit animam hominis cum corpore humano mori & extingui ad instar animalium brutorum, dixít que mortuum semel, esse in novissimo die minimè resurrecturum, contra articulum de resurrectione mortuorum. That often and very often before divers Prelates and other honest and approved men, he said, avouched, uttered as his judgement & eagerly defended, that there is no life everlasting: yea moreover he said and resolutely believed that the soul of man dieth and perisheth with the body after the manner of other beasts, and that he which was once dead should not rise in the last day; contrary to the article of the resurrection of the dead.  
Your general council of Basil, which Germany, France, England, the Dukedom of Milan and many other Countries so greatly esteemed gave the like judgement not yet seven score & seven years ago against Eugenius the 4. and judicially pronounced him to be, 

Concil. Basil. sessio. 34. anno 1439.  
Articuli Parisienses.   schismaticum, a fide devium pertinacem haereticum, a schismatic, erring from the faith, and a stubborn heretic▪ Lastly your divines of Paris but last day resolved that Peter erred in faith when Paul reproved him; and if Peter did, there can be no question but his successors may, since they claim from him, and not before him. If this be not the general consent of your own Church, I know not what is: If it be, then by the full and clear confession of yourselves for 1400. years the Pope might stray from the faith and become an heretic.  Phi. 
There is not one of your examples but may be replied to.  Theo. 
Grant they might, yet this is most sure which I conclude, that they were all of this opinion, the Pope could err.  Phi. 
What if that opinion were not true?  Theo. 
That must you prove. It is enough for me to show that not only the church of Christ in former ages, but your own Church even until our age, held this opinion of Popes that they could err. What reason you have, or can have to impugn their opinion, let the world judge. We think you within the compass of Alfonsus' censure; if ye be not worse.  Phi. 
What if we should grant the Pope may err, as all men may? 
A judge must have skill to discern and power to command.  That doth not diminish his power.  Theo. 
A judge must have two things before he be competent: namely skill to discern, that he miss not the truth; and power to command, that his judgement may take place. If he want either, he is no fit judge.  Phi. 
You say right, and both these the Pope hath in most ample manner.  Theo. 
He hath neither. 
The Pope hath neither.   
Err he may: 
Err he may.  and therefore no man is bound to his judgement farther than it standeth with the word of truth, and so far the greatest Princes in the world are bound to the meanest man that God doth send. For God is truth, & they that resist the truth, resist God; and the end of them all that resist, is damnation, which Princes shall not avoid, unless they submit themselves to the hearing, embracing and obeying of the truth.  
And as he may err, so hath he no power to command Princes or others, 
Power to command or compel he hath none.  but only to propose the commandments of God unto them, as every Bishop must & may by virtue of his vocation. Farther authority, by violence to compel, or by corporal and external means to punish, no Prelate, nor Pope hath by the law of God, since that belongeth to the sword which the Prince and not the Priest beareth in God's behalf to force refusers, and chasti●e malefactors, as I before at large have proved. And so by consequent Princes are neither bound to the Pope's hest for direction, nor in danger of the Pope's court for correction; but that they may by the advise and instruction of such as be learned and godly pastors about them, use their swords for the receiving & settling of truth, and perfect establishing of Christ's will & testament, within their own realms, without expecting or regarding what the bishops of Rome and his adherentes like or allow.  Phi. 
But all this while you resolve not, who shall be judge which is the true will and Testament of Christ.  Theo. 

He that will be judge of truth must prove his claim.  Let him that maketh the claim, undertake the proof. We find no place nor person to whom the son of God hath referred us for the right understanding of his will but only to himself.  Phi. 
You bind the people to follow the Prince; which of all others is the worst way to come by truth.  Theo. 
We bind no man to prince, nor Pope for matters of faith. Only we say subjects must endure their princes with patience, 
All that we give unto princes is either to be obeyed or endured.  when they command for error, & obey them with diligence when they maintain the truth. Farther or other servitude in causes of conscience we lay on no man: and that burden the church of Christ never refused neither under heretics, Apostates nor infidels; till the Pope growing great by the ruin of the Empire and increasing as fast in pride as he did in wealth, would needs give the adventure to rule kingdoms & depose Princes though by God's law he have no more power nor jurisdiction over them than any other Bishop hath: which is so far from that he claimeth and usurpeth, that he, as well as other Bishops, should be subject to the sword, and obedient to the laws of the Roman Emperor: and so was he as I have plainly showed, to the time that forsaking the Grecians and revolting from the Germans he learned to change Lords so often that at length, what with sedition of subjects, dissension of princes, & superstition of all sorts, the mystery of iniquity working, he made himself Lord and master of all.  Phi. 
You be loath I see to yield the bishop of Rome any right to force princes to their duties.  Theo. 
And you be as willing he should not only take their crowns, but tread on their necks, though he have no right to superuise their doings or censure their persons.  Phi. 
If it be not his right we ask it not.  Theo. 
If it be his right we resist it not.  Phi. 
Will you admit it, if we prove it?  Theo. 
Will you not claim it, except you prove it?  Phi. 
We will not.  Theo. 
Then say what you will or can for the confirmation of it.   

THE THIRD PART REFELLETH THE JESVITES REASONS AND authorities for the Pope's depriving of Princes and the bearing of arms by subjects against their Sovereigns upon his censures: declareth the tyrannies & injuries of Antichrist seeking to exalt himself above kings and Princes; and convinceth that no deposition was offered by the Pope for a thousand years after Christ, and none agnised by any Christian Prince until this present day.  Phi. 
THE Pope may reprove Princes, excommunicate them, and if need be depose them, which other Bishops can not do.  Theo. 
Sever these things which you join together, and the truth will the sooner appear. Reprove them he may, when they violate the precepts of God, and so may any other Bishop or teacher. For God hath placed them in his church to teach, 
2. Timoth. 3. jerem. 26. Preachers may reprove Princes.  reprove, instruct & reform as well Princes as others, & charged them not to conceal one word of that he hath spoken neither for favour nor terror of any Prince. The will of God must be declared to all, and sin reproved in all without dissembling, or flattering with any sort, or State of men: and that is most expedient for all, even for Princes themselves, rather to hear with humility what God hath decreed for their salvation, than to run to their own destruction without recalling, or warning.  
So Samuel reproved king Saul, Ahias' king jeroboam, Elias king Achab, Elizeus king jehoram, 

1. Kings 15. 3. Kings 14. 3. Kings 21. 4. Kings 3. Mark. 6. 2. Kings 12. 2. Chron. 19 4. Kings 20.  
The Prophets reproved as well good kings as evil.   john Baptist king Herod. Neither were wicked Princes only, but also the good and virtuous kings of judah reproved by the Prophets, as namely king David by Nathan, king jehosaphat by jehu, and Ezechias by the Prophet isaiah; but this reproof reached no farther than to put them in mind of God's graces and mercies towards them, and their duties again towards him. They never offered violence to their Persons, nor prejudice to their States; only they did God's message unto them, without halting or doubling: and so should every Preacher, and Bishop not fear with meekness and reverence to lay before Princes the sacred and righteous will of God, without respect whether Princes took it in good or evil part: But farther or other attempts against Princes, than in words to declare the will and precepts of God, God hath not permitted unto Preachers, Prophets, Prelates, nor Popes.  Phi. 
Yes they may repel them from the Sacraments, 
Preachers must not admit Princes to the Sacraments but on those conditions which god requires  which is more than reproving them in words.  Theo. 
If you mean, they may not minister the Sacraments unto Princes, without faith and repentance, which God requireth of men that shall be baptised or have access to his table, we grant they must rather hazard their lives, than baptise Princes which believe not, or distribute the lords mysteries to them that repent not, but give wilful and open signification of impiety, to the dishonouring of his name, that is author of those things; and the profaning of the things themselves which be holy and undefiled. 
If Princes will be partakers of God's graces, they must receive them as he doth propose them.  For if Princes will be partakers of Gods abundant blessings proposed in Christ his Son to all that believe and convert, they must not look to command God and his Sacraments, but with lowliness of hart, assurance of faith, and amendment of life, submit themselves under the mighty hand of God, to receive his graces in such sort as he hath prescribed; otherwise they provoke God to their utter and eternal overthrow, and the minister that joined with them in their sins, shall not be severed from them in their plagues, God hating and punishing the pride and presumption of Princes against himself, as much as the vices of meaner men, 
Chryso. in Mat. hom. 83. Ibidem ad populum Antioch. hom. 60.  or rather more. No small vengeance, saith Chrysostom, hangeth over your heads (which be ministers) if you suffer any heinous offender to be partaker of this table: His blood shall be required at your hands. Whether he be Captain, Lieutenant, or crowned king, if he come unworthily, forbidden him; (in this case) thy power is greater than his.  Phi. 

This is new Romish divinity, which in deed is mere impiety.  If they may be excommunicated, ergo they may be deposed.  Theo. 
How doth that follow?  Phi. 
Well enough. When a Prince is excommunicated, he looseth all right to rule, and his subjects are straightways free from yielding any obedience to him.  Theo. 
Who told you so?  Phi. 
No catholic Divine of any age ever said the contrary.  Theo. 
Name any catholic Divine for a thousand years after Christ that ever said so. In deed some popish prelates and writers of late years finding that a compendious way to strengthen the Pope's kingdom, & to make a speedy dispatch of such as should molest them, have not by divinity, but by conspiracy concluded, that Princes may be deposed, & resisted even by their own subjects, contrary to the law of God, the doctrine of the Apostles, and the perpetual patience of Christ's church.  Phi. 


D. ALLENS DEFENCE OF ENGLISH CATHOLICS cap. 4.  
LATELY SET FORTH AGAINST THE EXECUTION OF JUSTICE.   I will set you down some catholic writers about this matter, albeit but few for brevity sake, yet of such excellent credit, as shallbe able to instruct and satisfy any reasonable conscience in this case: as also to be our brethren's defence against all those that charge them so deadly with these treasonable propositions.  Theo. 
The simplest christian that is, except you take a rebellious hart for a reasonable conscience, will look for some better authority to save himself from damnation, which God threateneth to all that resist powers, than your own schoolmen & companions, linked in the same faction with you, & living not long before you: And this silly defence of your brethren by the corrupt verdict of your confederates, is rather a discredit to your whole cause, than a clearing of them from traitorous devices, or as you speak, from treasonable propositions.  Phi. 

The defence of the English Catholics, cap. 4. S. Thomas.  Thomas Aquin; that glorious Saint & Clerke whose only sentence weigheth more, than all the protestāns wit & words in the world; saith thus, Postquam Princeps est denunciatus apostata, omnes inferiores & subditi absoluuntur a praestito turamento & obedientia illi debita: that is to say, after a Prince is once denounced to be an Apostata, all his inferiors & subjects are assoiled of their oath made unto him, and of their obedience unto him. This case is plainly resolved upon by the greatest of all the school Doctors, and therefore can be no reasonable assertion, or opinion.  Theo. 
We are now neither to sift your saints, nor examine your clerks; much less to debate whether the resolution of a popish Monk drown the wits & pains of them all, that God hath since called to the knowledge of his truth: your passing pride. 
Thomas Aquine a late & corrupt writer & a great factor for the Pope.  I leave to the judgement of the wise. The credit of Thomas is not so excellent as you make it, nor his saintship so glorious. He wrote more than 1200. years after Christ, & was both overwhelmed with the corruption of his time, & wholly wedded to the See of Rome. Scripture or father he bringeth none, but barely standeth on the example of Gregory the 7. who first practised this wicked presumption against Henry the 4. a 1000 years after Christ: this is a simple security for subjects to resist the sword which God hath authorized, & the church of Christ for a 1000 years obeyed, to hear Thomas Aquin a late Summist in the midst of blindness & error affirm they may; & pretend no better author than Hildebrand, a furious & seditious monster, as his own Cardinals & companions report of him. You were best bring some other proof, they must else be very large consciences that will be satisfied with such censures.  Phi. 
The famous professor of our time, 

The defence of English Catholics, Cap. 4.  
Toledoes opinion of a Prince excommunicate.   Francis Toledo writeth farther upon the words of S. Thomas. Nota (saith he) quod eadem est ratio de excommunicato; quia cum primum quis est denunciat us excommunicatus, omnes subdits absoluuntur ab eius obedientia. Note that albeit S. Thomas name only an apostata, yet the reason is all one in the Prince's case that is excommunicated. For as soon as one is denounced or declared an excommunicate, all his subjects be discharged of their obedience. For though the crime of a Prince be notorious, yet before declaration thereof made by the church, the vassals are not assoiled from obedience as Caietanus well holdeth: which declaration being made by the church, they are not only discharged of their loyalty, but are bound not to obey him any more; 
The case of K. Henry the 8.  except it be for fear of their lives, or loss of their temporal goods, as it was in England in the time of Henry the 8. Thus doth this notable schoolman write; neither do we know any Catholic divine of any age to say the contrary.  Theo. 
Call you these satisfactions for reasonable consciences, 
What care we for Tholedoes opinion?  in purgation of yourselves, that you do not conspire with Popes against Princes, to bring men alive at this day, that be either hired, or bewitched, as you are, to take part with Antichrist against God, & his truth; & think you their surly conclusions to be sufficient instructions for all men's consciences? Shall Ambrose, Austen, & others look on, & cajetan, Toledo, & such like sworn chaplains to the Pope, & our processed enemies to be judges in this cause? 
Preachers must not admit Princes to the Sacraments but on those conditions which God requireth.  What else is this but ask my fellow whether I be a thief? And yet Thomas Aquinas had this moderation, that Princes should not lose their Dominion for heresy, or any other crime, but only for Apostasy, which is a general & final renouncing of Christ's name, to become an heathen, or a Turk. Toledo with less learning & more unshamefastness telleth us upon his credit Eadem est ratio de excommunicato, The same reason holdeth in any Prince whom the Pope list to excommunicate for what cause soever. Be not these dowtie demonstrations in so weighty questions?  Phi. 

Tell us what warrant and not what fellows they have to resist the ordinance o● God.  We bring them not as our chief grounds in this cause; but only to show that others have been of the same judgement with us.  Theo. 
You mean that your fellows of late days have been as dutiful to their Princes, as you are now to ours. We ask not what company, but what authority you have to resist, and depose the powers which God hath appointed to be served and honoured. Let Aquinas, Caietane, and Toledo go. You may not displace them whom God hath exalted, anointed, and set to be obeyed, without higher, and better warrant than five thousand Thomases, ten thousand caietan's, and twenty thousand Toledoes can give you.  Phi. 
thousands we could bring you, if that would content you; namely The famous general Council of Laterane celebrated above 300. years since, wherein there were patriarchs and Archbishops 70. Bishops 412. and other Prelates 800. in all, 

THE DEFENCE OF ENGLISH CATHOLICS.  
The sentence and definition of the great learned and general council of Laterane. Cap. 3. de haeret.   of the most chosen learned men of all Nations 1282. with the Ambassadors of the Roman Emperor, of the king of jerusalem, of England, of France, of Spain and of Cypress, as also of other Christian States; than which there can be no surer judgement upon earth: which assembly representing the whole christian world, would never agree upon any assertion traitorous. These them are the words of their most renowned Decree.  
If any Lord temporal, required and admonished by the church, neglect to purge his State from heretical filth, let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitan, and Conprovinciall Bishops: But if he contemn to come to order within one years space, let relation be made to the supreme Bishop: that from thence forth he may declare all his subjects to be discharged of their fealty towards him, and give up his Land to be possessed by catholics, 
This was the next way to make all safe on their side.  which catholics' without all contradiction (when they have driven out the heretics) shall have and hold the same, and so preserve it in purity of faith: (the interest and right of the chief Lord ever remaining safe & whole, so that himself give no impediment to the execution of this Decree) And the same law to take place in such also, as be Sovereign Lords and have no superiors.  Theo. 
Our question is not what numbers the Pope hath gathered, nor what Decrees he hath made to settle and assure his kingdom; the judgements of God are righteous and marvelous, as well against Princes as private men. But we demand what commission the Pope and his Prelates (whom God appointed to be subject to Princes) had to determine thus against Princes, & to take both their crowns and Realms from them, when they listed to excommunicate them?  
The number of Persons was above twelve hundred, as you crack, Bishops and other Prelates, 
Platin. in Innocent. 3.800. Hungry friars brought into the council to overrule the Bishops.  but will it please you to remember that eight hundred of them were no Bishops, but Prior's conventual & their substitutes even dreaming Monks, and begging Friars, that then began to pester the world, and had no right to sit in Counsels. By such creatures of his own making, and at his sole disposing, it was easy for your Father to overrule all the Bishops of the world, if they would have said nay; such cunning devices the Bishop of Rome hath to call and frame counsels to his purpose.  
And what if no such thing were there decreed, 
A fine stratagem of the Pope to set out things consulted as if they had been concluded. Platina in vita Innocentij 3. Nothing concluded in the Council of Lateran.  but only proposed and consulted on, and your skill now serveth you to allege it as a most renowned decree, and your adherentes deceive the people with these things, as fully concluded in that Council? Look to the very same place whence you took the number of them that were present, and the very next words; and see whether it be not so. Venere, saith Platina, multa tum quidem in consultationem, nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit: Many things were debated (in that council) but nothing could plainly be decided, by reason the Pope suddenly departing to compose some tumults then suddenly risen, died by the way. And so your famous general council of Laterane is come to a swarm of hungry Friars, consulting how to defeat Princes of their temporal Dominions and lay them open to the spoil, but not concluding as being prevented by the Pope's hastened and inopined death.  Phi. 
We can declare and plainly deduce all that hath been said in the premises from holy Scriptures, 

THE DEFENCE OF ENGLISH CATHOLICS. Cap. 4. Matth. 19  
By God's law you may not resist, much less displace the Prince.  
The word of God binding you to obedience, neither Pope nor council can assoil you from it.  
This is it which Master Allen professeth to prove in the 5. chap. of his Defence. What subjection & honour God alloweth unto Princes. 1. Peter 2. Rom. 13. Proverb. 8.   & warrant of antiquity.  The. 
So had you need. For if no No man may sunder that which God hath joined together, much less may you displace that which God hath ordained, or so much as resist the sword which he hath commanded to be honoured and obeyed. To discharge yourselves from the ordinance of God, from the precepts of Christ, and doctrine of his holy spirit, you must not bring us Popes, Schoolmen and Fires, the eldest of them a 1000 years after Christ; children will not be deceived with such ●ables, you must prove yourselves assoiled from obedience to Princes (when the Pope list to give you leave,) by the self same heavenly records, by which we prove Popes and all others to be subject to them. The word of God bindeth you to obey them: the words of men can not lose you. Go therefore directly and sound to work, or else you do but increase your sin.  Phi. 
I will, and you shall see it apparently proved by the old and new Testament, and by the examples of the primative church that Princes for heresy, and such like crimes may be lawfully deposed by Priests.  Theo. 
This is it which we require you to prove: but first you confess that Princes have their power from God, and that they may challenge honour, subjection, and tribute of all that be within their Realms, not only by the consent of men, but by God's institution and ordinance.  Phi. 
They be but human creatures.  Theo. 
How should men be more than human creatures; but their power is of God. S. Paul speaking of them saith: There is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God. So before him said the wisdom of God: By me kings reign. 
* Wisdom. 6.  Rule therefore is given (them) of the Lord and power by the most high. 
* Rom. 13.  They be God's ministers, for the wealth of him that doth well, and to take vengeance on him that doth evil.  
As their power is from God, so the commandment of God is very plain that we should honour them. Fear God, honour the king, saith S. Peter: and Solomon expressing the same with a more effectual word: 
1. Peter 2.  Fear, saith he, the Lord and the king. 
prover. 24. We may not dishonour princes in word, deed or thought. Exod. 22.  Yea such is the honour that God hath allowed them, that we may neither open our lips, bend our heats, nor lift up our hands against them: Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people, & 
* Eccle. 10. Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 2. judgement threatened chief to them that despise Magistrates. 2. Pet. 2. jude.  curse not the king, no not in thy thought; much less than may we resist them. Let every soul be subject saith the Apostle to the higher powers. Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves judgement. You must be subject not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake. And so S. Peter, Submit yourselves unto every human creature (or ordinance) unto the king as surpassing the rest. For so is the will of God. And threatening an heavy judgement, he saith chief to them that despise government, and fear not to speak evil of such as are in authority. S. Jude noteth wicked and fleshly teachers for the same fault with the very same words. They despise government, and speak evil of them that are in authority.  
Of this subjection due unto Princes, the tribute which we pay them, is by S. Paul's judgement the very sign and earnest. 
Rom. 13.  You must be subject. For, for this cause pay ye also tribute. 
Luk. 20. Honour, subjection & tribute by God's law due to Princes.  And therefore the Lord himself, when he charged all men to give unto Caesar that which was Caesar's, meant that honour, subjection, and tribute which by God's law is due unto Caesar. For that is Caesar's, which God by his word hath allotted unto Caesar, & that no mortal man may withhold from Caesar, since the Son of God hath allowed it unto Caesar.  Phi. 
All this we know.  Theo. 
All this if you keep as well as know, you shall offend the less. 

By the jesuits doctrine Caesar shall have that which God alloweth him, so long as pleaseth the Pope.  
You may not resist them or despise them▪ ergo much less displace them.    Phi. 
Honour, subjection, and tribute must be given to Caesar, so long as Caesar is Caesar; but if Caesar be no longer Caesar, than these things are not due to him.  Theo. 
What mean you by this, so long as Caesar is Caesar?  Phi. 
That is, until he be lawfully deprived of his Empire.  Theo. 
Then Caesar shall have these things so long as you list to suffer him to be Caesar; but if you once denounce him excommunicate, than Caesar, who by God's law should have honour, subjection and tribute, by your law shall have neither land, liberty nor life. Is not this worse than despising, or resisting government, to deprive and bereave the governor of empery, safety, and life, if you list?  Phi. 
We take no such thing on us; but Christ hath given that power and authority to his vicar general that he may do it, if Princes deserve it.  Theo. 
Christ never gave any man power to break the precepts which he bound his Disciples unto, 
john. 8.  but rather he plainly professed; If ye continue in my word ye are verily my Disciples. If Christ command subjection to Magistrates, and your holy father licence the people to rebel against their Governors, is he a vicar or an adversary unto Christ?  Phi. 
He first deposeth the Prince, and then the subjects are no longer bound to those that be no Governors. 
Deposition is an authentic rebellion under the Pope's scale.   Theo. 
That is, he displaceth them whom God hath anointed, and wresteth the sword out of their hands to whom God committed it, and then he saith you may resist them by reason he first deposed them: but how prove you that he may depose Princes, or what warrant can you show for his so doing?  Phi. 
That is the point which I am coming to.  Theo. 
And that is the thing which we have all this while looked for.  Phi. 
Saul the first temporal king that ever the jews (being then God's peculiar) had; 
The defence of English catholics, cap. 5. 1. Reg. 10.15.16. Saul deposed for usurping spiritual function.  though chosen and inspired by God, was for all that led, and directed by Samuel so long as he was in order. But afterward for aspiring to spiritual function, and other disobedience; was by God's appointment and sentence (pronounced by the said Samuel) deposed of his kingdom, and an other named David anointed by him. Which Saul now after his deprivation, or after, as it were, his excommunication by Samuel, was invaded by an evil spirit, that provoked him to kill not only David, that was now made the rightful owner of his crown: but also to seek for samuel's death: yea and to command all the holy Priests of Nobe (fourscore and five in number, 
1. Reg. 22.  as holy Scripture recounteth) to be slain and murdered in most pitiful wise, as traitors to him, and favourers of David the competitor of his kingdom. And so it was done at last; though at the beginning his guard refused to execute so vile and horrible an act; and in this sort he remained enemy many years against God and Samuel, and kept the kingdom by tyrannical force notwithstanding his deposition.  Theo. 
What needeth this long repetition of matters impertinent? A short conclusion and more direct to the question, 
The Prophets denounced both the temporal & eternal judgements of God: but they inflicted neither.  were far better.  Phi. 
That you shall have. Samuel deposed Saul, ergo the Priest may depose the Prince.  Theo. 
The Prophets were chosen by God to denounce to the wicked both his temporal and eternal judgements: will you thence conclude the Prophets were the workers or authors of God's judgements? Noah denounced the flood; did Noah therefore drown the world? jeremy denounced the bondage of Babylon; did jeremy therefore deliver the whole kingdom into captivity? Daniel denounced Nabucadnezers fall: did Daniel therefore take Nabuchadnezers' hart and understanding from him, or make him ●ate grass like an ox?  Phi. 
They were the denouncers of these things from God's mouth, but not the doers.  Theo. 
Keep that rule, and you have answered your own examples of Samuel, of the man of judah that threatened jeroboam, of Elias, Elizeus, Peter and Paul; in which the strength of your discourse consisteth.  
Samuel anointed David, whiles Saul lived, Elias called for fire from heaven to consume the kings messengers; 
By these examples Priests may kill men, set their houses on fire, or pull out their eyes, as well as displace Princes: if the Jesuits collections be good.  Elizeus anointed jehu to execute the wrath of God on Achab's house: Peter strake Ananias and his wife dead with a word for lying unto God: & Paul by the same power of the holy Ghost strake Elimas' the Sorcerer blind. Doth this prove that Bishops and Preachers may pick out men's eyes, or kill whom they can, or appoint kingdoms at their pleasures?  Phi. 
No, but that these things are not unlawful for Prophets & preachers when God commandeth.  Theo. 
If God command the case is clear, not only for Popes, but also for the poorest Priest & meanest creature that is.  Phi. 
We ask no more.  Theo. 
And so much we grant; but hath your holy father any revelation from heaven to depose the Queen of England?  Phi. 
A commission he hath though no revelation to depose Princes▪  Theo. 


The Pope's commission to depose Princes they promised to prove by scripture, & now vainly suppose it without Scripture.  
Samuel, Elias, and Elizeus had special & extraordinary commandment from God to do as they did.   The Pope's commission to depose Princes, is the thing which we strive for, & which you seek to deduce by the Scriptures; and now we come to the purpose, you vainly suppose that without proof, which we required to see, and you promised to show by the very word of God himself.  Phi. 
We prove by the Scriptures that Prophets have deposed Princes.  Theo. 
bely not the Scriptures. You show where God rejected kings for their wickedness, and sent his Prophets to tell them so much, and anoint others in their places. But in this case the Prophets were messengers, not judges; denouncers, not deposers: & that which they did, they did not in the right of their Prophetical vocation, but by peculiar and special direction from God, which was private to them, not common to others that were Prophets, as well as they. Now what consequent is this? Samuel anointed David; Elias, hazael; Eliseus jehu; when God expressly willed them; ergo prophets may dispose kingdoms at their pleasures: and Popes may depose Princes, though God expressly will them not.  Phi. 
Yes God willeth them so to do.  Theo. 
Prove that, and wear the crown.  Phi. 
He willed others before them.  Theo. 
And therefore they might lawfully do that which God commanded them; 

The Pope may not do that which the Prophets did, till he have the same precept which they had.  
To put down kings is an honour specially reserved unto God himself.  Luc. 1. Dan. 2. Dan. 4.  and you may not do the like, till you have that special precept from God which they had. So that in these cases which you pretend, first God was the doer and not the Prophets: they were but servants to do their message. Next they took no such thing upon them by their general calling as Prophets, nor in their own names as superiors to kings, but only then, when they were precisely charged by God himself, and the person that should succeed likewise named unto them by Gods own mouth. What is this to the Pope? Or how doth this infer that he may judicially convent Princes and deprive them of their crowns when he thinketh good? Yea rather if you were not more than blind, you would perceive this illation of yours is not erroneous only but also blasphemous, in that you challenge for the pope the same right to depose kings, which God hath specially reserved to himself. It is he that deposeth the mighty from their seat, and exalteth the base: it is he that putteth down kings, and setteth up kings, and giveth (the kingdom) to whomsoever he will. This power I say you can not attribute to the Pope without apparent blasphemy.  Phi. 

The Pope will depose Princes, as well as God.  We give him no such power, but only to remove such from the kingdom as be unworthy of it.  Theo. 
And think you that God removeth such as be worthy?  Phi. 
No.  Theo. 
Then do you give the same power to the Pope, which God claimeth to himself, to displace the wicked from their thrones.  Phi. 
But under God.  Theo. 
If your holy father do this without a particular and precise warrant from God, he doth it not under God, but as well as God, & that which is in this case done without God, is against God.  

The example of Saul.  But on with your example of Samuel. Saul was deposed of his kingdom by God's appointment and sentence, which Samuel pronounced unto Saul from the mouth of God. Ergo what?  Phi. 
Ergo king Saul was deposed.  Theo. 
Grant he were; by whom was it done? by God or by Samuel?  Phi. 
God prescribed the sentence, 

God prescribed Samuel what he should say to Saul, full sore for against the will of Samuel.  
1. Kings 16. All Israel and David obeyed and honoured Saul as the Lords anointed to his dying day.  
The defence Cap. 5.  
Aug. contra Adamant. 1. Kings 24.   but Samuel pronounced it.  Theo. 
In whose name did Samuel speak? in Gods or his own?  Phi. 
In Gods.  Theo. 
Said he more than God commanded him?  Phi. 
I think not.  Theo. 
Then God spoke the word, and God gave the judgement against Saul; only Samuel was sent to tell Saul so much, & that was sore against samuel's will, as appeareth by his mourning for Saul, which God reproved in him.  
And now to turn your own example on your own head, I trust God hath as much right to depose Princes as the Pope.  Phi. 
What then?  The. 
Did all Israel & judah sin in obeying Saul so many years after he was deposed by God, and an other anointed in his place?  Phi. 
They did it for fear, because Saul kept the kingdom by tyrannical force, notwithstanding his deposition.  Theo. 
Did David sin in serving Saul long after himself was anointed?  Phi. 
He durst not do otherwise.  Theo. 
When David had Saul alone in the cave, and might have slain him, did he well to spare him?  Phi. 
He might lawfully have killed him, as S. Augustine deduceth, but he would not.  Theo. 
Of that anon: in the mean time was it a lie in David to call him his master and the Lords anointed after his deposition?  Phi. 
He called him so in respect he had been so, though presently he were not so.  Theo. 
Nay, David affirmed that at that present, 
1. Kings 24.  he was so. The Lord, saith David, keep me from laying mine hand on him. For he is the Lords anointed. And after showing that this was his duty and not his courtesy, when he found him asleep & one of his Captains would have slain him, he said, 
1. Kings. 26.  Destroy him not: for who can lay his hand on the Lords anointed, & be guiltless? Where David maketh it no favour to spare him, but a sin to touch him. And to the messenger that brought him news of saul's death: 
2. Kings 1.  How wast thou not afraid, saith David, to put forth thine hand to destroy the anointed of the Lord? And commanding the fellow to be thrust through, 
Ibidem.  Thy blood, saith he, be upon thine own head, for thine own mouth hath witnessed against thee, saying, I have slain the Lords anointed.  
If all Israel obeyed Saul, notwithstanding the sentence of God pronounced against him; if David himself after his anointing served & honoured Saul as his master, & called & counted him the Lords anointed to the hour of his death; abhorring it as a sin in himself to lay hands on him, & severely punishing it in an other that did it: How can you warrant rebellion against Princes, or make it a meritorious act to murder them, whom the Pope without all authority from God presumeth to displace?  Phi. 
David might lawfully have killed Saul, 
Cap. 17.  as S. Austen showeth against Adamantius, but he would not. 
1. Kings 26. David confesseth he might not kill Saul without sin.   The. 
The words of David are plain to the contrary, speaking of Saul & himself, Who can lay his hand, saith he, on the Lords anointed, & be guiltless? He could not be guilty, but of a sin: it had been therefore no lawful, but a sinful deed for any man, David himself not excepted, to have killed Saul, in respect he then was, & so continued till he died, The Lords anointed.  Phi. 
S. Augustine saith, David might have killed Saul without fear. His words be, 
Contra Adimantum ca 17.  David had his enemy & persecutor king Saul in his power to do with him what he would, and he chose rather to spare him, than to kill him. He was not commanded to kill him, neither was he prohibited; Imo etiam divinitus audierat se impunè facere quicquid vellet inimico, Yea rather he had heard at God's mouth that he might freely handle an enemy how he would, and yet so great authority he converted to courtesy.  Theo. 
Adimantus held opinion that the old Testament was contrary to the new, because the Law as he thought permitted revenge, and allowed men to kill their enemies, where the Gospel commandeth us to pray for our enemies, and to love them as the words of our Saviour do witness. This objection Saint Augustine refelleth, by showing that the kill of the Nations which God commanded, proceeded of love, not of hatred: and that the just of the old Testament loved and favoured their enemies when it was expedient for them so to do; as namely David that spared king Saul his enemy and persecutor, though he might easily have slain him.  Philand. 
Saint Augustine's word is, impunè, he might freely have done what he would to him. 

The words be grounded rather on Adimantus assertion than S. Austin's persuasion.  
S. Aug. speaketh not of saul's deposition, but of revenge permitted by Moses law, which the Manichees did object.    Theoph. 
Whether that were Saint Augustine's persuasion, or an advantage taken upon Adimantus assertion, the place itself doth not express; of the twain I think the later to be the truer. For this was Adimantus erroneous position, that the Law licensed the jews to kill their enemies: and you may not well charge Saint Augustine therewith lest, you bring him again within the compass of the Manichees error. Sure it is Saint Augustine doth not ground his speech on this that Saul was deposed, and therefore might have justly been destroyed, which is our case; but on the permission of revenge, which the Law of Moses seemed to grant David toward his enemy as well as all others towards their enemies; marry that was no right exposition, but a misconstruction of the Law sufficient to refute Adimantus because it was his own but not rashly to be fathered on Saint Augustine in respect of his learning and credit otherwise in the church of God. For the law of God gave no man leave to kill his enemy, but that precept was to be referred to the Magistrate to whom God gave the sword lawfully to kill such as were by his Law adjudged to die; which our Saviour doth not prohibit in the new Testament, but reproveth the jews for having this false conceit of God's law, that every private person might hate his enemies and love his neighbours, (they corruptly expounding neighbours for friends and acquaintance) and assureth them that to love their enemies and pray for their persecutors, which he then prescribed them, was no new addition, but the ancient and true intention of God's law.  
These words then, David had heard by the Law of God (for special revelation from God to David Saint Augustine knew none) that he might do freely what he would to an enemy, are assumed against Adimantus as part of his own confession and former objection: 
Adimantus antecedent returned on his own head.  and conclude that either Adimantus mistook the meaning of the law, as in deed he did; or that David performing the precept of Christ when he spared his enemy, gave example that others under the Law should do the like, and so the Law neither way repugnant to the Gospel; as his conclusion imported. And if any think it much Saint Augustine should pitch himself on other men's words as they were apparent truths, he must remember he dealt with the Manichees that received no Scriptures but such as they listed: and therefore to press them with their own position, was a nearer way to confound them, than to load them with Scriptures which they regarded not; and that maketh Saint Augustine give sometimes not the soundest solution he could, but the readiest to stop their mouths with their own assertions.  
Otherwise Saint Augustine was plainly resolved that David so much esteemed in Saul the holiness of his regal inunction even unto his death, that he trembled at heart for cutting the lap of saul's garment. Quaero si non habebat Saul sacramenti sanctitatem, 
Aug. Centra lit. Petilian. lib. 2. cap. 48.  quid in eo david venerabatur? nam eum propter sacrosanctam unctionem & honoravit vivum, & vindicavit occisum. Et quia vel panniculum ex eius vest praescidit, percusso cord trepidavit. Ecce Saul non habebat innocentiam, & tamen habebat sanctitatem, non vitae, sed unctionis. If Saul had not the holiness of the sacrament, I demand what it was that David reverenced in him? 
S. Aug. holdeth that Saul had the holiness of his princely inunction to the hour of his death.  For the sacred and holy unction (of a king) he honoured Saul living, and revenged his death (on him that said he slew him.) And because himself had cut but the lap of saul's coat, he was strooken and trembled at heart (for the fact.) Behold, Saul was not innocent, yet had he the holiness not of life but of his anointing.  Phi. 
If David might not lawfully have slain Saul, David might not bear arms against Saul: for the putting himself in arms proveth he was either lawful king, or a manifest rebel against the king, which I think you will not affirm.  Theo. 
David was neither king as yet when he did this, 
David put himself in arms to save his life & not to seek the Crown.  nor rebel against the king. He put himself in arms not to seek the kingdom nor to subdue the usurper as you vainly suppose: he fled to save his life, as every subject may, by your doctrine & doings, yea though life be not sought.  Phi. 
How could David be anointed, if Saul were not first deposed?  Theoph. 
You misconstrue samuel's words. 
Saul rejected from having the kingdom to him & his seed.  For by them the Sceptre was not taken out of saul's hands, but his seed rejected from inheriting the kingdom.  Philand. 
Nay Samuel said unto him; 
* 1. Kings 15.  God hath cast thee away from being king. And again, The Lord hath rend the kingdom of Israel from thee this day & hath given it to thy neighbour. What can this import but he was personally deposed from the government?  Theophi. 
The present possession of the kingdom was not denied him, but the inheritance of it to him and his issue. 

The children of Israel required a king after the manner of other Nations, that is a settled succession in the kingdom.  
1. Reg. 13.   By a king Samuel meant, not one that should govern during his life: for so did the judges of Israel before Saul, that were no kings; but one that should have the kingdom to him, and his after him by way of inheritance. For that was it which the children of Israel respected when they required a King, which was not a Governor for the time, but a settled succession in the regiment, as other Nations had. This was it that Samuel said unto Saul when he first reproved him: Thou hast done foolishly, thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord: for (hadst thou kept it) the Lord had now established thy kingdom upon Israel 
* To thee and thine for ever.  for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue. This was it that Samuel meant the second time when he more sharply rebuked saul's disobedience. Because thou hast cast away the word of the Lord, 
1. Kings 15.  therefore hath he cast away thee from being king. And again, The Lord hath rend the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to thy neighbour, not meaning his person should be degraded, but the kingdom removed both from his line and from his tribe.  Phi. 
This is your private sense: for the words sound, that he should not be king over Israel.  Theo. 

Aug. de civit. Dei, li. 17. ca 7.  Saint Augustine himself expoundeth these very words as I do. Iste cui dicitur: spernit te Dominus ne sis Rex super Israel, & dirupit Dominus Regnum ab Israel de manu tua hody, quadraginta annos regnavit super Israel, tanto scilicet spacio temporis quanto & ipse David, & audivit hoc primo tempore regni sui: ut intelligamus ideo dictum quia nullus de stirpe eius fuerat regnaturus. 
S. Augustine expoundeth saul's rejection as we do.  Saul, to whom it was said the Lord will cast thee away, that thou shalt not be king over Israel, and the Lord hath rend the kingdom from Israel, out of thine hand this day: even he reigned forty years as long as David himself, and this he heard in the very beginning of his reign, that we should understand it therefore to be spoken, because none of his stock should reign after him.  
And had not Saint Augustine gone clear with us, the circumstances of the Scriptures do thus limit the words of Samuel. For David was then a very young boy, or as the text sayeth a 
* 
The Scripture is clear for the same sense.  
1. Kings 16.  
David advanced when he was but a boy keeping sheep David never claimed the Crown from Saul.  
1. Kings 20.   little one, keeping sheep when he was anointed, having neither age, experience, nor strength fit for the present undertaking of the kingdom. Next, David neither claimed nor pretended any right to the Crown during saul's life, but served and obeyed Saul as his liege Lord and Master whiles he lived, and so confessed him to be. Thirdly, Saul himself never objected this unto David that he sought the kingdom from him, but from his sons; for so he said to jonathan, As long as the son of Ishai liveth upon the earth, thou shalt not be established nor thy kingdom. And the priests that were charged with treason for helping David, 

The Priests protested that David was a faithful servant to Saul.  
1. King. 22.  
All Israel alleged samuel's fact that David ought to succeed.  
2. Kings 5. 1. Chron. 11.   did not answer as you do that Saul was an usurper & David the right king, but Who is so faithful among all thy servants as David, & goeth at thy commandment: witnessing for David that he behaved himself as a faithful subject unto Saul, not as a claimer of the crown from Saul. Thus all the Tribes of Israel conceived & construed the words of Samuel. For when they came to make David king after saul's death, they said, In time past, when Saul was our king, thou leddest Israel in & out: & the Lord said unto thee: thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be captain over my people Israel. So came all the elders of Israel and anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Samuel. The text itself allegeth Gods own words, & samuel's act not for the present possession, but for the rightful succession of the crown, that after saul's death it did belong to David.  Phi. 
The anointing of a second king is it not the deposing of the former?  Theo. 
God often times anointed him that should succeed: 
God anointed such as should succeed.  as when he willed Elias to anoint Hazael king of Syria, Benhadad his master yet living, & likewise to anoint Elizeus the Prophet in his own room: whereby neither Benhadad was deposed from his kingdom, nor Elias deprived of his ministery, but successors appointed to them both.  Phi. 
You see in what sort also jeroboam king of Israel, 

The Defence cap. 5.  
3. Reg. 13.14.  
The example of jeroboam a wicked schismatik, denounced by a priest   had a special Prophet sent to him to denounce the intended judgements of God against him & his Posterity, for his schism and separation of his people, from the old ancient true worship of God in jerusalem; & for erecting a new altar in Bethel (in which all schism and division from the apostolic See is properly prefigured) & for creating of a wicked clergy out of Aaron's order: I mean, new, hungry, base, & inordered Priests, (the pattern of heretical ministers) thrust up, out of the array & orderly succession & creation of apostolic priesthood: a crime so highly afterward both in him and his stock (according to God's former denunciation) revenged, that none of his house was left to piss against a wall. Yet he fond sought to apprehend the man of God, & to kill him, for bringing this news which he accounted high treason against his Regalty.  Theo. 
You promised to prove that Princes might be lawfully deposed by Priests: 
Prophet's may threaten wicked Princes in God's name but not deprive them of their crowns  & now slipping clean from the question, you show that God threatened destruction to wicked princes, & charged his Prophets to go to them & tell them so much from him to their faces. Who ever doubted of this? or which way draw you this to make for your purpose? If God may justly revenge the sins of all men, even of Princes themselves, and oftentimes doth; will you thence infer that Priests or Prophets may deprive Princes of their kingdoms?  Phi. 
A priest denounced jeroboam to be a wicked schismatic.  Theo. 
He was a Prophet, 
The Prophet that cried out against jeroboams Altar spoke not a word of his schism.  & no Priest that cried out against the Altar of Bethel in jeroboams presence, & spoke not one word of jeroboams schism or deposition, but only that king josiah should sacrifice the Idolatrous Priests & burn their bones on that Altar: which came to pass 300. years after jeroboam was dead. Such mighty reasons you bring to justify the deposing & displacing of Princes by the Bishop of Rome: that when all is said, your own glozing & interlacing besides the text is the best ground of your argument. That jeroboams erecting a new Altar in Bethel properly prefigured our division from the apostolic See (so you call Rome) & that his new, 
It is easy for any side to apply figures as thy list. Revel. 17. revel. 19  hungry, base, & inordered priests are a pattern of our ministers, these be the blasts of your spirit & cankers of your mouth, they touch not us; but in your deceived & exaspered fancy. We have forsaken the strumpet that made drunk the inhabitants of the earth with the wine of her fornication, & are gone out of her lest we should be partakers in her sins & receive of her plagues: otherwise we have divided over selves neither from God, nor his church. That the clergy of England is upthrust, hungry & base, is but the unloading of your disdainful stomachs; in deed your boy-priests have a braver fashion to ruffle in their silks and colours, & think themselves no cast ware, as if the sight of Rheims, or Rome did by & by make them joseph's betters in dignity, & Abraham's equals in gravity: for our part we are that we are by the grace of God, & we hope in his mercy, his grace in us shall not be in vain. But what is this to the question whether the Pope may depose princes or no; you began with a matter which you never came near, & now you be clean besides. For what doth Gods threatening or punishing of jeroboam concern the Pope's deposing & degrading of princes? God repaid the wickedness which jeroboam committed with fearful plagues on him, & his whole house after him: 
God's threatening jeroboam is nothing to the doposing of Princes by priests  & Ahias the prophet did not spare to tell jeroboams wife, that God would do it, & not leave one of his line to 
* 3. Kings. 14.  wet a wall. Every preacher may do the like; that is, they may protest & assure princes, that Godwil not leave their sins unpunished both with temporal & eternal plagues: & yet every preacher may not depose princes. Yea the preacher of God may do the like to the pope himself, and yet you think it no reason: that every preacher should depose the Pope. Much less will it follow that your holy father may thrust princes from their seats, because the Prophets of God in old time reproved princes for their Idolatries.  Ph. 

The Defence cap. 5. The example of proud Ozias that would take unto him the authority of priests.  Ozias also, or Vsia king of juda puffed up with intolerable pride (as the scripture saith) & not contented with his kingly sovereignty, but presuming to execute spiritual & priestly function; was valiantly by Azarias & 80. priests with him, assailed, & thrust out of the temple by force. At what time for that he threatened the priests of God & resisted them with violence; he was strooken with a filthy leprosy: & so not only thrust out of the temple, but by their authority, severed also from all company of men (a special figure of the priests power to excommunicate for heresy, as well princes as others, in the new law) & finally the regiment of his kingdom was committed to his son. A clear example that priests may use arms, & repress impiety by forcible ways, where it may serve to the preservation of religion and honour of God.  Theo. 
Vzziah presuming to burn incense on the Altar of God, which was the priest's office, 
Vzziah stricken with a leprosy but not deposed.  was strooken with a leprosy & lived as a leper in an house apart from men to the day of his death: A fair warning for princes not to wax proud against God, nor to usurp things interdicted them by the law of God: But that Azarias' the priest and 80. of his brethren valiantly assailed the kings person and thrust him out by force, or that the regiment of his kingdom passed from him, as deprived of his right, and descended to his son: these be your additions and imaginations, the text hath no such things.  
Azarias', 

The high Priest withstood the king with words, not with weapons.  
The Jesuits delight in martial terms   & his brethren withstood the king: but in words, rebuking him for the breach of God's law, which they might, not manfully assailing the Magistrate, nor laying violent hands on him to thrust him out of the temple, as your martial terms do import. If the scripture itself do not content you, repeating the words, wherewith Azarias resisted the king: hear Chrysost. conclusion upon this place. After the Priest had reproved (the attempt) & the king would not yield, but offered arms, shilds, & spears, & used his power, than the priest (turning himself) to God, 
* 2. Chron. 26. De verbis isaiah. Vidi Dominum.  I have done, saith he, my duty (to warn him,) I can go no farther. Nam Sacerdotis est tantum arguere; for it is the priests part only to reprove & freely to admonish (with words:) not to assail with arms, not to use targets, not to handle spears, not to bend bows, not to cast darts, but only to reprove and freely to warn.  
This therefore is no clear example that Priests may use arms & repress impiety by forcible ways, as you infer, 
The jesuits gather conclusions clean against the Scriptures and their own canons.  but a wicked abusing & drawing of the scriptures to serve your warlike dispositions. For Gods, & man's law will assure you that priests & bishops may be no warriors in their own persons; & if you regard not that, your own law will teach you that 
* Caus. 23. quaest. 8. ¶ 1.  no clergy man may put himself in arms, no not at the commandment of the Bishop of Rome. Pope john saith, 
* Ibidem. ¶ 2.  Tractare de armis terrenae potescatis est: To meddle with arms, pertaineth to the civil power. Pope Innocentius saith: Christ, 
* Ibidem. ¶ 3.  who was the pattern of all priests forbade carnal weapons to be taken in hand for him. A council at Toledo in Spain, 
* Ibidem. ¶ Clerici.  Clergy men that in any faction whatsoever, wittingly take arms, shall lose their degree & be thrust in some Abbay for ever. An other at Meaux in France, 
* Ibidem. ¶ quicunque.  Whatsoever they be that be of the clergy, let them take no warlike weapons in hand, nor go with arms. If they do, let them lose their degree, as contemners of the sacred canons, & profaners of ecclesiastical dignity. The full resolution of all these canons by the confession of your law is this: Hijs ita respondetur, Sacerdotes propria manu arma arripere non debent. 
Ibidem dict. ¶ quicunque § hijs ita.  The meaning of these places is, that priests themselves in their own persons should not take weapon. You heard before how often S. Paul charged that a Bishop should be 
* 1. Tim. 3. 2. Tim. 2. Tit. 1.  no fighter nor striker, and that 
* 2. Cor. 10.  the weapons of (their) warfare were not carnal, and by the Lords own voice, that he which 
* Mat. 24.  striketh his fellow servants shall have his portion with hypocrites.  
What a desperate conclusion then have you wrested out of this example against your own canons, & against the sacred Scriptures, that priests may not only use arms and repress impiety by forcible ways: 
The Prince's person no Priest may violate, or so much as touch. Psal. 105.  but assail the person of their Sovereign with open violence, which, if it were lawful for them to use arms as it is for others, they might not so much as touch? The precept of God is plain. Touch not mine anointed; which reacheth to others but chief to Princes. You may not speak evil of them, & can it be lawful for you to do evil? To resist them is damnation: what is it then with armed violence to oppress them? 
1. Kings. 24.  David was touched in his hart for cutting off the lap of saul's garment: & you boldly conclude that priests with their own hands may violate the Prince's person. And where a cursing thought against them is a sin before God, a murdering hand upon them is a merit by your doctrine.  Phi. 
We take our light from this example. For here the Priests, as the text saith, 
They might not use violence, & what needed any when the King hastened of himself to go forth?  not only resisted, but when they saw the king become a leper they expelled him out of the Sanctuary.  Theo. 
The word 
* 2. Chro. 26.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth, they caused or got him to hasten thence, but not with violence: for the next words show that he was forced of himself to go forth because the Lord had strooken him. And so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify, & the common translation which you call S. hierom's hath for it, 
* 2. Chro. 26.  Ipse acceleravit egredi: he made haste of himself to go forth, as terrified with the plague which he felt.  Phi. 
The Priests severed him from all company of men (a special figure of the priests power to excommunicate for heresy as well Princes as others in the new law) & the regiment of his kingdom was committed to his son.  The. 
You promised full proofs out of the word of God that priests might depose Princes, & now you come with empty figures of your own applying without truth or coherence. 
4. Kings. 15.  Vzziah dwelled apart in an house from others, because of his leprosy: for so the law of God commanded, & the danger of that disease required; but that the Priests severed him from all company, this is your own making without the book, the text hath no such words; much less do you find in the scriptures that he was deprived of his kingdom. 

2. Chron. 26. 4. King. 15. Oziah was king of judah to the day of his death. The Priests were to discern lepers, but the Magistrate to see them kept apart from others.  
Numb. 5. The leprosy of the soul no cause of deprivation unto Princes. In Luc. lib. 5. de leproso mundato.  
Chrysost. in Mat hom. 16. & oper. imperfect. hom. 10.   jothan his son governed his house, & judged the people of the Land; because the king himself might not be conversant among men by reason of his sickness, but the crown still continued in the father though a leper, & jothan began not his reign, till his father was dead, whom the scripture calleth the king of judah in the twenty fifth year of his reign and last year of his life.  Ph. 
Whose duty was it to separate Lepers from sound Persons, but only the Priests?  Theo. 
The Priests were to discern who were lepers, but the Magistrate was to see them put apart & to keep them from infecting others. The putting lepers asunder from others was first commanded to the children of Israel, & by them first executed; though the pronouncing them to be lepers was always reserved to the Priest.  Phi. 
And the leprosy of the body resembleth the leprosy of the soul. Ergo Priests may separate Princes from the church for heresy & apostasy, which be the sores of the inward man, as the leprosy is of the outward.  The. 
You must prove first, before your conclusion will follow, that lepers by the law of God lost their inheritance, which is not true. Next that every Prince sinning must be deposed, which is as false. For leprosy resembleth not only heresy, or apostasy, but all kind of iniquity. Ambrose saith, Contemptus verbi est lepra mentis, the contempt of the word is the leprosy of the mind. And so Chrysostom: The leprosy of the soul, which is sin, is only to be feared. And likewise the rest: Intelligimus omnes avaros, & cupidos intus in anima peccati lepra esse perfusos. We understand all covetous & greedy people to be inwardly infected with the leprosy of sin. If the leprosy of the soul be a cause sufficient to remove princes from their Seats, what Prince shall keep his kingdom, or what Bishop his chair? Be they not all sinners, as well Bishops as Princes? If you take upon you the moderation of the matter, that all sins shall not deprive them of their Crowns but only heresy: than you decide the case like a lord, as you list; and check your own conclusion as pernicious to Popes no less than to Princes; and we may justly reject it as a figure of your own framing, without probability in the antecedent, or necessity in the consequent.  Phi. 
Note the cause, why king Vzziah was smitten with the leprosy: for presuming to execute the spiritual and Priestly function, whereof now you make them supreme Governors.  Theo. 
I note it well; and when we defend that Princes may preach, baptise, forgive sins, or minister the Lords supper, then threaten us with Vzziahs' pride and plague, on God's name: 
To bear the sword in matters of religion is the Princes and not the priests charge  In the mean time learn that to bear the sword is the Princes, and not the Priest's function: and that the kings of judah which most used their temporal sword for the restoaring of truth and purging of error, wan most favour with God and honour with men, as I showed before in David, jehosaphat, Ezechias and josias.  Phi. 
To judge of truth, is the Priests charge; and that you refer to the Prince.  Theo. 
To know what must be taught, is the pastors care: to take heed what they believe, or whom they follow, God hath referred that to the hearers, at their peril, and more than that we give no Prince.  Phi. 
The office and zeal of good Priests is notably recommended unto us, 

The defence, cap. 5.  
4. Reg. 11.  
The example of the deposition & death of Queen Athalia by joida the hie-Priest.   in the deposition of the wicked Queen Athalia. She, to obtain the Crown after Ochasias, killed all his children: only one, which by a certain good woman's piety was secretly withdrawn from the massacre, saved and brought up within the Temple for seven years space; all which time the said Queen usurped the kingdom: till at length joida the high Priest, by opportunity called to him forces both of the Priests and people; proclaimed the right heir that was in his custody; anointed and crowned him king; and caused immediately the pretenced Queen, (notwithstanding she cried Treason, Treason, as not only just possessors but wicked usurpers use to do) to be slain with her fautors at her own Court gate. Thus do Priests deal and judge for the innocent and lawful Princes (when time requireth) much to their honour, and agreeable to their holy calling. 
Athalia an usurper, and slain by the King's authority.   Theo. 
Eagerness blindeth your understanding, when to prove that a lawful Prince may be deprived of State and life, which you seek to defend, you bring an example of a wicked woman usurping the crown and playing the tyrant that was suppressed and punished by the rightful inheritor of the Sceptre, first proclaimed and Crowned by the consent of his whole Realm.  Phi. 
joida the high Priest commanded her to be slain, 
joidaes' warrant to command Athalia to be put to death in the King's name.  and not the king. For he was a child of seven years age and had no such discretion.  Theo. 
joida had good warrant by the Laws of God and man to do that he did. First he saved the young king alive, and hiding him from the fury of Athalia, secretly nourced him in the house of God: and in that respect might lawfully protect him, and execute justice for him. Again he was the Prince of his Tribe, as well as others were of their Tribes: and therefore might take upon him as much as any other of the Princes, in the minority of the king to pacify the Realm, and punish the usurper. Thirdly his wife was the kings aunt, and himself the nearest ally that the king had, and for that cause by the Law of nature and nations, bound to see the Prince's right, age and innocency defended. Lastly that he did was by the common consent of all the Nobles and Captains. For the scripture saith, 
2. Chr●. 23. 4. Kings. 11.  that before he ventured to proclaine king joash, He caused the captains, & the chief fathers of Israel to come unto him into the house of the Lord, and made a covenant with them, and took an oath of them in the house of the Lord, and showed them the kings son. So that joida had very good and sufficient authority without and besides his Priesthood to do that he did, which you dissemble and make a flourish as if he had done this only by virtue of his vocation, which is most false.  Phi. 


The defence, cap. 5.  
3. Reg. 18.19. The execution done by Elias the Prophet upon many with deposition of Princes. 4. Reg. 1.   No man can be ignorant how stoutly Elias (being sought to death by Achab and his Queen jezabel that overthrew holy Altars, and murdered all the true religions that could be found in their land) told them to their face; that not he or other men of God whom they persecuted, but they and their house were the disturbers of Israel: And slew in his zeal all the said Iezabels false Prophets, fostered at her Table, even four hundred at one time; and so set up holy Altars again. How he handled the Idolatrous king Ochozias his Captains and messengers, wasting them and an hundred of their train,, by fire from heaven; till the third Captain was forced to humble himself upon his knees unto him.  
How he had commission to anoint Hazael, king of Syria; Eliseus a Prophet for himself; 
3. Reg. 19 4. Reg. 9  and jehu king of Israel, and so to put down the son and whole house of Achab: which thereby lost all the title and right to the kingdom for ever.  Theo. 

Elias zeal. 3. Kings. 18.  Elias zeal we know: and his stove answer to Achab in saying, I have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father's house in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim: Yet have you but a cold suit of his stout speech. For if Prophets may reprove kings, may they therefore depose them? you bring your five wits in question, if you stand to this collection.  Phi. 

Elias caused the Prophets of Baal to be slain by the public authority of the King and his people.  He slew in his zeal at one time four hundred of jezabels' false Prophets fostered at her Table.  Theo. 
The famine which the land felt, and the wonder which Elias did, were the cause why king Achab delivered the Prophets of Baal into Elias hands to be slain by the people according to the Law of God.  Phi. 
Nay Elias slew them.  Theo. 
Think you that Elias with his own hands murdered so many?  Phi. 
The Scripture saith Elias slew them, interpret that how you can.  Theo. 
I took Elias all this while for a Prophet and not for an executioner. 
Elias was a Prophet and not an executioner.   Phi. 
Though it were not his act to kill them; it was his authority that they were killed.  Theo. 
His direction you might have said, but not his authority. For Elias was a private man and no magistrate.  Phi. 
King Achab was far enough from killing them, had it not been for Elias.  Theo. 
Elias might induce the king to do it, compel him he could not.  Phi. 
How could Elias induce the King to do that deed?  Theo. 
The famine was so great in Israel for lack of rain that man and beast were ready to perish: 
How Elias gate Achab & the whole Realm to decree the slaughter of Baal's prophets.  and rain they could have none, but at Elias 
* 3. Kings. 17. Vers. 1.  word as Elias had told the king before the drought began. Meeting therefore with Achab and being challenged by him as the author of this famine, and troubler of Israel: he discharged himself, and protessed before the King that GOD plagued the whole land because he, 
* 3. Kings. 18. Vers. 23. Vers. 24.  and his father's house had forsaken the commandments of the Lord, & followed other Gods. And to justify his speech, he offered to prove before all Israel on the danger of his own head that the King and the land were but seduced and abused by the Prophets of Baal, and that he would prove by no worse means, than by miraculous fire from heaven which should show them whose sacrifice GOD accepted: assuring them of rain abundant after their conversion to the true GOD, 
Vers. 1. Vers. 24.  for which cause he was at this time sent unto them. To this the king, and the rest gave their consents: and when by the sign which Elias wrought, the Prophets of Baal were convicted to be but false deceivers, and the whole assembly fell on their faces, 
Vers. 39  and gave the glory to GOD, and submitted themselves to follow his truth: 
Vers. 40.  Elias willed them to take Baal's Prophets, and give them the reward that deceivers by God's Law should have, which was death.  Phi. 
This is your enlarging of the text.  Theo. 
The books of kings are but short gatherings out of the larger Chronicles that were extant among the jews, and the manner of the holy Ghost is briefly to touch the chiefest things, and yet is there none of these parts, but may be plainly proved by the circumstances of the text.  Phi. 
How prove you the King consented?  Theo. 
The particular speech of no one is reported but the general consent of the whole company. 
Vers. 24. The King and the people consented to Elias offer. Vers. 20.  Where also the king was present, is expressed: and yet before the multitude was assembled, the kings consent to Elias offer appeareth in that the king sent unto all the children of Israel, and gathered the Prophets together for that purpose, who would otherwise have despised the message and word of Elias. Again the Prophets of Baal would never have ventured their lives upon a needless miracle at Elias pleasure, but the King and the whole Realm tied them to that condition, upon danger else to reject both them and their profession. And lastly how was it possible for one poor Prophet to catch and kill four hundred and fifty, so that not a man of them escaped: the king and the whole State standing with them? Or how was it lawful for Elias to spill their blood in the kings presence, without the king's consent? Elias therefore made the motion, which the king and the whole Realm there assembled, did accept and ratify with this answer, 
Vers. 24.  It is well spoken: and as he should have lost his life, if he had failed; so when they failed, he required justice to be done by the king and the Realm on them, for that they were clearly convicted to be teachers of strange and false Gods.  Phi. 

3. Kings. 19  Achab when he came home told jezabel his wife how Elias had slain all the Prophets with the sword.  Theo. 
Achab, we doubt not, excused himself, and cast the fault as much as he could on Elias, that jezabels' Prophets were slain; but this doth not show that Achab did not consent. His words import that Elias was the procurer & causer of their destruction, 
Elias is said in the Scripture to have done the deed, because he was the procurer and author of it. Acts. 7. josu. 10. 3. Kings. 14.  but not the judge nor officer that put them to death.  Phi. 
The Scripture saith he slew them.  Theo. 
So the Scripture saith that Solomon built GOD an house: think you therefore that Solomon was a Mason or Carpenter? And joshua smote the five kings of the Amorites, and hanged them on five trees: did joshua therefore play the hangman? And king Roboam made shields of brass: was Roboam therefore a brasse-smith?  Phi. 
No: they commanded or caused these things to be done.  Theo. 
And so did Elias procure, or cause them to be slain: for in the Scripture the causer, procurer and director are said to do the deed, though they be but means and helps to have it done. But what is this to the deposing of Princes? Will you reason thus? False Prophets may be put to death my magistrates; ergo Princess may be deposed by priests. I think you will not for very shame make such childish conclusions.  Phi. 
He himself slew king Ochasias his Captains, and messengers, wasting them and an hundredth of their train by fire from heaven.  Theo. 
Elias was the speaker of the word, but God was the doer of the deed: and in that case God himself slew them, and not Elias.  Phi. 

God sent ●er from heaven, & not Elias.  He called for fire from heaven.  Theo. 
Fire from heaven was not in Elias power but in Gods will. Neither might Elias, had he not been guided by the special instinct of God's Spirit: have presumed to call for that, or any other kind of revenge from heaven: for that is the manifest tempting of God, as our Saviour warned his Apostles when he rebuked them for offering to imitate Elias, 
Luke. 9  and to call for fire from heaven as he did. And sure it is, as these things were not ordinary, so can you drive them to no conclusion for your purpose; nor lay them forth for imitation to any; no more than you may warrant men to steal, because Israel 
* Exod. 12.  rob Egypt by God's appointment; or to persuade any to murder themselves, because 
* judges. 16.  Samson did the like; or teach them to curse & kill children, because Elizeus handled 
* 4. Kings. 2.  two and forty so that mocked him at Bethel. And yet all this while you show not that Elias so much as touched the king, much less deposed him, which you profess to prove. 

THE DEFENCE OF ENGLISH CATHOLICS.  
The anointing of Hazael.    Phi. 
Elias had commission to anoint Hazael king of Syria and jehu king of Israel, and so to put down the son and whole house of Achab; which thereby lost all the title and right to the kingdom for ever.  Theo. 
Neither of them was anointed by Elias, neither Hazael, nor jehu. Elizeus only foretold Hazael, that he should be king in Benhadad's place: His words were, The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king of Aram; 
4. Kings. 8.  This Elizeus spoke the day before Benhadad died; and other anointing Hazael had none.  
jehu was indeed anointed by one of the Children of the Prophets (whom Elizeus scent) and charged by message from God to smite & destroy the whole house of Achab his master; 

jehu willed by God to take the sword and root out Ahab'S house 4. Kings. 9 Ibidem. vers. 7. & 8.  
4. Kings. 11.   and so he did. For he slew joram the King, trod jesabel under his horse feet, and caused the seventy sons of Achab that were nourced in Samaria to be slain; and slew all that remained of the house of Achab in Israel, and all that were great with him, and his familiars, and his Priests, so that he let none of his remain.  Phi. 
Then yet here was one king deposed.  Theo. 
Here was no king deposed by any Prophet, but one slain by jehu, to whom God gave the Kingdom of Achab for this intent, 
God might give jehu the kingdom & appoint him to revenge his master's sins.  that he should root out the whole house and offspring of Achab.  Phi. 
Did jehu well to kill his master and to take the kingdom from him and his heirs?  Theo. 
Being expressly commanded thereto by God himself, he did but his duty. For God may take and give Kingdoms as he will, though man may not.  Phi. 
Authority so to do jehu received from Eliseus.  Theo. 
Unsay that, for fear lest you fall into a malicious and wicked untruth. The Prophet that anointed jehu began his message with, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel; and not thus saith Elizeus.  Phi. 
But Elizeus sent him and gave him instructions what to do and what to say.  Theo. 
Let that be so. Then Elizeus taught him to do this errand in God's name, and not in his own, and consequently jehu received authority from God, 
jehu authorised by God, and not by Elizeus.  and not from man. Now view your argument. God may give kingdoms to whom he will, and appoint the subject to be the revenger of his master's sin; ergo the Pope may do the like. Be you not the right members of Antichrist, when you make such reasons to flatter the Bishop of Rome?  Phi. 
The Scripture saith of Elias: He cast down Kings, destroyed them and plucked the honourable from their Seats: 
Eccle. 48.  and of Eliseus in the same place he never feared Prince, nor could be overcome by any.  Theo. 
If the Scripture will not serve your turns, you will make it I perceive by one means or other. The words as they lie in the Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 
Eccle. 48.  He brought Kings to destruction, and the mighty from their beds: you to help the matter put in terms of your own and say he cast down Kings, destroyed them and plucked them from their Seats, 
Elias & Eliseus were no deposers.  as if Elias had been some lusty swashbuckler to pluck them out by the ears, and not a zealous and sincere Prophet to denounce the will of God unto them with the peril of his own life, for the which he is commended. And so of Elizeus, the wise man saith, He was shaken (that is driven from the doing of his duty or afeard to do that which God willed him) for any ruler. These and such like praises, 
Eccle. 48.  if you take them as in Prophets and Preachers they may and aught to be taken: (which is not to shrink from declaring the will of God for any Prince, & to advertise them as well as others of the danger and destruction that hangeth over their heads) they be great virtues; and shined in Elias and Eliseus very brightly: But if you aggravate words to persuade men that Elias or Eliseus did depose princes as superior judges, or laid violent hands on them to pull them from their thrones; you make them Rebellious disturbers of states, which was far from them: and not religious servants to God, as in deed they were.  Phi. 


The defence, cap. 5.  
I●larions and consequents upon the former examples.   By these examples of holy Scriptures we see: first, that anointed and lawfully created Kings may be deposed: secondly, for what causes they were deprived: thirdly, that as in the creation and consecration of Kings▪ so also in their deprivation, God used the ministery of Priests and Prophets, as either ordinary or extraordinary judges or executors of his will towards them.  Theo. 
Your examples have been thoroughly considered; and howsoever you correct and qualify your conclusion, the precedents no way fit your purpose. That anointed and lawfully created Kings may be chased from the government; 
The former examples infer no judicial deposition of Princes by Priests. All saving one were either not lawfully created or not else deposed.  the example of jehu will justify: if you add these two provisoes, that the warrant be special from Gods own mouth, & the fact be done by the Magistrate whom God hath authorized to take the sword; for so doth jehues example require: the rest intent no such thing. The Princes which you name were either not deposed, or not lawfully created. Saul was presently rejected from God's favour and spirit, from the possession of the Kingdom he was not, but only cut off from the succession. jeroboam was sorely threatened, and Vzziah sharply punished, but yet neither of them deposed. Achab was twice rebuked by Elias, but not deprived: And Athalia whom the hie-Priest in the young King's name commanded to be slain, usurped, and was never lawfully created.  
The causes for which they were deprived, we need not dispute of, unless you first show that they were deprived. 

Athalia slain for usurping: Vzziah smitten for his pride: & jorams religion no worse than his fathers.  
4. King 1.9. Verse. 22. Verse. 7. 3. Kings. 21.  
God used the ministery of the Prophets to declare his will, but not their authority to depose Princes.   Athalia was slain neither for Apostasy, nor heresy, but for usurping the Crown against the right heir. Vzziahs' acts were commended, but his pride detested by God. joram was of no worse religion than Achab his Father, and others before him, and after him, which yet were not deposed: But God revenged on him, the whoredoms, and witchcrafts of his mother jesabel, which he suffered, and the blood of all his servants the Prophets, which he spilled in the reign both of Achab and joram. That cause the Prophet uttered to jehu: and jehu to joram when he slew by Israel: And this plague upon Achab's wife and house Elias threatened after the kill of Naboth.  Phi. 
Was not joram an Idolater?  Theo. 
yes, that increased his sin, but it was not the cause that he lost his kingdom.  
Your third observation halteth down right, and doubleth so many times either, and or, that in effect you resolve nothing. You say God used the ministery of Priests and Prophets in the deprivation of Kings. He used their mouths to foretell, and declare the plagues that he would send on Princes: and sometimes their hands to anoint such as he would have succeed: But he used them, neither as ordinary, nor extraordinary judges, nor executors to depose Princes. Messengers they were, to deliver by word of mouth that which God had determined, to such as did, or should inherit the kingdom; other execution, or authority to deprive Princes they had none: And this is far from that which you claim for the Pope: whom you make the supervisor of Princes, and an ordinary judge to compel them and displace them if he see cause.  Phi. 
For so much as these Princes held their dignities and Sovereign authorities of God, 
The defence, cap. 5.  and were bound to occupy and use the same, with what forces soever they had, to the advancement of his Religion, and to the true worship and honour of their supreme Lord and Master: as also to the benefit and preservation of his people in faith and fear of him: the Priests and Prophets (that then had the principal and direct charge of men's souls and Religion, and were in spiritual matters superiors to their own Princes) rightly opposed themselves in all such actions as tended to the dishonour of GOD, destruction of Religion, and to the notorious damage of the souls of them over whom they did reign: and in the behalf of GOD executed justice upon such, as contrary to their obligation and first institution, abused their sovereign power, to the destruction of true religion and advancement of Idolatry, Heresy, or such like abomination.  Theo. 
Never give us a reason why Princes may be deposed by Priests, 
The Jesuits give a reason why Priests may depose Princes before they prove the fact to be lawful.  and Prophets, so long as the fact itself is in doubt, & not yet proved to be lawful. That kings hold their sovereign authorities of God, and are bound to use the same to the advancement of his true worship and honour; as also to the preservation of his people in the faith and fear of him; this is a point always urged by us, and lately confessed by you before you were ware: for you were wont to tell us that Princes might not meddle with spiritual things or causes: and now you profess that Princes are bound to use their authorities and forces whatsoever to the advancement of God's religion, and to the true worship and honour of God and preservation of his people in the faith and fear of him. This then is a sound and an evident truth alleged by us, and allowed by you. But when you grow from this to conclude, that if Princes use not their sword and forces as they should and are bound, Priests may take their dignities and authorities from them: you put Iron feet to a golden head, and think the metals will agree. But you be ●owly, deceived. Your consequent is as false, as your antecedent is true. That Princes should use their sword for the service of GOD, is a clear and undoubted principle: but that Prophets, Priests, or Popes may take their Sceptres from them, if they use them otherwise than they ought, this is a false presumption of yours, and not a consequent either of your former examples, or your later excurrents, where you f●●rish about with many pretences, and prefaces to show the reason of your wicked assertion.  Phi. 
Our conclusion is, that the Priests and Prophets rightly opposed themselves in all such actions as tended to the dishonour of God, and destruction of religion, and in the behalf of God executed justice upon such as contrary to their obligation, and first institution abused their sovereign power to the advancement of Idolatry, & heresy.  Theo. 
What words you list to colour and cloak your conclusion with, we care not. 
The question is not whether the prophets might oppose them to reprove wicked Kings, but whether they might by their prophetical vocation depose them.  The matter in question betwixt us, is not, whether Prophets might oppose themselves by way of reproof, or do that which God commanded them to the terror of Idolatrous Princes: which you call executing of justice in God's behalf upon such as abused their power. But in plain terms whether ever any Priest or Prophet by virtue of their vocation as superior judges, did violently withstand, or judicially depose Idolatrous or heretical Princes? You take upon you to prove by holy Scripture they did: we say they did not. They reproved them and threatened them by special direction and message from God: they never deposed any. Only God sent one of them to will jehu to take the sword in hand, and as a lawful magistrate nominated and elected by God himself, to take vengeance on Achab's house and race. Whence it will not follow that other Priests and Prophets by their ordinary calling might do the like, or give Crowns and kingdoms as they saw cause. This was and is specially reserved unto God. 
Till God spoke no Priest may depose kingdoms.  When he speaketh the word, Princes shall lose not only Sceptre and State, but life and soul: and until he speak, neither Apostles, nor Prophets, Priests, nor Popes, may presume to dispose kingdoms, or name successors to the Crowns of earthly Princes.  Phi. 

The defence cap. 5.  In these cases, and all other doubts and differences betwixt one man and an other, or betwixt Prince and people; that Priests and namely the high Priest should be the Arbiter and judge, & the interpreter of Gods will towards his people; is most consonant both to nature, reason, the use of all nations, and to the express Scriptures.  

Deut. 17.  For in God's sacred Law thus we read: Si difficile & ambiguum apud te judicium esse prospexeris inter sanguinem & sanguinem, causam & causam, lepram & non lepram etc. 
The subjection of all men to the judgement of Priests.  If thou foresee the judgement to be hard and ambiguous, betwixt blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy or no leprosy; and find variety of sentences among the judges at home: rise and go up to the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come to the Priests of Levies stock, and to the judge that shall be for the time; thou shalt ask of them, & they will judge according to the truth of judgement: and thou shalt do whatsoever they say that have the rule of the place which God shall choose, and shall teach thee according to his law: thou shalt not decline neither to the right hand nor left. And if any shall be so proud as not to obey the commandment of the Priest that shall for that time minister unto the Lord thy God, by the sentence of the judge let that man die; and so thou shalt remove evil from Israel: and all the people hearing shall fear and take heed, that hereafter they wax not proud.  
Thus far in the holy text generally with out all exception: subjecting in cases of such doubts as are recited, all degrees of faithful men, no less kings than others, to the Priest's resolution.  Theo. 
What will you do to help your cause, that will thus both corrupt & wrest the Scriptures to make them serve your fancies? You wilfully pervert the words of the holy Ghost to bring them to your beck: and as if that were not corruption enough, you wrench & force the sense of the Scripture against reason, against truth, against the whole course of the jews common wealth, & against the very parts, and branches of the text itself.  Phi. 
First what corruption have we committed in the words? 
This place of Scripture is corrupted by the Papists. Deut. 17.   Theo. 
That where the words are, If any through pride will not obey the commandment of the Priest, which shall for the time minister unto the Lord thy God, or (disobey) the Decree of the judge, that man shall die: you change them and say, If any man will not obey the commandment of the Priest by the Decree of the judge, that man shall die.  Phi. 
So the latin is, Ex decreto ●udicis morietur homo ille, By the decree of the judge shall that man die.  Theo. 
But the Greek and Hebrew are clean against it. The words of the Septuagint are 
The Greek and Hebrew, are against the Latin. Deut. 17.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The man whosoever he be, that shall in pride not obey the Priest, (that is appointed to minister unto the name of the Lord:) or (else shall not obey) the judge which shallbe in those days, that man shall die, & thou shalt take the evil one from Israel. The Hebrew is answerable to the Greek, The man that shall do in pride, Lebilthi shemóahh el-haccohèn hahhomèd Lesháreth shàm eth-Iehouà elohéca, ò el-hasshophèt: umeth haïsh hahù, not to hear the Priest or the judge, that man shall die. And so did Cyprian 
* Lib. 1. epist. 3.8.11. lib. 3. epist. 9 lib. 4. epist. 9  repeat this text, Et homo quicunque fecerit in superbia, ut non exaudiat Sacerdotem aut judicem, quicunque fuerit in diebus illis, morietur homo ille, & omnis populus cum audierit, timebit. And the man, whosoever shall in pride not hear the Priest OR THE JUDGE, which shall be in those days, that man shall die, and all the people when they hear of it, shall fear.  Phi. 
But S. Hierom read it otherwise, as you see by his translation.  Theo. 
You have corrupted the translation which you call S. hierom's, 
The Latin text of the Bible depraved.  and now you would bolster out your forgeries with his name: Howbeit know you that the very same translation not long since was not Ex decreto judicis, but & decreto judicis: He that obeyeth not the commandment of the Priest, 

That reading is yet found in six written Bibles in the new College in Oxford.  
Nicol. de Lyrae in cap. 17. Deut cronomij.   and the decree of the judge, that man shall die. This was the text of the Bible which you call S. Jerome not much more than 200 years since, when Nicolaus de Lyra & your ordinary Gloss did comment upon it. And so they read to this day as also many written copies that I have seen. Hereupon Lyra saith, In these & such cases they must have recourse to the superior judges, that is to the high Priest, and the judge of the people. And sometimes it fell out that both offices did concur in one person, as in Heli who was both judge and high-Priest: but commonly both the Persons were distinct and the offices. And hence grew the custom, from inferior ecclesiastical judges to appeal to the Highpriest, and from inferior Princes & secular judges to appeal to the King or Emperor. You have turned & into ex, and not only debarred the Prince of all his right, but subjecteth him to the Priest In all doubts and differences betwixt Prince and people, even to the loss of his Crown if the Priest say the word. 

The common wealth of the jews and the Scriptures themselves impugn the Jesuits sense of that place.  
Exod. 18. Inferior judges (which afterward heard smaller matters in the gates of each City,) first appointed by the counsel of jethro.  
Numbers. 11.    Phi. 
We follow the latin text as we found it.  Theo. 
You might easily follow that which yourselves had framed to your liking, but the order of the jews common wealth and the circumstances of the text itself admit no such meaning, as you make of it. For it is more than evident, and testified not in a few places of the scriptures, that all causes neither were, nor might be referred to the Priest.  
Moses at the counsel of jethro chose men of courage out of all Israel & made them heads over the people, Rulers over thousands, Rulers over hundreds, Rulers over fifties, Rulers over tens. And they judged the people at all seasons, but brought the hard causes unto Moses: for they judged all small (or easy) matters themselves. And though Moses by them was eased of all saving hard and importing causes, yet finding that burden too heavy for one man alone, he complained unto God and said, I am not able to bear all this people alone, for it is too heavy for me. To whom God made answer, Gather me seventy men of the Elders of Israel, and bring them unto the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and I will come down, and talk with them there, and take off the spirit that is upon thee and put it upon them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee: so thou shalt not bear it alone. 
The same order of inferior and superior judges established by God's law for ever among the jews. Deut. 16.   
This distinction of inferior and superior judges God after by his law established in that common wealth for ever. In the next chapter before this which you allege, order is taken for inferior judge in every City throughout the Land. judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates (that is in all thy Cities) which the Lord thy God giveth thee throughout thy Tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgement.  
In this Chapter and these very words which here you cite, Superior judges are prescribed, 

Deut. 17.  
The superior judgement consisted both of priests to direct, and magistrates to correct.  
The chief magistrates before kings were ordained in Israel n●uer called judges.   to whom harder causes and matters of greater difficulty were to be referred. And so the words precisely sound. If there fall out an hard matter for thee to judge, between blood and blood, strife and strife, sore and sore, that be matters of judgement in thy gates, thou shalt rise and go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose there (in the land of promise.) And go to the Priests of Levi, and to the judge which shall be in those days, and ask them, and they shall show thee the matter of judgement. The judge of which he speaketh was the temporal Magistrate, for so the copulative leadeth us, and by that name were the chief Rulers of God's People called, before Kings were ordained as the Book of judges witnesseth; neither was the judge subject to the Priest, but had his charge besides and above the Priest, which was to see the law of God exactly kept and observed in all points of all men, 

This Court was after assistant and subject to the King.  
jehosaphat renewed these two forms of judgement. 2. Chro. 19  
The King commanded them, ergo they were not to command him.   and to take vengeance on the breaker of any part thereof, when as yet there were no kings, and after the creation of kings both Priest and judge were subject to the king.  
This form of regiment by lower and higher judges and those both ecclesiastical and civil, king jehosaphat renewed after he returned safe from the battle wherein Achab was slain. For he set judges in the Land in all the fenced Cities of judah, City by City. Also in jerusalem he appointed of the Levites and of the Priests and of the heads of the houses of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for matters of doubt, and they dwelled at Jerusalem. And he commanded them saying, thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord, in truth, and in a perfect heart every cause that shall come before you from your brethren remaining in their Cities, between blood and blood, between Law and precept, statutes and judgements, you shall instruct them therein, and they shall not trespass against the Lord. And behold Amariah the Priest (shall be) chief over you in every matter of the Lords; 
All matters were not referred to the priest, and the king's matters are namely excepted from them.  and Zebadiah the captain of the house of judah (shall be chief over you) in every matter of the kings, and the levites shallbe Rulers (or overseers) in your presence (or under you.) jehosaphat put that in execution which GOD prescribed by Moses for the debating and determining of greater and weightier causes among the children of Israel placing a Council of Priests, and secular Magistrates at Jerusalem to consider of those doubts of the Law, and offences against GOD and the king, which passed the reach of inferior judges in every City.  
Mark then how many errors you have committed in alleging this one place. 
How the Jesuits abuse the sense of this place in Deut▪ The King not subject to their Court.  The government which God settled in their common wealth to supply the want of kings, the defence might both overrule kings and depose kings, and yet when this was ordained, there was no king created, nor intended in Israel, much less included, or subjecteth to this consistory. Again where obedience in these words is commanded as well towards the civil magistrate as towards the Priest, 
The magistrate clean strooken out by the Jesuits, & all his interest conveyed to the Priest.  you strike out the magistrate clean, and bring both Prince and people in subjection to the Priest in things and causes that be not spiritual, but temporal. For the deposing of Princes is a mere temporal act, and you have less to do with Prince's Crowns, than with private men's inheritances which yet the priest may not dispose. Thirdly the matters which belonged to them, and the judgements which they should give; were precisely limited to the law of God: in other things they might not presume. Now resisting, 
This Court limited to the law of God & that speaketh nothing of deposing Princes.  and deposing of Princes be things clean besides the Law which Moses delivered, and therefore not determinable by those that sat to judge according to that Law. Fourthly what question can this be between the Prince and the people whether the Magistrate shallbe deposed since GOD hath expressly commanded the people to be subject to the sword and not to resist: against the which precept no earthly Court may deliberate, much less determine to break his law, or licence the people to frustrate his heavenly wil It is one thing to disburden the conscience from obeying the evil that a Prince commandeth, which a Priest may do: and an other thing to take the Prince's sword out of his hand for abusing his authority, which the Priest may not do. 

Never high priest deposed Kings, but Kings have deposed high Priests.  
3. Kings. 2.  
Adoniahs' right to the Crown was better than salomon's, by the high priests judgement: and yet the king removed the high Priest from his office and put the competitor to death.  
Never King of Israel or judah removed from the Crown by any Priest: & yet the causes then as urgent as now.  
How can you excuse the high Priests of juda for not doing their duty: if by God's law they had been the Prince's superiors?  
The Priests & Prophets lost their lives for reproving Princes: and more it could not cost to depose them.   Lastly you force the whole text against the manifest experience of those times. For it is evident that kings commanded and displaced high Priests: but that ever high Priest judicially displaced a Prince, you shall never show. Omit Abimelech whom Saul slew for favouring David, and Zachariah whom king joash commanded to be stoned, not remembering the kindness of joida his father, that saved him alive, and set him in his kingdom: Did not Solomon cast out Abiathar from being (high) Priest, because he took part with Adoniah his elder brother? Where by your conclusion Solomon should have been deposed because the high Priest thought Adoniahs' right to the Crown to be better than salomon's.  
We show you where the Prince removed the Priest from his honour and primacy, but you can not show us that ever Priest removed Prince in that Common wealth from his royal dignity, and yet was there then as urgent, and as evident cause to do it, as you can now, or do pretend. For all the kings of Israel were open Idolaters, jehu himself not excepted, and yet not one of them deposed by Priest, or Prophet, so long as their kingdom stood, which was 253. years. The greater part of the kings of judah, even fourteen of them were likewise plain Idolaters: as Solomon, Roboam, Abiam, joram, Ahaziah, joash, Amazias, Ahaz, Manasses, Amon, joachaz, Eliakim, joacim, Zedechias: and not a Priest, or Prophet in judah so much as offered to displace, or resist one of them. If by God's Law, as you suppose, the Priests were superior judges to punish such offences even in princes, how can you excuse the high Priest, and the rest to whom that charge was committed for not executing that power which God gave them upon these wicked and Idolatrous Princes?  Phi. 
The kings were too mighty for them to remove.  Theo. 
That happily might hinder the effect, but not the attempt of their judgement. We do not object that they were unable, but that they never made the onset or offer to do it.  Phi. 
The cruelty of those kings caused them to forbear.  Theo. 
That is not true. Many Priests and Prophets gave their lives for reproving them: and more it could not cost to depose them. Again, Manasses was carried captive out of his Realm in the midst of his furious Idolatry: and yet in his absence and misery no man stirred against him, but his kingdom was reserved for him till he was released out of prison, and sent back from Babylon. It was therefore not for fear of death, but for regard of duty that the zealous Priests and Prophets submitted their persons to those wicked Princes, whose Idolatry they reproved with the loss of their lives.  Phi. 
This condition was afterward to be implied in the receiving of any king over the people of God and true believers for ever: 

The Defence cap. 5.  
A condition implied in the creation of all Princes.   videlicet that they should not reduce their people by force or otherwise from the faith of their forefathers, and the religion and holy ceremonies thereof, received at the hands of God's Priests and none other: Insinuating, that observing these precepts and conditions, he and his son after him might long reign: Otherwise, as by the practice of their deposition in the books and time of the kings it afterward appears (whereof we have set down some examples before) the Prophets and priests that anointed them, of no other condition but to keep and maintain the honour of God and his worship, deprived them again, when they broke with their Lord, and fell to strange Gods, and forced their people to do the like.  Theo. 
God would have the more care to be taken in choosing a king, 
God required many things in a Prince, the breach of which is not deposition. Deut. 17.  because it was too late to refuse him when he was once chosen: But I trust yourself will not say that all those conditions which God requireth in a king, are forfeitures of his Crown if he transgress in any of them. GOD in express words and in the very same place, chargeth that the king shall not have many wives, nor many horses, nor abundance of gold, nor silver, nor lift his heart up above his brethren; and think you that if a king did offend in any of these, he was to be deposed? The precept which yourself allege doth not only concern the public sufferance of true religion, but the perfect observance of every point that was contained in the law of God. 
Deut. 17.  He shall read in the book of the Law all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and to observe all the words of this Law and these statutes to do them. And trow you the breach of any point of God's Law was deprivation to the king? You must be void of all sense if you defend these things, and yet these be conditions, or as you delight to call them, covenants which God exacteth in him that shall be king over his elect and peculiar people.  
The knitting up of your matter is like the rest of your discourse. The Prophets and Priests (you say) that anointed them, 
Prince's brake covenants with God, and yet were not deposed.  of no other condition but to keep and maintain the honour of God, and his true worship, deprived them again when they broke with their Lord and fell to strange Gods, and forced their people to do the like. It is utterly untrue that ever Priest or Prophet deposed Prince in the common wealths of Israel, or judah. There were, as the Scripture testifieth, of the kings of Israel nineteen, and fourteen of the kings of juda that broke with their Lord, and sell to strange Gods, and forced their people to do the like. Show that one of them was deprived by any Priest, or Prophet, and take the whole: if you can not, 

The defence, cap. 5.  
The authority of Priesthood in the new Testament.   leave false supposing, and vain craking, and tell on your tale.  Phi. 
And this it was in the old law. But now in the new Testament and in the time of Christ's spiritual kingdom in the Church, Priests have much more sovereign authority, and Princes far more strict charge, to obey, love and cherish the Church.  Theo. 
What was in the old Law you have said and we have seen: and except I be deceived you found there very little for your purpose: In the new Testament I can assure you, you will find less. Where you say that Priests now in the Church, 
Less in the new testament for the deposition of Princes than in the old.  have much more sovereign authority than Priests had in the law of Moses: the comparing of their authorities is very superfluous. Have they more or less, it is nothing to this question; Authority to depose Princes they neither than had, nor now have, which is it that you seek for. In what sort Princes are bound to love, cherish, and obey the Church, was declared before, and need not now be repeated: But the Church is neither charged nor licensed by Christ to take Princes Crowns from them. Subjection is rather enjoined her in earthly things unto Princes, which can not stand with your thrusting them from their thrones, unless you take rebellion to be subjection, which were very strange. And depriving them of their right, is worse than rebelling against than to defend your right, which yet is not tolerable. For he that 
* 
Rom. 13.  
The defence, cap. 5.  
Psal. 2. jeremi. 1. Mat. 16.   resisteth them, shall receive judgement.  Phi. 
In the Church without fail is the supereminent power of Christ's Priesthood, who with his Iron rod bruiseth the pride of Princes, that rebel against his Spouse and kingdom in earth, like a potter's potshard: and hath right in his Church over all kingdoms, to plant and pluck up, to build and destroy, afore whom all kings shall fall down, and all Nations do him service.  Theo. 
That the Son of God will bruise the pride of those Princes with an Iron rod which rebel against his Spouse and kingdom in earth, 
The supereminent power of Christ's priesthood is nothing to the Pope.  like a potters shared, and that he hath right both within (and without) his Church over all kingdoms, to plant and pluck up, to build and destroy, afore whom all kings on earth (and Angels in heaven) shall fall down, and do him service: these things are undoubted with us, and brought in by you but only for a windlass to make the reader cast his eyes on Christ and his kingdom, while you closely convey the Prince's Sceptre under the Pope's feet. Accursed be he that doth not confess the supereminent power which the Son of God hath over all kingdoms, over all creatures, over the States and lives, bodies and souls of all men. Will you thence infer the Pope hath the like? In sooth masters you must make hard shift before these reasons will be good.  Phi. 
Christ's Priestly prerogative, passing his own regal dignity (much more excelling all other human power of the world) in most ample and exact terms is communicated to the chief Priest and Pastor of our souls, 

The defence, cap. 5.  
Mat. 18.   and secondarily to the rest of the governors of the Church; in other manner of clauses than any earthly Princes can show for their pretenced spiritual regiment. Fie on that secular pride & wilful blind heresy, so repugning against God's express ordinance; and yet is of wicked Sect-masters and flatterers upholden to the eternal calamity of themselves, and of millions of others.  Theo. 
This is stolen Rhetoric to come with an outcry, when you should make your conclusion. Conclude first and rail after: otherwise you show yourselves to trust more to the slippernes of your tongues than to the soundness of your cause.  Phi. 
Our illation is evident. Christ as a Priest bruiseth the pride of Princes with his Iron rod, and hath right over all kingdoms to plant and pluck up, build and destroy. But Christ's Priestly prerogative in most ample and exact terms is communicated to the chief Priest and Pastor of our souls. The chief Pastor therefore hath the like right over all kingdoms to plant, pluck up, build, and destroy.  Theo. 
The power which you mention in your first proposition, is attributed to Christ not as a Priest, but as a king. The words of the Psalm are very plain to that end. 
Psal. 2.  I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for a possession to thee. Thou shalt crush them with a sceptre of Iron, and break them in pieces like a potter's vessel. S. john apply the same place to the royal and not to the Priestly power of Christ. 
revel. 19  I saw the heaven open, and behold a white horse, and he that sat upon him was called faithful and true, and he judgeth and fighteth in righteousness. On his head were many Crowns, and out of his mouth went a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the heathen, and he shall rule them with a rod of Iron. 
Christ bruiseth his enemies as a king & not as a Priest.  And he hath on his garment and on his thigh a name written, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. How think you? His horse, his Crown, his rob, his train, his sword, his stile described in this place, express they his Priestly or Princely prerogative? As a Priest he sacrificed himself on the cross▪ and had his own blood shed, for the remission of sins: As a King, he subdueth his enemies and maketh them like dust under his feet, be they Princes or others. Your Mayor is therefore false, that to bruise kings with an Iron rod, and to break them in pieces like a potters shared is a privilege of Christ's Priesthood and not of his princehood.  
Your Minor, that Christ's Priestly prerogative is communicated in most ample & exact terms to the chief Priest and Pastor of the Church, hath far less truth in it than your Mayor. For all the prerogative of Christ's Priesthood is not communicated to any other. 
Hebr. 7.  Such an high Priest, saith S. Paul, it became us to have, which should be, holy, undefiled separated from sinners, made higher than the heavens: 
* Hebr. 9  who in the end of the world appeared once to put away sin by the offering up of himself, and after that 
* Hebr. 10.  one sacrifice for sin is set down for ever at the right hand of God, having 
* Hebr. 9  obtained eternal redemption (for us) and being 
* 
Hebr. 7.  
All Christ's dignity may not be imparted to the Pope.   able perfectly to save them that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. These and many such prerogatives of his Priesthood I hope you will not impart to the Pope, lest we cry, fie on your blasphemous hearts and mouths, which set the man of sin equal with the son of God. If you restrain your Minor by confessing that not all, but some of the prerogatives of Christ's Priesthood are communicated to others; then your conclusion hath no force, both your premises being mere particulars. For though Christ gave some part of his power & honour to his Apostles; yet this he gave not, and therefore his gift to them can do you no good, unless you prove that he gave them this prerogative amongst the rest which he bestowed on them.  Phi. 

Mat. 16.  He said to Peter and his successors; Whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou losest in earth shall be loosed in heaven: Can you require a more ample grant?  Theo. 
Peter and the rest were to bind and lose the sins and souls of men by the word and sacraments, not the Sceptres and swords of Princes. And so Christ himself expoundeth his grant unto them. 
john. 20.  Whose sins soever you remit, they are remitted unto them: and whose sins soever ye retain, they are retained. And in this place you leave out the first part of the grant which should direct the whole. 
Mat. 16.  I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, not of the kingdoms on earth. Bernard though he were but of late years, yet was he not afraid to tell Pope Eugenius: 
De considerate. ad Eugen. lib. 2.  ergo in criminibus, non in possessionibus potestas vestra, quoniam propter illa & non propter has accepistis claves regni caelorum. Your power concerneth sins and not possessions, because ye received the keys of the kingdom of heaven for those things, and not for these. And so Theophilact, 
Theophilact. in 16. cap. Matth.  Understand the keys which bind and lose, to be the pardoning, or punishing of sins.  

Ambros. de penitent. li. 1. ca 2. August. de doctrina christiana lib. 1. cap. 18.  And so S. Ambrose: The right of the holy Ghost consisteth in binding and losing of sins. As also Saint Augustine, The keys (Christ) gave to his Church, that what she loosed in earth, should be loosed in heaven: and what she did bind in earth, should be bound in heaven: to wit, that whosoever would not believe his sins might be forgiven in the Church, should not have them forgiven: and whosoever would believe it and departed from his sins, by amending his life in the bosom of the same Church, should by that faith and conversion be healed. And never writer since Christ's time did ever extend the power of the keys unto any thing, save unto the forgiving and retaining of sins.  Phi. 
No more do we: this only we add, that when Princes are bound in earth for their sins, they lose that interest which they had in their kingdoms.  Theo. 
That position you undertook to prove by the holy Scriptures, but as yet you be wide: you still suppose it, and do not prove it.  Phi. 


The defence. cap. 5.  
john. 21. Mat. 16.   Now (in the new Testament) all Christ's sheep, without exception, be they Princes, be they poor, (if they be Christian men) are put to Peter's feeding & government. Now the keys of heaven be delivered to Christ's Vicar in earth; to let in, to lock out; to bind, to lose; to punish, to pardon. Now we be commanded every one, (be we kings, 
Hebr. 13. 1. Cor. 4.5. 2. john.  be we Caesar's) to obey our Prelates and Pastors, and to be subject to them, as to those that must make account to God for our souls: wherein what Christian Prince may except himself?  Theo. 
You role from text to text abusing the words and perverting the sense as you go; and when all is said you be even as near as you were at first before you began. For what if all these places do concern Princes, as well as others: will you thence infer, that princes may be deposed? Then these must be your arguments. 
Out of these places none other arguments can be made than these.  Prince's must be taught, ergo Princess may be deposed. Priests' may exclude them from the kingdom of heaven: ergo likewise from their kingdoms on earth. Prince's must obey sound doctrine coming from their pastors mouths; ergo if they refuse, they may be deposed, Surely such reasons set not them besides their seats, but you rather besides your wits; for what appearance of truth have these ridiculous and impious mockeries? Feed my sheep, 
john. 21.  that is, depose Princes. I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, I will give thee the thrones of earthly kings. 
Mat. 16.  Be advised by your leaders, and yield (to their good persuasions,) for they watch over your souls: 
Heb. 13,  that is, obey the Pope when he thrusteth you from your goods, lands and lives. Had you but one dram of shame or sense in you, you would never send us such sottish and unsavoury sequeles.  Phi. 
They be of your framing, we sent them not.  Theo. 
We annex the conclusion, which you must, and would infer to the places which you allege: and in so doing we can not abuse you. Out of the 21. of S. john what would you cite but this charge to Peter, feed my sheep? In the 16. of S. Matthew; what find you there but the promise of our Saviour, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever thou bindest (or losest) in earth, shallbe bound (and loosed) in heaven? All the words which the 13. to the Hebrews hath for your purpose, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is be persuaded (by their words) and give place to their admonitions, which watch over your souls. Now what your conclusion is and must be, neither can any man doubt, nor do yourselves dissemble. For the fift chapter of your immodest and untrue defence of English Catholics as you call them, proposeth & purposely handleth the deprivation of Princes for heresy, and falling from the faith. So that help the matter how you can with your glozes and phrases: these be your antecedents, and this is your consequent.  Phi. 
Well, if Peter must feed Princes, why may not Peter depose Princes? 
pastors may feed, but not deprive.   Theo. 
Taking their Crowns from them, is not preaching the Gospel unto them, which Christ meant by feeding.  Phi. 
But Peter may correct them as well as feed them, and deprivation is but correction.  Theo. 
Any Pastor may reprove them, & if they withstand the truth, that bindeth them in earth & shutteth heaven against them. But other correction on the goods, lands or bodies of private men preachers may not exercise, much less intermeddle with the Seats and Sceptres of Princes.  Phi. 
Be we kings, be we Caesars, we are commanded to obey our Prelates and Pastors, and to be subject to them.  Theo. 
Princes, and all other christians must be reverent and obedient to the word and Sacraments which God hath put in the mouths, and hands of his messengers: other subjection to Prelates, or Pastors is none due.  Phi. 
And if they refuse to be subject to the word or Sacraments, shall not Pastors punish them, though they be Princes? 
Pastor's may threaten, but God must punish Princes.   Theo. 
Let them sink in their sins, and leave them to God; that is punishment enough.  Phi. 
Shall they go no farther?  Theo. 
external, or corporal means by loss of life, lands, or goods, God hath not allowed any Pastor to compel, or punish his sheep withal.  Phi. 
Then may Princes freely despise both the word and the Preacher.  Theo. 
If you call that freedom, 
Heb. 10.  to fall into the hands of the living God, which S. Paul saith is a fearful thing. 
* Mat. 16.  Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house, or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Truly I say unto you it shall be easier for them of the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgement, 
God is the revenger of such as contemn his word.  than for that city. Is not this revenge sufficient for Princes that turn from the truth, unless you also must be fingering of their crowns, and treadding on their necks?  Phi. 
That would terrify them more, than the threatening of helfire.  Theo. 
It may be that contenteth your appetites better, but God hath reserved the punishment of Princes to himself, and not assigned it over unto you. Howbeit why do you wander thus from the question? You should prove by the word of God that Princes may be deposed. Why then do you linger and make so many proffers before you come to your purpose?  Phi. 
Will you have a plain proof out of the new Testament that Princes may be deposed? 

The defence, cap. 5.  
Ad Tit. 3.    Theo. 
That is it we looked for all this while.  Phi. 
Pastors have full authority to forbid us the company of heretics, blasphemers and idolaters, and such like: and not so much as to salute them, much more not to obey them.  Theo. 
Is this your best discretion? We must not be companions with idolaters, 
No company with heretics and idolaters.  ergo we must not be subjects to Princes?  Phi. 
If they be convicted of heresy or idolatry.  Theo. 
Put you no difference betwixt familiars and subjects.  Phi. 
If we may not be familiar with them, much less subject under them.  Theo. 
Are you not low drawn, when you come with such dregs?  Phi. 
jest not at it, but answer it.  Theo. 
Be earnest in any case. It is a very profound and substantial reason.  Phi. 
Substantial or superficial it skilleth not: refel it, or receive it.  Theo. 
Mark the strength of your argument. Needless company with idolatrous & wicked persons is prohibited: ergo the necessary subjection to Princes which God commandeth, 
Company not duty prohibited by S. Paul.  may be refused.  Phi. 
We say not needless company, but all company.  Theo. 
S. Paul by that word excludeth not charity, much less duty: but barreth only that familiarity, which may be relinquished without breach of either.  Phi. 
That is your paraphrase, not S. Paul's.  Theo. 
Weigh the words of S. Paul better, and yourself will be of the same mind with me.  
Thus he saith, I wrote unto you by letters, that ye should not keep company with fornicators: and (I meant) not simply with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or with extorsioners, or with idolators; for than must you go out of the world. 
1. Cor. 5.  But now have I written to you that you should not be companions (with such.) If any man that is called a brother be a Whoremaster, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extorter: eat not with such an one. To eat with a man, is familiarity: that may be forborn without contempt of Christian Charity, or duty: and that the Apostle willeth them to refrain, teaching the Thessalonians to what end, and in what sort he would have it done: If any man obey not our sayings, 
2. Thes. 3.  note him by a letter, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed: yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. When as yet there were no Christian magistrates to keep men by fear from offending, S. Paul chargeth the Christians to show their zeal in shunning the company of unruly persons at meat, and other familiar meetings; thereby the rather to make them ashamed, and to reduce them to Christian and comely behaviour. Which precept was general for all disorders. We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord jesus Christ, 
2. Thes. 3.  that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh inordinately, & not after the institution which you received of us.  Phi. 
For smaller offences this might be, 
Tit. 3.  but for heresy S. Paul saith, A man that is an hertike after the first and second admonition avoid. And so doth S. john. 
2. john. 10.  If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say God save you, unto him. If we may not so much as salute them, do you think we may serve them, or obey them?  Theo 
Were you in debt to an heretic, 
Each man must have his due, whether he be Turk, heretic or Infidel.  would you not pay him his own, because you must not salute him?  Phi. 
Debt is dew whether he be Turk, Infidel, or heretic; & therefore reason he have his own, but I must not do that which I need not.  Theo. 
And whether think you the truer debt that which groweth by our act and consent, or that which is imposed upon us by the will and commandment of God? As when S. Paul saith, 
Rom. 13.  Own nothing to any man: but give to all men their due: Do you not think this as good debt as if it were in coin?  Phi. 
If it be their due.  Theo. 
We own it not if it be not due: but if it be, must we not render that which is due to all men, be they Turks, infidels and heretics?  Phi. 
To heretics nothing is due. 

Servants by gods law may not forsake their masters for heresy.  
Cod. lib. 1. tit. 5. de haeret. § Man. in fin.    Theo. 
Doth not the servant own faithful diligence to his master, notwithstanding his master be an infidel or an heretic?  Phi. 
If the master become an heretic, the servant is ipso facto made free.  Theo. 
By whose law? Gods or man's?  Phi. 
By the civil laws of ancient Emperors.  Theo. 
But before those laws were made by Princes, might servants by God's law refuse their masters for idolatry or heresy?  Phi. 
For idolatry he might not, whatsoever for heresy.  The. 
If God will have christian servants 
* Colos. 3.  obedient & subject to their masters in all things & 
* Tit. 2.  to please them though they be infidels & enemies to the faith; 
The wife may not forsake her husband for idolatry or heresy.  why not likewise to them that are deceived in some points of faith?  
The like we ask of man and wife. Might the husband forsake his wife, or the woman her husband for these causes?  Phi. 
For infidelity they might.  Theo. 
And what for heresy?  Ph. 
The case is not ruled.  Theo. 
yes that it is. Our Saviour forbiddeth all men to put away their wives except it be for 
* Mat. 5. & 19  adultery. Now adultery is not heresy. And this was Pope Caelestinus his error which Innocentius the 3. 
* Decretal. lib. 4. de divortiis ¶ quanto.  condemneth. Therefore the case is ruled both by God's Law, and by your own Decretals.  Phi. 
They may not be divorced.  Theo. 
Then must she continue still his wife, and is by God's law bound to 
* 1. Peter 3. Tit. 2. Ephes. 5.  be subject unto him, and to love him, though he be an heretic, or an infidel. And so are the children bound to 
* Mark▪ 7.  cherish 
* Ephes. 6.  honour and 
* Colos. 3.  obey their Parents by the Law of God, notwithstanding they be ethnics, or aliens from the faith▪ And therefore these prohibitions: 
* 1. Cor. 5.  Eat not with them, 
* 2. Thes. 3.  keep them not company, 
* 2. john. 10.  salute them not, discharge not servants, children, nor wives for yielding that duty to their masters, parents and husbands which God hath commanded, but cut off only that familiar and friendly greeting, saluting & conversing, which amongst brethren is requisite, but to wicked and ungodly persons may without sin be denied.  Phi. 
What then is your answer?  Theo. 

What S. Paul and S. john prohibit.  S. Paul forbiddeth voluntary company, not necessary duty: S. john those familiar and friendly salutations which argue good liking and favour to the parties, and may be forborn, not that public subjection to Magistrates which God hath enjoined us, whether we will or no.  Phi. 
Ought we to flatter Princes, if they be heretik●?  Theo. 
We may flatter no man in that which is evil, yet must we give evil men that which God hath allowed them. The places which you bring, bar no kind of duty prescribed by the law of God, neither of servants to their masters nor of children to their parents, 
Lest of all may the subject forsake his Prince, though he be an idolater or an heretic. Rom. 13.  nor of wives to their husbands, though their masters, parents, and husbands be heretics: much less do they prohibit submission to Princes, which God exacteth before these domestical duties; and commandeth all men, Apostles and Bishops not excepted, to give fear, honour, subjection and tribute, to Princes, as their due; when Princes as yet were pernicious idolaters, and barbarous persecutors of the faith & faithful.  
And who that hath any regard of truth will prefer your crooked & shapeless consequents before the manifest doctrine of Christ and his Apostles? 
Mat. 22.  Give to Caesar the things that be Caesars. 
* Rom. 13.  You must be subject: whosoever resisteth power, resisteth the ordinance of God. 
* 1. Pet. 2.  Honour the king and submit yourselves, whether it be to the king as (the chief &) excelling, or unto the Governors as sent by him. For so is the will of God. These be flat & plain precepts which you can not overthrow, but with an evident, direct, and special release. The directions which the Apostles gave to shame the disordered and shun the wicked, 
The flat and firm precepts of the Scripture must not be overthrown by general & indirect collections.  when as yet there were no Christian Magistrates, to repress them or punish them, may not rashly be stretched to the Magistrates person or function, neither must you so force general and indirect speeches of the Scripture, that they shall evert the special and express commandments of God. But God hath expressly prescribed subjection and tribute to vicious, tyrannous, and Idolatrous Princes: for such they were of whom Christ and his Apostles spoke, as no man can deny: Therefore no consequent of Scripture may be wrested against it, lest you make the will of God changeable or repugnant to itself, which is heinous impiety to persuade, or believe.  Phi. 
To tyrants and idolaters we must he subject, 

Subjection is due as well to heretical, as to idolatrous and tyrannical Princes. Rom. 13.   but not to heretics although they be Princes.  Theo. 
Confessing the former which you can not chose but admit, by what means avoid you the later? Heretics may be Princes as well as idolaters; and to Princes in respect of their power not of their virtues God will have us subject. S. Paul doth not say Let every soul be subject to christian and virtuous powers; but, unto supreme powers, even when they were worshippers of devils, and spillers of christian blood. Let us therefore hear what ground you have out of God's law why this precept, you must be subject, shall hold in blasphemous and Idoolatrous Princes, but not in heretical or excommunicate persons.  Phi. 
I told you before, S. john saith: 
2 john 10.  If any man bring not this doctrine, salute him not.  Theo. 
Did those Tyrants and idolaters that were Prnces whiles S. john lived, bring the doctrine of Christ with them?  Phi. 
No: but this is meant of heretics.  Theo. 
It was spoken of all as well impugners, as betrayers of the faith: and why then do you restrain it to heretics?  Phi. 
Christians might eat with Infidels but not with heretics. 
1. Cor. 10. ver. 27 With what sort of Infidels Christians might be conversant. 2. Cor. 6.   Theo. 
They might, with those that were ignorant of the faith with purpose no win them, but not with those that impugned the faith; for that could have none other intent but fear or flattery. And with such S. Paul forbiddeth the christians all concord, communion and fellowship. Draw not the yoke with infidels. For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? what communion hath light with darkness? what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the believer with the infidel? Wherefore come out from among them and separate yourselves saith the Lord. Separate yourselves from them, is as much as salute them not, or eat not with them: and yet were Christians bound to obey such with all submission if they were Magistrates. Again, they might not eat with adulterers, railers, drunkards, extorsioners nor with any covetous persons: might they therefore disobey the magistrate that was spotted with any of these or the like vices?  Phi. 
Not, except he were excommunicated for those vices.  Theo. 
Then neither Apostasy nor heresy deprive Princes of their authority, but excommunication only, which you may inflict as well for any disorder, as for heresy.  Phi. 
What fault find you with that? 
The Pope respecteth excommunication, because he would excommunicate whom he list.   Theo. 
You make excommunication but a limetwigge to entangle the persons, and endanger the states of Princes by maintaining rebellion against them under the name of religion, when they will not be ruled as you would have them, or not suffer their Realms to lie open to the pray and pride of the Bishop of Rome. For than he must take upon him to be the whole church which he is not, & excommunicate them whom he should not: and after that excommunication denounced, you teach the people to refuse subjection, & to bear arms against their lawful Magistrates, upon this pretence that you have deposed them, and disinherited them of their kingdoms: which is a wicked and false presumption of yours resistant to the laws of God and man.  

The peril of excommunication by God's law is not deposition. Mat. 18. Barthol. sumus in verbo, excommunicate. numero 45 & Margarita decret. in eodem verbo: V●ile, lex, humile ●es ignorata, necesse; haec anathem● quidem faciunt, ne possit obesse.  For grant he might excommunicate them, which yet is not proved: the uttermost peril of excommunication before men, is that which our Saviour expresseth in Saint Matthewes Gospel. If he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as an Ethnic and a Publican. But ethnics by your confession may not be deprived of their kingdoms, ergo neither persons excommunicate. Again your own law granteth that excommunication dischargeth neither servants, children nor wives from the duty which they own to the father of the family: and shall it set free subjects from a stronger and higher bond of duty, which God hath more straightly prescribed, and enjoined them to the father of their Country? What wilful and obstinate blindness is this in you, that where excommunication is a mere spiritual punishment, and reacheth no farther by God's Law, than to take from offenders the remission of their sins, by wanting the word and Sacraments until they repent; you to gratify the founder of your Rhemish and Romish hospitales, stretch it unto the states, Crowns, limbs, and lives of Princes, and derive thence not only the deposing, but also the murdering of Christian kings and Queens, and that by their own subjects, if he say the word? And this you assay to persuade by corrupting, and maintaining the Scriptures, bolstering the conspiracies, and impieties of your holy father against Princes, with an unshamefast profaning, and adulterating of the word of truth: which is not the least of your irreligious attempts. Resist your places, and show us but one half word out of the holy Scripture that Princes may be judicially deposed by Priests, or that you have authority from Christ to punish such as you excommunicate with external, and temporal pains and losses, which is it that you now would feign infer: and for the rest, though we need not you shall have our assents.  Phi. 

The defence, cap. 5.  Lest any man should think this power to be so merely spiritual, that it might not in any wise be extended to temporal or corporal damage or chastisement of the faithful in their goods, lives, possessions, or bodies, being mere secular things, and therefore not subject to their Pastors spiritual or Priestly function: it is to be marked in the holy Apostles first execution of their commissions & authority, 
Spiritual Pastor's have power to punish corporally.  that though their spiritual power immediately & directly concerneth not our temporal affairs; yet indirectly (and as by accident) it doth not only concern our souls but our bodies & goods, so far as is requisite to our soul's health, and expedient for the good regiment thereof, and the church's utility being subject to their spiritual Governors.  Theo. 
It is to be marked that if you may be suffered, you will soon challenge not only spiritual things as your peculiar, 
Pastors have no power over the goods or bodies of christians.  but even the goods, lives, possessions and bodies of the faithful, and as well of Princes as others to be subject to your tribunals, if not directly yet indirectly, that is, if not by one means, yet by an other: so far as you think it expedient for the regiment & health of the soul, & utility of the church: & that shall be far enough I dare undertake; If you affirm this upon your own credit, we little esteem it; your opinion is common, but not currant with us: If you mean to prove it, you shall have the longer and stiller audience.  Phi. 
S. Peter, being but a mere spiritual officer and Pastor of men's souls; 
The defence. Cap. 5. Act. 13. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor 5. 1. Tim. 1. 2. Cor. 10.  yet for sacrilege and simulation, stroke dead both man and wife. S. Paul stroke blind Elymas the Magician. So did he threaten to come to his contemners, in rod of discipline. So did be excommunicate a Principal person in Corinth, for incest: not only by spiritual punishment, but also by bodily vexation, giving him up to Satan's chastisement. As he corporally also corrected and molested with an evil spirit Himeneus and Alexander for blasphemy and heresy. Finally he boldly avoucheth, that his power in God is to revenge all disobedience, and to bring under all lofty hearts to the loyalty of christ, and of the Apostles and Saints in this life. 
1. Cor. 6.  Nescitis (quoth he) quoniam Angelos iudicabimus, quanto magis secularia? know you not that we shall judge Angels, how much more secular matters?  Theo. 
Such dissolute mariners were never like but to make such desperate adventures. 
They should prove that Priests may judicially torment the bodies of the wicked, and they prove that God did miraculously revenge impiety.  You should prove that spiritual Pastors have power to seize the goods and possessions, and chastise the bodies of such as they excommunicate: and you show where God afflicted those for their sins, which the Apostles cast out of the Church either with evil spirits. or some corporal plague, or death, as he saw cause; which is not pertinent to your purpose. Can you not distinguish the finger of God, from the facts of men? Or see you no difference between miraculous vengeance from heaven, and judicial process on earth? God strake Ananias dead for tempting him in Peter, and Elymas for resisting him in Paul. May Preachers therefore put out men's eyes, and murder such as believe them not? In deed you practise this new kind of preaching, but not by warrant from Christ or his Apostles.  Philand. 
Did not Peter kill Ananias and Sapphira with his word? 
Peter slew Ananias not with his hands but with his mouth, which was the work● of God.   Theo. 
And since you can not do the like with your words, you will take help of your hands.  Phi. 
With words or hands, so they be slain, all is one.  Theo. 
Not so. The one is a miracle wrought by God: the other is a murder committed by man, which God prohibiteth; and of all other things ought to be farthest from the Preachers of peace.  Phi. 
Peter did so.  Theo. 
Peter reproved them, for tempting the holy Ghost: but the hand of God, and not of Peter, inflicted the punishment. Read the place: Then said Peter: 
Act. 5.  Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart that thou shouldest he unto the holy Ghost? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Now when Ananias heard these words (saith the Scripture) he fell down and gave up the Ghost. I ask not, what fa●t of peter's you find that should hasten the death of Ananias: but what one word purporting any such thing can you show us in all that Peter said to Ananias?  Phi. 
In his words to Sapphira we can. For he said to her: 
Act. 5.  The feet of them that have buried thine husband, are at the door and shall carry thee out.  Theo. 
Did Peter by these words kill her, or foretell her that God would do to her as he had done to her husband?  Phi. 
Which say you?  Theo. 
Peter, we say, neither desired nor inflicted that judgement on them, but only signified what God would do.  
The like we say for Paul, when Elymas was strooken blind. He warned that Sorcerer what should befall him from God, but himself did neither envy, nor injury the Sorcerers eyes. His words were, Wilt thou not cease to pervert the straight ways of the Lord? Now therefore behold the hand of the Lord is upon thee; 
Act. 13.  and thou shalt be blind not seeing the Sun for a time. 
The hand of the Lord and not of Paul was upon Elymas.  Paul denounced, Paul imposed not that corporal chastisement on him: The deed was Gods, who may justly take from his enemies not only their eyes, but their breaths, and spirits when he will, and in what sort it pleaseth best his righteous, and sacred wisdom.  Phi. 
But Paul himself, 
The defence, cap. 5.  corporally corrected and molested with an evil spirit Himineus and Alexander for blasphemy and heresy. So did he excommunicate a Principal Person in Corinth for incest, not only by spiritual punishment, but also by bodily vexation giving him up to Satan's chastisement.  Theo. 
You draw the word of God to your fancies by turning doubts into certainties, antecedentes into consequentes, man's actions into God's judgements. That the Apostle delivered Himineus and Alexander unto Satan, and so the incestuous Corinthian (whom you of your own head without any witness call a Principal Person in Corinth, because the slide you saw was easy from Principal to Princes) is a matter out of question; but that he corporally corrected and molested them with evil spirits, these be your additamentes wherewith you thought to lengthen the text to your own liking.  Phi. 
S. Paul gave judgement of the Corinthian that he should be delivered unto Satan, 
The incestuous Corinthian delivered unto Satan. 1. Corin 5. Ambros. in 1. Cor. cap. 5.  for the destruction of the flesh. And how could the flesh be destroyed without bodily vexation & affliction?  The. 
This phrase, for the destruction of the flesh: hath diverse expositions: & therefore upon a doubtful kind of speech you can not build an undoubted conclusion. S. Ambrose expoundeth the place thus. The Apostle decreed, that by the consent & in the presence of all men he should be cast out of the Church. Cum eijcitur, traditur Satanae in interitum carnis. Et anima enim & corpus intereunt. His casting him out of the Church, is the delivering of him to Satan to the destruction of (the whole man which is nothing but) flesh. For both soul and body perish. And lest you shoul● think it much that the soul is called flesh, he giveth this reason, 
Ibidem.  Victa anima libidine carnis, fit caro: the soul once overcome by the lusts of the flesh, becometh flesh: and is in the Scripture so commonly called, 
Ibidem.  & the lusts of the flesh delivereth the soul defiled with it, and also the body to hell.  Phi. 
But S. Paul addeth, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord jesus Christ, 
1. Cor. 5.  which can not stand with this exposition, that both flesh & spirit were delivered unto perdition.  Theo. 
The same father will tell you that the spirit may be referred not to him that was excluded, 
In cap. 5. Epist. ad Cor.  but to the rest that remained in the church, as if S. Paul should have said: I have decreed to cast this unclean person out from among you to his just condemnation, that the grace of God's spirit may be preserved in the rest of you to the day of judgement. The same Saint Augustine followeth. 
Aug. quaest. vet. & novi Test. quaest. 49.  What spirit doth the Apostle affirm should be preserved, when he saith, I have delivered that man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, etc. The destruction of the flesh (meant in this place) is, a man addicted to pleasures and fleshly delights purchaseth hell to himself. For by such (sins) the whole man becometh flesh, in so much that the flesh is here called the soul. Such a man when the church casteth from her, she keepeth the spirit safe: to wit the holy spirit (of God) which is the guider of the church. For if they suffer any such one to be amongst them, he defileth all, and the holy spirit departeth.  Phi. 
S. Hierom taketh it otherwise. 
Hieron. in 1. Cor. cap. 5.  To deliver him unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh (saith he) ut arripiendi illum corporaliter habeat potestatem; that the devil may have power corporally to possess him: & so Saint Chrysostom, 
Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom. 15.  For the destruction of the flesh, that the devil may strike him with some grievous sore or other disease.  Theo. 
This I told you before, was a doubtful speech, and therefore would yield you no certain conclusion. For besides Saint Augustine and Saint Ambrose, Saint Hierom in those books which are assuredly his, useth these words, To deliver unto Satan to the destruction of the flesh, for a perpetual consequent to excommunication in all ages, and not for corporal vexation permitted only to the Apostles. 
Hieron. ad Heliodorum.  Illi si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis, ut spiritus saluus sit. A clergy man (saith he) may deliver me to Satan, if I sin, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be safe. And inveighing against Vigilantius, 
Idem ad Riparium advers. Vigilantium.  I marvel, saith he, the Bishop under whom he is, doth not crush this unprofitable vessel with the apostolic rod, even a rod of iron, and deliver him into the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be safe: Noting by these words the right force of excommunication which doth and shall endure to the end, & not any corporal punishment or plague, wherewith God sometimes touched such as would not otherwise be reform.  
A third interpretation of these words you shall find in Saint Augustine, writing against Parmenian. What did the Apostle, saith he, 
Aug. contra ep▪ Parm. li. 3. ca 2.  but provide for the health of the soul by the destruction of the flesh, whether it were by some corporal punishment or death, as in Ananias and his wife, which fell down at Peter's feet: or else that the party by repentance, because he was given over unto Satan, should kill in himself the wicked concupiscence of the flesh. This later exposition cutteth off clean your bodily punishments, and showeth the end of apostolic excommunication to be this, that the offender by repentance should destroy the lusts of his flesh, and not that an evil spirit should corporally correct and molest him, which you conclude out of these words, with as great confidence, as if it were some main principle of faith.  Phi. 
S. Augustine repeateth both expositions & disliketh neither.  Theo. 
His accepting of both dischargeth your illation which is wholly grounded on the first: But admit that also which Chrysostom seemeth to follow; what shall your conclusion be?  Phi. 
That the Apostles punished the bodies of such as were christians. 
The Devil & not the Apostles tormented such as were excommunicated.   Theo. 
Did they lay violent hands on them or use any external means?  Phi. 
They needed not: the devil did it at their word.  Theo. 
And because the devil will not do the like for you, you will supply the devils room, and intermeddle with his office. Are you not wise Divines that to challenge the correction of other men's bodies, make yourselves the devils substitutes?  Phi. 
We make ourselves the Apostles substitutes.  Theo. 
Then deliver them to the Devil as they did, and offer them no farther violence, nor torment with your own hands, and see what power you have to chastise the bodies of such as you reject from the church, for so did the Apostles. Marry if you content not yourselves with speaking the word as they did, but because the Devil faileth you, you take help of your hands to punish the bodies of men, beware lest you be now not Paul's associates in delivering, but Satan's in tormenting the carcases of offenders.  Phi. 

The Magistrate is Gods minister to punish the body. Rom. 13.  Is every one that punisheth the body, Satan's associate?  Theo. 
They that bear the sword with lawful power from God to repress the wicked, & if cause require, to kill the body, they be Gods ministers serving for that intent: but they that without this sword claim to be the correctors, and punishers of men's bodies by violent means, are the devils vicegerentes, and not Gods. For they be murderers, and the right members of Satan.  Phi. 
But we appoint the Magistrate to do it.  Theo. 
Do you appoint Magistrates to lay violent hands on themselves?  Phi. 
No: but on others.  Theo. 
And we be disputing of Princes whether they may be defeated of their crowns and chastised in their bodies upon your excommunications.  Phi. 
Excommunicate persons may be corporally chastised, whosoever be the deed doer, and that S. Chrysostoms' exposition fully proveth. For if it were lawful then, whiles the Apostles did excommunicate, why not as well after, and in other ages?  Theo. 
But if you relent from this that yourselves may be the deed doers, than you miss the mark which you shot at. The Magistrate we know may corporally punish these and all other offenders, but what is that to your position, which hold that spiritual Pastors may punish the bodies of the faithful? And therefore look to your footing lest you fail in your leaping: and back with this leg that a mere spiritual officer may touch the lives, and take the goods of heretics, and other excommunicate persons. It is a wicked intrusion of Antichrist, seeking indirectly and, as you call it, by accident, that is by hook or by crook to bring the world and worldly things in subjection to his appetite.  
The Apostles did nothing but separate sinners from the church and house of God: 
When & why God suffered the Devil to afflict offenders.  & because in those days there were no christian Princess with ordinary power to revenge the disorders committed in and against the church of Christ, it pleased God that whom the Apostles and their after-commers for a season cast out of the church as entangled with great and heinous offences, the Devil should afflict them unto death, or otherwise with some grievous disease as the fault deserved, that the rest might fear, and not be bold to sin, because there was no magistrate to punish them: yea many times God visited the sins of hypocrites and such as remained in the church in like manner; as Paul himself testifieth to those of Corinth. 
1. Cor. 11.  For this cause many amongst you are strooken with infirmities and diseases, and many are dead. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged: but when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 
Chrysost. in 1. Tim. hom. 5.  And Chrysostom alleging this place, Many such things fall out (in the church) at this day. Because the priest knoweth them not, that laden with sin receive the reverend mysteries unworthily, therefore God himself often times culleth them out, and delivereth them to Satan.  
And that the Apostles did nothing but cast them out of the church when they delivered any to Satan, 
Ibidem.  the same Father will teach you. Mark how (Paul) delivered the man (of Corinth) to Satan. Eijciebatur nempe a communi fidelium caetu; he was cast out of the congregation of the faithful, he was cut off from the flock (of Christ) and left naked, and being so destitute (of God's help) he lay open to the Wolf, and subject to every assault. 
Theodoret. in 1. Cor. cap. 5.  So saith Theodorete. By this place, (where Paul delivered the incestuous Corinthian to Satan) we are taught that the devil invadeth them which are severed & cut off from the body of the church, finding them destitute of God's grace.  
Keep yourselves therefore within your limits. Pastors have their charge, which is as S. Paul noteth, to watch over souls, 
Heb. 13.  they have not to do with the goods or bodies of the faithful. Their goods are Caesar's, by the plain resolution of our Saviour. Give unto Caesar, the things which are Caesar's. Which God willed Samuel to advertise the people of, 
Mat. 22.  when they first demanded a king. 
1. King. 8.  Show them the right (or law) of the king that shall reign over them. 
Ibidem.  And so Samuel did, saying: This shall be the law of your king. He shall take your sons and appoint them for his charets and to be his horsemen: & shall make them captains over thousands & captains over fiftyes, & set them to ear his grounds & to reap his harvest, & to make his instruments of war & things to serve for his charets. And he will take your fields, & vines & best olives, & give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your corn & wine, & give it to his Princes & servitors. 
Only Princes are to command the goods & bodies of their subjects.  And he will take your men servants & maideseruants, & the choice of your young men, & your asses, & use them to his work. The tenth of your sheep will he take, & ye shall be his servants.  Phi. 
Make you the king Lord of all without exception?  Theo. 
Though God never meant, that Princes inordinate & private pleasures should waste & consume the wealth of their Realms, yet may they justly command the goods and bodies of all their Subjects in time both of war and peace, for any public necessity or utility. Whereby God declareth Princes and not Pastors to be the right overseers of temporal and earthly matters: and consequently that the power of the keys extendeth not to those things which are committed to the Prince's charge, I mean neither to the goods, nor to the bodies of christian men.  
To a king, saith Chrysostom, are the bodies of men committed: to the Priest their souls. 
Chrysost. de verbis Esaiae, Vidi Dominum hom. 4.  The king pardoneth corporal offences, the Priest remitteth the guiltiness of sin. The king compelleth, the Priest exhorteth: the one with force, the other with advise: the king's weapons are sensible, the Priests are Ghostly. The like distinction between them doth S. Hierom make: 
Hieron. ad Heliodor. in epitap. Nepotiani.  Rex nolentibus praest, Episcopus volentibus: ille timore subijcit, hic seruituti donatur: ille corpora custodit ad mortem, hic animas servat ad vitam. The king ruleth men unwilling: the Priest none, save the willing: the king hath his in subjection with terror: the Priest is appointed for the service of his: the king mastereth their bodies with death, but the Priest preserveth their souls to life. This power of the sword, our Saviour precisely prohibited his Apostles as I have showed: and therefore you may not indirectly nor by accident challenge it.  Phi. 

1. Cor. 6. S. Paul abused by the Iesuit●s to make the Pope judge of temporal matters.  Why then did Paul say: Know you not that we shall judge the Angels, how much more secular matters?  Theo. 
If this be the best hold you have in the new Testament for secular matters: you must take the pains to light from your horse and go on your feet as well as your neighbours. For the Apostle speaketh that of all Christians which you restrain to Priests; and moveth the parties striving, rather to make their brethren arbiters of their quarrels, than to pursue one an other before Infidels. What grant is this to you in your own right to be judges over your brethren in all secular affairs, and not only without their consents to determine their griefs, but also to bereave them of their goods, and lands, and afflict their bodies: yea to pull the sword out of Prince's hands, & take their Crowns from their heads; when the rulers are believers as well as the Preachers? Do you not know, saith S. Paul, 
1. Cor. 6.  that the Saints, & not only Priests, shall judge the world? If the world then shallbe judged by you (speaking to all that were of the church at Corinth) are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? He saith not, it was their right to judge secular matters, but they were worthy to be trusted with them, whom God would trust with greater: and showing that he spoke this of the people, & not of the Priests, he saith: If then you have any judgements concerning the things of this life, 
●. Cor. 6.  make even the contemptible in the church your judges. He saith not God hath made them your judges: but rather than your contending & brabbling about earthly things which you profess to contemn, should be known to Ethniks, & such as hate & deride both Christ & you, yourselves make the meanest of your brethren (whom you will) your judges. Now join your conclusion: ergo the Pope hath authority to dispose the goods, lands and lives of all the faithful, even of Princes themselves, be they never so just or religious Magistrates; and see what a non sequitur you conclude out of S. Paul's words.  Phi. 
The primative church understood this place of Priests and Bishops: as appeareth by Saint Augustine complaining of the tumultuous perplexities of other men's causes in secular matters: 
De opere Monachorum ca 29  to the which troubles, saith he, the Apostle hath fastened us. 1. Corinth. 5. The like he witnesseth of S. 
* Confess. li. 6. ca 3.  Ambrose at Milan. And S. Gregory reporteth the same of 
* Praefat. in lib. Dialogorum.  himself at Rome.  Theo. 
Truth it is, the Bishops of the primative church were greatly troubled with those matters; not as ordinary judges of those causes, but as arbiters elected by the consent of both parties. And I could requite you with Gregory's own words of the same matter in the same place: 
* 
Ibidem.  
The Bishops might not refuse to hear and end the griefs of their brethren by charitable persuasion but not by judicial compulsion, without the Princes warrant.   Quod certum est nos non debere, which it is certain we ought not to do, but yet I think, so long as it did not hinder their vocation & function, though it were troublesome unto them, they might neither in charity, nor in duty refuse it because it tended to the preserving of peace & love amongst men. And the Apostle had licensed all men to choose whom they would in the church for their judges: no doubt meaning that they which were chosen should take the pains to hear the cause and make an end of the strife. But it is one thing to make peace between brethren, as they did, by heaping their griefs with consent of both sides, and an other thing to claim a judicial interest in those causes, in spite of men's hearts. Which wrong you should not offer the least of your brethren: much less may you deprive Princes of their Crowns and take their Sceptres from them, because the Apostle willed the christians to be tried rather by their brethren, than by their enemies, which were Infidels.  Phi. 
In all which there is no difference betwixt kings that be faithful, 
The defence, Cap. 5.  and other Christian men: who all in that they have submitted themselves and their Sceptres to the sweet yoke of Christ, are subject to discipline and to their Pastor's authority no less than other sheep of his fold.  Theo. 
In believing the word, receiving the Sacraments, and obeying the Laws of God, there is no difference between the Ruler and the Subject; but the temporal states and possessions of private men you may not meddle with, by no colour of ecclesiastical power or discipline: much less may you touch the bodies, or take the Crowns of Princes into your hands by your accidental & indirect authority: which is nothing else but a silly shift of yours to cross the commandments of God. 

The defence, Cap. 5.  
The civil Governor subject to the spiritual amongst christians.    Phi. 
Though the state, regiment, policy and power temporal, be in itself always of distinct nature, quality and condition from the government ecclesiastical, and spiritual common wealth called the church or body mystical of Christ; and the Magistrate spiritual and civil diverse and distinct; and sometimes so far that the one hath no dependence of the other, nor subalteration to the other in respect of themselves: (as it is in the Churches of God residing in heathen kingdoms, and was in the Apostles times under the Pagan Emperors): yet now where the laws of Christ are received, and the bodies politic and mystical, the Church and civil state, the Magistrate Ecclesiastical and Temporal, concur in their kinds together; (though ever of distinct regiments, natures and ends) there is such a concurrence and subalternation betwixt both, that the inferior of the two (which is the civil state) must needs (in matters pertaining any way either directly or indirectly to the honour of God and benefit of the soul) be subject to the spiritual, and take direction from the same.  Theo. 
This is tossing of terms, as men do tenez-balles to make pastime with. The state, regiment, policy and power temporal, is in itself, you say, always of distinct nature, quality, and condition from the government ecclesiastical and spiritual Commonwealth, called the Church or body mystical of Christ. You seek to confound that which you would seem to distinguish, and when you have spent much breath to no end, you conclude, that though the church and the Commonwealth be distinct states, as you can not deny, yet you will rule both: 
Though the spiritual and temporal be distinct states, yet the Pope will be sure to rule them both.  by reason the Commonwealth, as the inferior of the two, dependeth on the Church, and hath subalternation to the church as to the superior. But, Sir, in plain terms: and more truth, to the Son of God ruling in his Church by the might of his word and spirit, all kingdoms and Princes must be subject, their sword, Sceptres, souls and bodies: marry to the Pope, attiring himself with the spoils of Christ and his church, no such thing is due.  
The watchmen and shepherds that serve Christ in his church, have their kind of regiment distinct from the temporal power and state: 
Pastors have their regiment but over the souls, not over the bodies or goods of men.  but that regiment of theirs is by counsel and persuasion, not by terror or compulsion, and reacheth neither to the goods nor to the bodies of any men; much less to the crowns and lives of Princes: and therefore your shifting of words, and shrinking from the Pope's Consistory to the Church, the spiritual Common wealth, the mystical body of Christ, and such like hovering and uncertain speeches, is but a trade that you have gotten to make the Reader believe we derogate from Christ, and would have Prince's superiors to the word and Sacraments, which Christ hath left to gather and govern the church withal. Howbeit this course is so common with you, that now it doth but shame you.  
A christian king must take direction not from the Pope's person or pleasure, but from the Laws and commandments of Christ; 
How the Prince is subject to the Priest: & likewise the priest to the Prince.  to whom alone he oweth subjection: And as for the Bishops and Pastors of his Realm, (whom you falsely call the spiritual Commonwealth and the mystical body of Christ, because they be but parts thereof, and not so much, except withal they be teachers of truth) those he must and should consult,, in respect they be God's messengers sent to him and his people, but with great care to try them, and free liberty to refuse them, if they be found not faithful. And when the Prince learning by their instruction what is acceptable to God in doctrine and discipline, shall receive and publish the same, the Bishops themselves are bound to obey, and if they will not, the Magistrate may lawfully see the rigour of his laws executed upon them. On the other side, if the Prince will not submit himself to the rules and precepts of Christ, but wilfully maintain heresy and open impiety, the Bishops are without flattery to reprove and admonish the Prince of the danger that is imminent from God: and if he persist, they must cease to communicate with him in divine prayers and mysteries: but still they must serve him, honour him, and pray for him, teaching the people to do the like, and with meekness enduring what the wrath of the Prince shall lay on them, without annoying his person, resisting his power, discharging his subjects, or removing him from his throne, which is your manner of censuring Princes.  Phi. 
The civil Governor is SUBJECT to the spiritual amongst christians.  Theo. 
I have often told you how. The civil Governor must hear, believe, and obey the meanest servant that God sendeth, if he speak no more than his Masters will. That subjection Princes own to the sender, and not to the speaker. But were they simply subject to the messengers of God, as they are not, will you reason thus: Princes should obey the Preachers of God: ergo if they do not, they may be deposed? This is the argument which we so often have denied; why then labour you so much about the antecedent, when we deny the consequent?  
That Princes should obey God and his word, 

The Prince is absolutely subject unto God: and yet if he refuse his duty to God, he may not be deposed by the minister.  
The defence, cap. 5.  
In orat. ad popul▪ trepidan●ē & Impera. commo●um.  
Nazians similitude to express the subordination of civil and of spiritual government.   is a clearer case, than that they should obey the Pope. For of that no man doubteth, and this we not only doubt, but deny. Take therefore that which is confessed on both sides, and set your conclusion to it, that the force of your reason may the better appear. Princes without all question are bound to obey God: ergo if they do not their duties to God they may be deposed by Priests. This is the sequel which we always denied: and this is the point which you first assumed to prove.  Phi. 
The condition of these two powers (as S. Gregory Nazianzen most excellently resembles it) is like unto the distinct state of the same spirit and body, or flesh in a man: where either of them having their proper and peculiar operations, ends and objects, which in other natures may be severed: (as in Brutes, where flesh is & not spirit: in Angels, where spirit is but not flesh:) are yet in man conjoined in person; and nevertheless so distinct in faculties and operations; that the flesh hath her actions peculiar, and the soul hers; but not without all subalteration or dependence. Where we see evidently, that in case the operations of the body be contrary to the end, weal and just desires of the soul; the spirit may and must command, overrule and chastise the body: and as superior appointeth fasting and other afflictions, though with some detriment to the flesh commanding the eyes not to see, the tongue not to speak; and so forth. So likewise; the power political, hath her Princes, Laws, Tribunalles; and the spiritual her Prelates, Canons, Counsels, judgements (and these when the Princes are Pagans) wholly separate, but in christian commonwealths joined, though not confounded; nor yet the spiritual turned into the temporal, or subject by perverse order (as it is now in England) to the same; but the civil (which in deed is the inferior) subordinate, and in some cases subject to the ecclesiastical: though so long as the temporal State is no hindrance to eternal felicity, and the glory of Christ's kingdom, the other intermeddleth not with her actions; but alloweth, defendeth, honoureth, and in particular commonwealths obeyeth the same.  Theo. 
For you to fly soaring about with comparisons and applications of your own making is to small purpose: Similitudes have no force farther than the Author, that first used them, doth direct them and urge them.  

nazianzens' words to the Emperor.  S. Gregory Bishop of Nazianzun having occasion in a Sermon that he made before the Emperor, to entreat the Prince to pardon a fault committed by the people, after he had taught the subjects their duty to the Magistrate, turned his speech to the Prince with these words amongst other: Will you admit then my free speech? 
Nazian. oratio. 18. ad cives Nazianzenos gravi timore perculsos, & principem irascent.  The law of Christ hath committed (or subjecteth) you to my power and to my pulpit: for we rule also, and that which is a more excellent and perfect regiment. Or should the spirit (in perfection and excellency) give place to the flesh, and heavenly things to earthly? You will I know take my freedom of speech in good part. You are a sheep of my fold, & a (lamb or) weanling of the great shepherds. Nazianzene maketh not your comparison, that the Priest hath the same power over the prince, which the soul hath over the body: It is your own, it is not his: he calleth the things which are committed to the Preachers charge, spiritual and heavenly: and consequently more excellent and perfect than the bodily & earthly things which Princes have in their power: farther he urgeth not this comparison, and this we confess to be most true.  Phi. 

Nazian. Ibidem.  But S. Gregory saith to the Emperor: The law of Christ hath subjecteth you to my power, and to my Tribunal.  Theo. 
I might refuse that translation: the words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth signify not only to subject, but also to commit as a pledge to be kept by an other man: and in that respect I might well defend this to be the right interpretation of S. Gregory's words, The law of Christ hath committed you to my charge: but because the word hath both significations I receive either, and affirm neither to make for your corporal correcting of Princes. Saint Gregory doth plainly lay forth his own meaning, 

Ibidem.  
The Bishop claimeth free speeches in God's behalf to entreat the Prince for the people.   first by the final intent, for the which he used all this preface, next by the rest of the words which he addeth to expound and express his mind.  
His request to the Emperor was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to bear with the boldness of his speech, in making request for his brethren. And to show the Emperor that herein he did no more than Christ had licensed every Preacher to do, he bringeth this reason. The Law of Christ hath bound Princes, be they never so great to hear the Preacher, and to submit themselves to this place, where I stand: which was the pulpit and not the Consistory. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church did precisely signify the place where the Preacher stood when he taught. And to that end he addeth, 
Ibidem.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are a sheep of my flock: that is sacred and so are you, and a weanling of the great shepherds: and therefore bound to hear my voice, whom the great shepherd hath charged with the feeding of his flock. And so he proceedeth very fatherly and pithily not to command or require, but to persuade and entreat the Prince to be gracious to his subjects and to imitate the example of God the greatest and mightiest Prince that is.  
These be Christian directions, and lawful means to put Princes in mind of their duties: which we allow and receive. Your deposing them, and arming their subjects under a colour of your Episcopal authority to rebel against them, and to take their sceptres from them, was far from nazianzens' mind and mouth: you do but abuse his eloquent similitudes to beautify your pestilent conspiracies: and that you may see by the very words following, where he saith to the Emperor, 
Nazian. Ibidem.  Thou reignest together with Christ, thou rulest together with him; thy sword is from him, thou art the image of God: He that confessed the Prince to hold his sword from Christ and with Christ, never craked as you conceive, that he had power to take the Prince's sword from him: yea rather he acknowledged himself amongst the rest to be subject to the Prince, though he were a Bishop. Let us saith he submit ourselves to God, 
Ibidem.  to each other, and to the Rulers of the earth. To God in all things, each to other in brotherly love, to Princes for the conservation of good order. For this is one of the Laws amongs us (that be Christians) and the same praise worthy and most excellently ordered by the holy Ghost, that as servants obey their masters, 
We; that is as well Pastors as people.  and women their husbands, and the Church Christ, and the Disciples their Pastors and Teachers, so we should be subject to all superior Powers, not only for fear of wrath, but also for conscience sake.  Phi. 
You will not deny but S. Gregory saith, We have 
Orati●. 18. ad cives Nazian. The preachers function excelleth the Prince's imperfection.  a greater and perfecter regiment than yours, speaking even to the Prince himself.  Theo. 
So Preachers have. They govern the souls of men and dispense the mysteries of God, where as Princes are set to rule the bodies of their subjects, and to dispose the things of this life. And therefore if the fruits and effects of their callings be compared, the Preachers passeth the Princes by many degrees of perfection and excellency: God giving earthly food and peace by the prince, but heavenly grace and life by the word and sacraments which we receive from the mouths and hands of his messengers. Marry if you compare their persons or powers to command and compel by corporal punishments, 
Wherein princes excel Preachers.  of which we dispute: Preachers are servants to their brethren, Princes are Lords over them: Preachers may reprove and threaten, Princes may seize the goods, and chastise the bodies of such as offend: Preachers may shut the gates of heaven against non-repentants, Princes may root them from the face of the earth, and let them feel the just vengeance of their sins in this world. This is the power of Princes which we say must be directed by Bishops, but is not subjecteth to their wills or Tribunals; and though the Preachers charge concern things which be more perfect and excellent, yet that is no reason why Bishops should corporally correct or depose Princes, no more than if Philosophers or schoolmasters should take upon them to do the like, because they profess to train up others in wisdom and virtue, which far exceed the feeding or clothing of the body; which seem to be the Prince's care.  
And yet may you not rashly exclude the Prince's function from caring for religion and virtue: It is evident that God first ordained and authorized the sword to punish error and vice, 
The princes & the preachers functions concur in the same things, though in diverse sorts.  and to maintain truth and integrity amongst men: and therefore the Princes and the Preachers functions by God's institution should concur even in those Ghostly and heavenly things, which you would challenge to yourselves, the Preacher declaring, the Prince establishing the word of truth; the Preacher delivering, the Prince defending the Sacraments of grace; the Preacher reproving, the Prince punishing the sins and offences of all Degrees and States. Howbeit we must confess the Preachers service in these cases excelleth the Princes; for that the word in the Preachers mouth engendereth faith and winneth the soul unto God to serve him with a willing mind: whereas the sword in the Prince's hand striketh only a terror into men to refrain the outward act, but reformeth not the secrets of the heart.  Phi. 


The defence, cap. 5.  
When the spiritual government is to correct the temporal.   When the temporal power resisteth God or hindereth the proceeding of the people to salvation; there the spiritual hath right to correct the temporal, and to procure by all means possible, that the terrene kingdom give no annoyance to the state of the Church.  Theo. 
What you want in proofs, you make out in words. We have heard you I know not how often full solemnly affirm that the Spiritual power hath right to correct the temporal, whereby you mean that the Pope may depose the Prince: but as yet we see you not prove it. Your exquisite and affected utterance which is the chiefest furniture of your book, and the best support of your cause, can not turn hard into soft, nor sour into sweet: men must have some better evidence for the deprivation of Princes before they believe it, than your meretricious and dainty speech.  

pastors must procure the welfare of of the church, but by lawful and Godly means.  Pastors are, you say, to procure by all means possible, that the terrene kingdom give no annoyance to the state of the Church: you should have added by all means possible and lawful: for by perjury, rebellion, and slaughter of Princes, though it be possible, yet is it not lawful to procure the welfare of Christ's Church. If you receive that addition, and avouch it lawful for Bishops to depeses Princes, you run to the point which we first began with, absurdly presuming and never proving the thing which is called in question.  Phi. 
The Church excelleth the terrene state and Domination as far as the Sun passeth the Moon, 
The Defence, cap. 5.  the soul the body, and heaven the earth. By reason of which excellency and pre-eminence above all states and men, without exception of Prince or other, our Lord proclaimeth in his Gospel: 
Mat. 18.  that whosoever obeyeth not or heareth not the Church, must be taken and used no otherwise than as an heathen.  Theo. 
You must needs be cunning in counting how many degrees a Priest excelleth a Prince. 

The Pride of Pope's preferring themselves before Princes.  
Decretal. lib. 1. tit. 33. de maiorirat. & obedientia cap. 6. ¶ praeterea.   Innocentius the third, twelve hundred years after Christ began this comparison and proveth it out of the Scripture full like a Pope. Thou shouldest have known, saith he to the Emperor, that GOD made two great lights in the firmament of heaven, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. Whereby is meant, that GOD made two great lights, that is, two great dignities which are the Priest and the Prince, for the firmament of heaven, that is of his universal Church. But that which ruleth the day to wit spiritual things is the greater, that which ruleth carnal things is the lesser, that we should acknowledge as great difference to be between Bishops and Princes, as there is between the sun and the moon.  
Your gloze setteth down and casteth by plain Arythmetike how much that amounteth to. 

Ibidem glossa in ver. Inter Solem & Lunam.  
Passing good Arythmetike ⅞ is 56. not 47.  
The Jesuits rake the very filth of their school men & Canonists, & set a new flourish upon it.   Therefore, saith he, since the earth is seven times bigger than the Moon, and the Sun eight times bigger than the earth, it resteth that the Bishop be forty seven times greater than the Prince. And yet advising himself better for that his total sum rose no faster, he showeth out of Ptolemy that the sun containeth the bigness of the moon, seven thousand, seven hundred, forty four times, and so many degrees jump is every Bishop above every Prince. These parings and offscouringe of your Decretals you have swept together, and using the name of the Church to make the matter more saleable, though by the Church you understand as they did, the Bishop of Rome and his College of Cardinals, you perfume their follies with a few words of your own, and new proclaim them for some precious wares: but take back the filth and slime of your unlearned and ill advised canonists, we look for graver and better authorities than either your, or their flatteries.  Phi. 
Whosoever obeyeth not or heareth not the Church, must be taken and used no otherwise than as an heathen.  Theo. 
I could answer you that this place toucheth only wrongs and injuries done by men to their brethren, 
If thy brother sin against thee, that is, do thee private wrong.  when as yet there were no Christian Princes. And that in these words our Saviour charged his Disciples not to break the bond of peace and unity with any brother that offered wrong, until they had first secretly warned them, then with witnesses, and last of all publicly before the whole multitude of the faithful where he and they lived: and if after so many lawful warnings he ceased not to afflict and vex his brother, the party grieved should no farther be bound to communicate with him in brotherly love and charity, no more than he was with an Ethnic or a Publican.  

Ambros. in Lucam. lib. 8. cap. 17.  S. Ambrose giveth this note upon the words, In te, Against thee; Pulchrè posuit, si peccaverit in te. Non enim aequa conditio in deum hominemque peccare. The Lord very well added, if he sin against thee: for the same rule doth not serve when he sinneth against God, that doth when he trespasseth man. Saint Hierom likewise, 
Hieron. ●n Matthaei 16.  If our brother sin against us, and in any thing do us wrong, we have power to forgive it, yea we must forgive it: but if a man sin against God, the matter is out of our hands. Lest therefore in private quarrels and offences men should at their lists forsake the communion and fellowship of their brethren, our Saviour will have three admonitions and the last public, after the which, if that take not place, we shallbe excused before God, if we no longer accept him that did us wrong in the number of our brethren.  

August. de verbis Domini, sermo. 16. Let him be to thee as an Ethnic: that is, count him no longer to be thy brother.  Let him be to thee as an Ethnic and a Publican, that is saith S. Augustine, Noli illum deputare iam in numero fratrum tuorum, nec ideo tamen salus eius negligenda: Do not account him in the number of thy brethren, and yet his salvation must not be neglected. For the ethnics themselves, that is heathen men and Pagans, we do not reckon to be our brethren, and yet we seek to save them. By this you may do well to erect a Court where every subject may sew his Prince for private injuries, and to make yourselves judges of all such matters, that if the Prince refuse your order you may take his Crown from him. Is not this think you good divinity for a Christian Commonwealth?  Phi. 
If he, that will not hear the Church in private offences between man and man, must be taken and used as an heathen, how much more he that will not hear nor obey the Church in public and heinous sins against God?  Theo. 
Take the place how you will of private, or public injuries, or sins against man, 

Let him be to thee as an Ethnic, maketh nothing for the deposition of Princes.  
They were Ethnics to whom Christ and his Apostles commanded all men to be subject. john. 19   or against God, no such thing is consequent as you would seem to infer. If he hear not the Church, whosoever, whensoever, in what cause soever (grant all this that your antecedent may be the freer from check or chance,) what will you conclude?  Phi. 
He must be to us as an heathen.  Theo. 
And what then? must heathen Princes be deprived of their Crowns and Sceptres? Was not Caesar an heathen when our Saviour willed all men to give to Caesar the things which were Caesar's? Was he not an heathen Magistrate before whom Christ stood when he said, Thou couldst have no power over me unless it were given thee from above? Were they not heathen Princes to whom Peter and Paul required and charged all Christian Princes to be subject without all resistance? Did not the Church of Christ, taught by them so to do, submit herself for the space of three hundred years to heathen Princes and those terrible and most bloody tyrants.  Phi. 
We deny not this.  Theo. 
You can not. If then disobayers of the Church must be used no worse than heathens and publicans, ergo they must neither be spoiled of their goods, nor afflicted in their bodies, nor removed from their seats, if they be Princes. For these things by God's Law the Church might not offer to Pagans nor Publicans.  Phi. 
This that Christ saith, if he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as an Ethnic, and a Publican, is (by the judgement of S. Augustine) more grievous than if he were slain with the sword, consumed with fire, or torn with wild beasts.  Theo. 
And why? because the judgement of God, 

August. contra adversar legis & Prophet lib. 1. cap. 17.  
To be left to the judgement of god is more grievous than any human torment can be.  
Ibidem.   to the which he is reserved, shall be more heavy to him, than any human torments can be. And this maketh rather against you, than with you. For if the neglecter of the Church shall be so grievously punished at God's hands, why do you challenge to yourselves the corporal correcting and chastising of such as disobey the Church? And so Saint Augustine expoundeth himself. It is by and by added, saith he, by our Saviour, Amen I say unto you: What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, that we should understand how grievous a punishment it is to be left unpunished by man, and to be reserved to the judgement of God.  Phi. 
The Church hath decreed that heretics shall not bear rule over Catholics: and this voice of the Church all men are bound to hear, unless they will be counted for Pagans and Infidels.  Theo. 
First the Church can make no such decree: next the Church of Christ never made any such Decree.  Phi. 
May not the Church make that Decree? 
The Church can not decree that Princes shall be deposed.   Theo. 
She may not. Her power concerneth the souls of men and not their bodies, and never goeth beyond the word and Sacraments. She may not intermeddle with the temporal states and inheritances of Private men against their wills, much less with the thrones and swords of Princes.  
The Church cannot give leave, that children shall disobey their Parents, nor servants their Masters, nor women their husbands: because God hath already commanded they shall obey: 
The Church may not break the least of God's commandments.  whose precepts the Church is with all reverence to receive, and with all diligence to observe, and not to frustrate or hinder the least jot of his heavenly will and Testament: If any particular places, or persons attempt the contrary, they cease to be the Church of GOD in that they wilfully reject and change the word of God. S. Augustine saith well, 

August. contra Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 21.  
Chrysost. opere imperfect. in Mat. homil. 49.   Non debet ecclesia se Christo praeponere: The Church may not prefer herself before Christ. Neither may we believe the (true Churches) themselves unless they say and do those things that are consonant to the Scriptures. Yea we must 
* Gal. 1.  accurse the Angels in heaven if they should do otherwise. The whole Church oweth the same duty to all and every the precepts of God that each private person doth. And therefore she may not dissolve nor disappoint the least of them. Now the Church herself is commanded by the mouth of Christ and his Apostles to honour and obey Princes. For these precepts be general & touch the whole church: 
Luk. 20.  Give to Caesar the things that be Caesars. 
* Rom. 13.  Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. 
* 1. Peter 2.  Submit yourselves to the king as the chiefest. For so is the will of God; neither Monk, Priest, Prelate, Pope, Evangelist, or Apostle exempted as in the place where I have already showed. Ergo she hath no right to dishonour or depose Princes, nor to licence their subjects to resist them at her will and on her warrant, which is the ground that you build on.  Phi. 


The defence, Cap. 5.  
Deceitful persuasions of politics unto Princes for their ruin   They be but flatterers of Princes that so say: or heretics that so think that the ministers of Christ's most dear spouse, of his very mystical body, his kingdom & house on earth (whom at his departure hence, he did endow with most ample commission, and sent forth with that authority, that his father before gave unto him) have no power over Princes, to denounce or declare them to be violators of Gods and the Church's Laws: nor to punish them either spiritually or temporally: not to excommunicate them, nor to discharge the people of their oath and obedience towards such, as neither by God's Law nor man's, a true Christian may obey.  Theo. 
If we knew not your accustomed bravery, you might somewhat trouble us with your insolent vanities: but now we have so good experience of your fierce looks and faint hearts, that we need not fear your force. Bring somewhat besides your own conceit that the Pope may depose Princes, and then call us flatterers and heretics at your pleasure. If not, take heed you prove not presumptuous and stately rebels against God and man.  
I win you be the ministers of Christ's spouse and kingdom, no more than his Apostles were, 
The Apostles, whose commission was largest, had no power to depose princes.  if so much: and your commission is no larger than theirs, if it be so large: and yet the Apostles themselves had no power to depose Princes, but submitted their bodies and lives to the powers which God had ordained, and taught (Christ's most dear spouse & his very body mystical) to do the like, and she did so, not offering any example of resisting and deposing Princes for a thousand years, after she first received at her husband's mouth a charge to honour them and in earthly things to obey them.  

Episcopal jurisdiction standeth not in the deposition of princes.  As for your Episcopal power over Princes, if that be it you seek for, and not to take their kingdoms from them, I told you before, if they break the Law of God, you may reprove them; if they hear you not, you may leave them in their sins and shut heaven against them: if they fall to open heresy or wilful impiety, you may refuse to communicate with them in prayers and other divine duties, yea you must rather yield your lives with submission into their hands, than deliver them the word and sacraments otherwise than God hath appointed: farther than this if you will go to the temporal punishing and final displacing of them from their thrones (and to the discharging of the people from the oath and obedience towards such Princes) which is the right intent of your Romish censures, as your own words import, though your cause were never so good, as yours is stark nought, you then turn religion into rebellion, patience into violence, words into weapons, preaching into fight, fidelity into perjury, subjection into sedition, and in steed of the servants of GOD, which you might be by enduring, you become the Soldiers of Satan by resisting the powers which GOD hath ordained.  Phi. 
Your threats were somewhat, if the Church had not first deposed them.  Theo. 
Pull not out your own eyes with your own hands. The Church hath no such Commission from Christ. She can not discharge smaller duties, as of children to their Parents, and wives to their husbands: much less greater, as subjection, oath, and loyalty to Princes. Say if you dare that the Precepts of subjection and submission unto Princes in the sacred Scriptures do not bind Bishops as well as others. 
The precepts of God for obedience to Princes bind Bishops as well as others.  If they do, then mark what mockeries you make of the word of God. 
* Rom. 13. What mockeries the jesuits must make of the Scriptures before they can depose Princes by the word of God.  Let every soul (and therefore every Bishop) be subject to the higher Powers, that you will have to stand until the Bishops depose them, and take their power from them. 
* Rom. 13.  You must be subject, the Bishops you mean as long as they list. For if they like not their Prince, by your Doctrine they may displace him. 
* 1. Pet. 2.  Submit yourselves to the king as excelling (all others:) but you will be sure to excel him, and when you see your time to make him the meanest amongst the people. 
* Luke. 20.  Give unto Caesar the things that be Caesar's, but if Caesar anger you, you take from him goods, Lands, Sceptre, sword, life and all. O worthy interpreters of Gods heavenly will! A few such glozes will help Christ himself out of his kingdom, such cunning you have to defeat the commandments of the holy Ghost, and to spoil innocent and Christian Princes of their Crowns, when you list to displace them.  Phi. 
They be your foolish additions, and not ours.  Theo. 
Avoid the texts which we bring without these or the like constructions, and take the whole cause for your labour. Well you may flourish with the name of the Church, where I say, the Bishops; and require some causes before Princes should be deposed, 
The Jesuits pretend that law, order & judgement should be observed in the deposing of princes, but the Pope willbe tied no farther than to one of these.  which I refer to the discretion of the deposer: but in effect your answers must be as I report them. For what if the Pope offer open wrong to Princes of his own Religion, as he did to Philippe the Fair, King of France, to Fredrick the second German Emperor, and to many others? Who shall reverse his definitive sentence by your doctrine, but himself, that either for shame may not, or for pride will not relent from his error?  Phi. 
Therefore we refer the right of deposing Princes to the Church because we would be sure to (have it done by Law, order, and judgement.)  Theo. 
And that solemn process of Law, order and judgement in your Church, which you crack of, when all is done, is nothing else but the Pope's pleasure: for he will be tied neither to Council, nor Canon, farther than standeth with his liking; his Decrees be Canons, and a reason of his fact may no man ask him by your Laws, and therefore Princes have a warm suit to depend on such Laws, orders, and judgements.  
As for the Church of Christ she never took any such thing upon her, neither did she ever make any Decree that Prelates might depose Princes. She endured as well heretics and Apostates, as Pagans and persecutors, many hundred years to the glorious trial of her faith, and eternal reward of her patience. Only Gregory the 7. Bishop of Rome more than a thousand years after Christ, in the height of his pride and fury, gave the first onset to depose his Lord and master, and others after him were easily led to follow his example: but to this day never christian king, nor Realm acknowledged or obeyed that power in the Pope, which yet he doth wickedly challenge, as you do wilfully defend.  Phi. 


The defence, cap. 5.  
The examples of disobedient Princes to the Church and of their punishment or confusion.   It may please the gentle readers to inform their consciences partly by that is said before, and specially by that which followeth. Where they shall find that straight upon the first conversion of kings to the faith, as the good and godly have ever obeyed the Church, and submitted themselves to ecclesiastical censures and discipline: so the evil and obstinate could never orderly discharge themselves from the same, without evident note of injustice, tyranny, and irreligiosity; and were either in fine brought to order & penance, or else to confusion both temporal and eternal.  Theo. 
He must be very gentle that will inform his conscience with your bare surmises; other enformations you give none. That which is said before, is to small purpose, that which followeth is to smaller. Never good, nor godly king obeyed the Pope's sentence of deposition, and besides the Pope, never Church, Council, nor Pastor offered any such wrong to Christian or heathen Princes.  

Some late Princes have been weary with the Pope's practices, but never any obeyed his sentence of deposition.  What you call orderly discharging of themselves, I know not; the wisest and worthiest Princes that those days bred, neither dissenting in faith from the Bishop of Rome, nor then doubting of his Pastoral headship over the Church, (such was the blindness of their times:) yet openly despised and utterly resisted, his arrogant censures in depriving Princes: and howsoever by wars, conspiracies and treasons he tired some of them, (God giving Princes for the neglect of his truth and number of their sins, into the hands and power of Antichrist) yet others bridled and kirbed your holy father himself in such sort that he had small joy of his enterprise.  

The Pope in greater danger with God for abusing his keys, than Princes for resisting his attempts.  Of their eternal confusion, neither you nor I be fit judges: we must leave that to the son of God: howbeit I see no cause but the Pope is in far more danger before God for his impious abusing the keys to warrant perjury, sedition, murder and treason against Magistrates, than any Prince can be for the necessary defending of his person and Realm, against such violence. The keys are to be feared if they be rightly used; but if you wrench them to serve your rages, you bind yourselves, not others, whom your ungodly dealings can not hurt. Your own Law saith, Apud deum & eius ecclesiam neminem gravare potest iniqua sententia. 
Caus. 11. quaest. 3. ¶ cui est. Ibidem ¶ tem●rarium.  With God & his Church, an unjust sentence can burden no man: & rash judgement, saith S. Augustine, hurteth him that judgeth rashly.  Phi. 
About 13. hundred years ago Babylas Bishop of Antioch excommunicated the only Christian King or Emperor that then was (as some count Numerius, as others Philippe) for executing a Prince, 

The defence. cap. 5.  
Chrysost. in vitae Babyl.  
The example of Bishop Babylas.   that was put to him, for an hostage. Whereupon, as evil Kings sometimes do, he martyred his Bishop; whom S. chrysostom & others reckon for the most famous martyr of that time: because he gave by his constancy and courage is God, a notable example to all Bishops of their behaviour towards their Princes; and how they ought to use the Ecclesiastical rod of correction towards them, whatsoever befall to their persons for the same.  
After the said Prince had murdered his own Pastor; 
Nicep. li. 5. c. 25.  then holy Pope Fabian for that he was the general shepherd of Christendom (or as some think Fabian the successor of Babylas) pursued the said Emperor by like excommunication, and other means, till at length he brought him to order and repentance.  
Afterward Saint Ambrose Bishop of Milan excommunicated the elder Theodosius the Emperor; 

Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 24.  
Theod. lib. 5. cap. 17.  
Ambros. lib. 5. epist. 28.  
Aug. de civitate Dei, li. 5. ca 26.   put him to public penance among the rest of the people; commanded him to put off his Kingly robes; to leave his Imperial throne in the Chancel, and to keep his place among the Laitte: and prescribed him after eight months penance, to make a temporal Law for proviso, against the occasions of such crimes as the said Emperor had committed, and for which he was excommunicated.  
This was an other world than we now are in: 
Our shameless age.  marvelous courage and zeal in Bishops for God's cause: much humility and obedience in Princes. Then was there no flatterer so shameful, nor heretic on earth so impudent as to make the temporal King above all correction of God's Church and their own Pastors: nothing being more common in the histories of all ages than that Princes have received discipline.  
As when Anastasius the Emperor was excommunicated by Symmachus, Lotharius, and Micheal Emperors, by Nicolas the first, and particular Princes by their provincial Bishops: 
divers princes excommunicated by their Pastors.  as we see in the records of all Nations. Therefore we will stand only upon more famous and ancient examples.  
Innocentius the first, 

Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34.  
Georg. Patriar. in vita. chrysos.   excommunicated Archadius the Emperor and his wife Queen Eudoxia, for that they disobeyed and persecuted their Bishop S. chrysostom. We will report the judicial sentence briefly, because it is much to the purpose and full of Majesty.  
O Emperor (said Pope Innocentius well near 1200 years ago) the blood of my brother john chrysostom crieth to God against thee, 
The sentence of excommunication given by Innocentius Bishop of Rome against the Emperor.  thou hast cast out of his chair the great Doctor of the world; and in him, by thy wives (that delicate Dalida) persuasion hast persecuted Christ. Therefore I (though a poor sinful soul) to whom the throne of the great Apostle Saint Peter is committed, do excommunicate thee and her, and do separate you both from the holy Sacraments: commanding that no Priest, nor Bishop, under pain of deprivation, after this my sentence come to their knowledge, give or minister the said Sacraments unto you.  Theo. 
Fairly shot, but quite besides the mark.  Phi. 
Why so?  Theo. 


Excommunication doth not infer deposition.  
The jesuits prove that some Princes were excommunicated, when they should prove they were deposed.  
With Idolaters and Infideles we may communicate in earthly, but not in heavenvly things.   Our question is whether Prelates may deprive Princes of their Crowns, and you prove Bishops may deny them the word and Sacraments, if the cause so require.  Phi. 
Is not that to the purpose?  Theo. 
Not a whit. You saw we confessed so much before without urging. What need you then spend time to prove it?  Phi. 
If you grant that, the rest will soon follow.  Theo. 
We did and do grant, that with heretics & Apostates, be they princes or private men, no Christian Pastor or people may communicate.  Phi. 
We desire no more.  Theo. 
Infer then.  Phi. 
Ergo no Christian pastor nor people may obey them.  Theo. 
This consequent hath been often framed, and often denied, and now you begin with a long discourse to prove the antecedent.  Phi. 
The sequel is sure. If we may not communicate with them, we may not obey them.  Theo. 
What else have we done all this while but refel that sequel? We may not communicate likewise with Idolaters and Infidels. May we therefore not obey them?  Phi. 
With Idolaters and Infidels we may not communicate in spiritual and heavenly things, but in temporal and earthly we may, and for that cause must obey them if they bear the sword.  Theo. 
We say the like for Apostates and heretics. We may not communicate with them in divine things, but in terrene things we may, and therefore we must obey them if they bear the sword.  Phi. 
Heretics be excommunicated, and so be not Infidels.  Theo. 
Infidels be without the Church of their own accord, and heretics be put out: 
Infidels of their own accord be out of the church, heretics be thrust out.  this is all the difference betwixt them. Again, your own Law saith, and true it is that excommunication doth not hinder any private 
* Vt suprà pag. 350.  utility, necessity or duty, how much less doth it bar the public utility, necessity and duty that subjects own their Sovereigns? But these reasons were even now opposed against you, and you retired from the Scriptures to the use and practise of of Christ's Church; promising as we took you, to bring us not the self same weak and lame sequel, which we refuted before, but some plain and apparent example, where the Church of Christ deposed Princes from their seats, and discharged the subjects from their allegiance. This if you do, we be ready to give you the hearing: If you run bragging and vaunting of an other match, we know your mishap, a rotten tree will never yield sound timber, you would if you could, and because you do not, we conclude you can not.  Phi. 
Yet answer that we bring, and of the sequel we will talk farther anon.  Theo. 
That I will, what bring you?  Phi. 
Numerius or Philip, it skilleth not whether, Theodosius, Arcadius, Anastasius, Lotharius, & Michael, the youngest of them 700 years old, though they were great and mighty Princes and Emperors, yet were they excommunicated by Bishops.  Theo. 


Princes in the primative Church were excommunicated, & yet honoured and obeyed, ergo deposition is no point of excommunication.  
The Princes were heretics & yet obeyed & served, ergo heresy then was no deprivation from their Crowns. The Jesuits examples are flat against the deprivation of Princes.   Your own conclusion you have suspended till anon, in the mean season hear ours and that out of your own words. These Princes were excommunicated, as you say, but they were also served, honoured and obeyed by all their Christian subjects, Bishops and others, as we say and you can not deny it: ergo we may serve, honour and obey Princes notwithstanding they be persons excommunicate; and consequently, your applying of scriptures that we may not salute them, nor keep company with them, is a violent depraving of these texts, and refuted by the manifest practice of Christ's Church.  
And because we be come so far, I will add somewhat touching the rest of your wise pretences; Constantius, Valens, Valentinian the younger, Anastasius, justinian, Heraclius, Constantine the 4. and others were heretical Princes, julian an open Apostata: and yet the Church of Christ endured, served and obeyed them, not in temporal things only, but in ecclesiastical also, so far as their Laws did not impugn the faith, or corrupt good manners.  Phi. 
You infer upon our examples, which we can avoid when we will, but you answer them not.  Theo. 
Our illation, which you shall never avoid, proveth your examples to conclude for us, and not against us. You show that Princes were removed from the Sacraments, which we grant: but that they were removed from their kingdoms, which we deny, that you show not: and so by your silence you confess that to be most true, which we affirm, that heretical and excommunicate Princes must have their due subjection, honour and tribute as they had before they fell to such impieties, because they be perils to their souls, not forfeitures of their Crowns: Other answer we need not make you since this will suffice.  
And yet if we would examine your examples by the pole, I could take many of them tardy. 

Chrysost. contrae. gentiles, liber continens vit● Babylae Martyris.  
This report of Babylas can not stand with the Church story.   A book written in Chrysostom's name witnesseth that Babylas Bishop of Antioch excluded a Christian Emperor out of the Church, for murdering a young Prince committed to him for an hostage: and was martyred by the same tyrant for his constancy: but this can not stand with the stories of the Church, nor with your own Author whom you allege for the repentance and submission that you say this Emperor was after brought to by Fabian the general shepherd of Christendom.  
Eusebius who wrote an hundredth years before chrysostom, saith, that Babylas Bishop of Antioch died in prison under Decius an heathen Tyrant. After Philip succeeded Decius, 
Euseb. li. 6. ca 39  who for hatred of Philip persecuted the Church: in the which persecution Fabianus Bishop of Rome was martyred: and Babylas Bishop of Antioch died in prison after the (constant) confession of his faith. 

Niceph. lib. 5. cap. 26.  
Babylas died in prison under Decius, & not slain by Numerius or Philip.  
Chrysost. contra gentiles.   With him agreeth Nicephorus, Babylas sub Decio post confessionem fortiter obitam in vinculis discessit. Babylas after he had made a stout confession of his faith died in Prison under Decius. If he died under Decius, how could he be slain by Philippus or Numerius that were before Decius? If he deceased in Prison, how can your chrysostom say, that he was carried out of Prison to his death and slain? Can you reconcile these things and not give one of your Authors the lie? If that declamation were Chrysostom's, he wrote it when he came fresh from the Philosopher's schools, as both the stile & matter argue, and before he was Bishop, as his own words declare. For speaking of the place where Babylas was Bishop: he saith, Nostri huius gregis curam gerebat, he was Pastor of this our flock: and chrysostom was Bishop of Constantinople, 
Chrysost. contra Gentil.  not of Antioch.  
Who pursued the said Emperor by like excommunication for killing his Pastor, since the Pastor was alive after the Emperor was dead, and died in prison without any violence, neither can you tell, neither need we care. Of Philip, Nicephorus saith no such thing in the place which you quote: he repeateth only that which Eusebius long before reported in these words: 

Niceph. lib. cap. 25.  
Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 34.  
The Prince instructed to ask pardon at gods hands for all his former sins, & not deprived of his Crown.   Of Philip the fame is, that favouring Christ, and willing the night before Easter to join with the multitude of Christians in their prayers, he was not suffered so to do by the Bishop that then was unless he would first acknowledge his sins, and keep his place with the repentants. Otherwise he could not be admitted, because his sins were many. And they say that he gladly hearkened (to the Bishop) and showed his sincere and religious mind to godward by his deeds.  
The ground of the whole, in him that first wrote it, is but hearsay: the principal matter, whether the Prince were removed from the communion, or never before admitted to the lords table, very doubtful. The thing required at his hands, was no more but to humble himself in the sight of God, to whom all Princes must stoop with as great devotion and submission as the poorest worms that are on earth. The conclusion may be, that Princes than were trained to Godliness; but that they were deprived of their kingdoms, is a wicked and ungodly suggestion of yours. We may with as good reason say, a Friar many times doth shrive the Pope: Ergo a Friar may depose the Pope, which I think your holy Father will not like of.  


S. Ambrose is the only example in all antiquity (justly proved) that a Bishop did excommunicate a Prince.  
Theodoret. li. 5. cap. 17.  
Theod. lib. 5. cap. 18.  
The manner of S. Ambrose his excommunication.   Saint Ambrose is the only example in all antiquity, which fully proveth that a Bishop did prohibit a Prince to enter the Church and to be partaker of the lords table: which we neither deny, nor dispraise, considering the cause and the manner of the fact. The Prince, for a tumult raised by some of the inhabitants of Thessalonica, caused his soldiers, without finding or searching the doers, to murder the people; were they strangers or Citizens, faultless or faulty, to the number of seven thousand. After this execution at his next coming to the Church, S. Ambrose stepped to the Church door, and said, Thou seemest, O Prince, not to understand what a monstruous slaughter of people is committed by thee, neither doth rage suffer thee to weigh with thyself what thou hast done: yet must thou know that from dust we came, & to dust we shall. Let not therefore the brightness of thy robes hide from thee the weakness of flesh that is under them. Thy subjects are of the same metal which thou art, & serve the same Lord that thou dost. With what eyes therefore wilt thou behold the house of this common Lord, & with what feet wilt thou tread on his holy pavements? Wilt thou reach these hands dropping yet with the blood of innocents to receive the most sacred body of the Lord? Wilt thou put that precious blood of his to thy mouth, which in a rage hast spilled so much Christian blood? Depart rather, and heap not one sin on an other, neither refuse this bond, which the Lord of all doth ratify in heaven. It is not much, and it will restore thee the health of thy soul.  
This strake the Christian Prince to the heart, and turning about he went home with tears: 

Sozome. lib. 7. cap. 24.  
The Jesuits help this story with their admixtions.   and all the time that he was kept out of the Church, as a man in mourning he would not put on his Imperial robes: but that Ambrose commanded him to put off his kingly robes, and to leave his Imperial throne in the Chancel, this is your venomous admixtion; the story saith no such thing. You falsely father it on S. Ambrose, to make men believe, that the Bishop might as well have taken the prince's sceptre and sword from him, as his robes and his throne.  Phi. 
Did not S. Ambrose send him word that he should go out of the Chancel, 
Theodoret. li. 5. cap. 18.  and stand among the people?  Theo. 
After his reconciliation, when they approached to the divine mysteries, the Prince came within the bars which were provided for those that should help the Bishop to minister the lords supper, 
Theod. Ibidem.  as his manner was at Constantinople, to whom the Bishop sent word, being himself at the Lord's table, that those Rails were prepared for the Priests, and that it was not lawful for any man else to come within them. And so Sozomene confesseth. 

Sozome. li. 7. Cap. 24.  
S. Ambrose would not that the prince's presence should hinder the service of God.   The Emperors, saith he, were wont for an excellency above the people to sit in the same place where the Priests were. Ambrose seeing this to favour of flattery assigned the Emperors a place in the Church next to the Chancel, before the people, but after the Priests. This order Theodosius and other Princes that succeeded him, greatly praised, and we see it observed from that day to this. So that Saint Ambrose neither meant to take their seats from them within the Church, nor their robes without the Church; but thought it reason that the Prince's precepts should not trouble the Priests in the service of God. And therefore take flattery and heresy to yourselves again, we like and commend both the piety of the Prince and the gravity of the Bishop: but your malicious depraving of the story and mischievous abusing the zeal of S. Ambrose to warrant rebellions & insurrections against Princes, 
Prince's may be penitent for their sins, & yet keep their Crowns.  whiles they repent them of their sins, we do not like; the more honourable his act, that sought to save the Prince's soul with the hazard of his own life, the more detestable is yours, that fish for Princes Crowns under a show of penance, as if earthly kings might not bewail their sins, and keep their seals, which you are loath they should.  
If Anastasius had been excommunicated by Simachus, it hurteth not us, deposed he was not; 
Anastasius excommunication is not certainly proved.  by him or any other: and with an heretical Prince, neither Simachus, neither any other christian Bishop might communicate: yet even then was the East Church subject to a Prince that favoured Eutiches heresy, and Italy to a follower of Arius; and the contention, which of the two should be Bishop of Rome, 
Liber Pontifi. in vita Symmach.  Symmachus or Laurentius, was referred to the judgement of king Theodoricus an Arian heretic: but that Symmachus did excommunicate Anastasius I find it in no authentic writer. Euagrius saith that some condemned Anastasius as an adversary to the Council of Chalcedon, 
evag. lib. 3. cap. 34.  and reckoned him out of the number of christian Emperors. Yea they of Jerusalem accursed (or excommunicated) him.  

Niceph. lib. 16. cap. 35. Sabel. Aenead. 8. lib. 2. Platina in Gelasio 1. Martinus in Anastasio. joh. Marius de schismat. & council. cap. 6.  Nicephorus rehearsing the words of Euagrius, addeth that they of Jerusalem excommunicated Anastasius yet living, which was more than Euagrius said. Sabellicus and Platina your very friends say this Emperor was excommunicated by Gelasius, the second bishop before Symmachus: Martinus Polonus and johannes Marius affirm it was done by Anastasius the next before Symmachus: you say Symmachus did it: which of these reports is the truest, can you tell? A witness is not trusted if he be taken with two tales, we find you in three, and that touching matters done a thousand years before your time: (the wiser & elder Historiographers whence you should fetch it, as Regino, Sigibertus, Vrspergensis, Frisingensis, Marianus, Scotus and others affirming no such thing; the later and most partial faintly coming in with, 
* Platina in Gelas. 1.  sunt qui scribunt, 
* Sabellicus lib. 2.  ut tradunt quidam, there be that writ so: as some say,) shall we believe you?  
Your Canon Law, the very hart and life of all your records at Rome, hath a very miraculous letter of the Pope Gelasius to this Anastasius, where Gelasius telleth the Emperor how Zacharie Bishop of Rome deposed the king of France and put Pipine the father of Charles the Emperor in his place, 
Caus. 15. quaest. 6. ¶ Alius.  and discharged all the Frenchmen from their oath and allegiance: Whereas Zacharie was Bishop of Rome two hundredth and forty years after Gelasius was dead, and Charles began not his Empire till eight hundredth after Christ, Gelasius dying within five hundredth. Thus Hilderike king of France was deposed two hundredth years before he was borne: 
A strange kind of deposing Princes.  and Gelasius wrote news of Charles three hundredth years after Gelasius was dead and buried. By such devices you may soon depose Princes, if not by mutinies, yet at least by prophecies.  Phi. 
The gloze warneth you that some take these to be Gratian'S, and not Gelasius words.  Theo. 
But Gratian himself warned you before that they were Gelasius words to Anastasius the Emperor: for so he prefixeth the title. unde Gelasius Papa Anastasio Imperatori. 
Ibidem.  In which sense Pope Gelasius wrote thus to the Emperor Anastasius. Then follow these words summed in red letters before, as his manner of alleging is throughout the whole body of your Canon Law. And therefore unless you will say the collector of your Decrees & Decretals wrote the title waking, and the text sleeping; you can not choose but see what mortar hath been used at Rome to plaster your holy fathers rotten right to depose Princes. 
Michael's excommunication witnessed in no ancient writer.   
Lotharius and Michael Emperors, you say, were excommunicated by Nicholas the first. If we should ask you how you prove it, perhaps it would trouble you more than you think. Late writers in this case we trust not, & ancient we find none that report any such thing of Michael. 
Platina in Nicolao 1. Zonara's in Michaele filio Theophili.  Platina saith, that Nicholas the first entertained the Ambassadors of this Michael with great courtesy & sent them home with presents (to their master.) Zonara's a Grecian confesseth that the legates of the Bishop of Rome in a Council assembled at Constantinople, deposed Ignatius and confirmed Photius. And though you have shuffled into your Decretals a flaunting Epistle under the name of Nicholas the first to this Michael to frustrate the judgement of those corrupt Legates, and to reprove the Prince for his over-lustie letters, 
Epist. Nicolai 1. ad Michael. Imperatorem, tomo. council. 2.  yet know you that no good story maketh mention of any such strife between them; and that in the letter itself, notwithstanding it be a perfect image of your shyfting and forging to make the Pope's pride somewhat ancient, yet is there no word nor sign of excommunication denounced or threatened against Michael.  
Lotharius you grossly mistake; it was not the Emperor, whom Nicholas the first offered to excommunicate, but a king of Lorraine named Lotharius and brother to Lodovic the second, 

Regino in anno 855. & Otho ●rising. lib. 6. cap. 2.  
Regino in anno 866.   that held the Empire both during the life of Nicholas the first, & after his death. Neither did the Pope excommunicate that king as you avouch; but he willed the king to beware lest he fell within the compass of that sentence which was given against his harlot, and lest himself were forced to publish that his wilfulness to the Church, and so the King should become as an Ethnic and Publican to all Christians. And that the deed was not done you may perceive by Pope adrian's behaviour & speech to 

Regino in anno 869.  
Otho Frisingen. lib. 6. cap. 3.   Lotharius, and the rest, when he ministered the Lords Supper to them at their coming to Rome: yet the attempt was so strange, that Otho Frisingensis saith, See the kingdom decreasing, and the Church aspiring to that authority, that she will judge kings.  
The famous, and as you say majestical excommunication of Arcadius and Eudoxia by Innocentius, 
This excommunication is proved to be a mere forgery before.  well near 1200. years ago, is a ridiculous and peevish corruption devised by some practiser at Rome, and embraced over greedily by Nicephorus, and other later Grecians in favour of chrysostom. Which insolent fancy wide from the matter we strive for, and full of forgery, because it is refuted before, I may well overskip. If it were true, as it is apparently false, it removeth Princes from the Sacraments, but not from their Sceptres.  
Thus of seven examples pretended, that Princes were excommunicated in the ancient times of the Church, only one is duly proved, and no more within 860. years after Christ: & that not by the Bishop of Rome, but by S. Ambrose Bishop of Milan. 
Of seven examples but one proved, and that of no Bishop of Rome.  The rest are either enforced against the stories of the Church, or boldly presumed by you besides the stories. And yet were they all proved and confessed, they make nothing for your purpose. The question is not whether bishops shall receive kings with open and obstinate vices to the lords table, but whether they may chase them from their kingdoms or no. We mislike not repentance in Princes, but resistance in subjects; bind their sins as fast as you can, but pull them not down from their Seats.  


The cause why the Church of Christ did so rarely excommunicate Princes.  
August. contra Parmenian. lib. 3. cap. 2.  
Excommunications of whole realms than be much more proud, pernicious & sacrilegious. August. contra epist. Parmen. lib. 3. cap. 2.   And yet lest you should think that Princes than had no faults, or that learned and godly Bishops did in those days forbear to excommunicate Princes rather for fear or flattery, than for any Religion or duty: mark what care S. Augustine will have observed, how and when discipline should be used. If contagion of sin have invaded a multitude, the merciful severity of correction from God himself is necessary; nam consilia separationis & inania sunt, & perniciosa, atque sacrilega, quia & impia, & superba fiunt, & plus perturbant infirmos bonos, quàm corrigant animosos malos: For (then) the attempt to excommunicate is frustrate, and pernicious, yea sacrilegious: because it becometh both impious and arrogant, and more troubleth the good that be weak, than correcteth the evil that be careless.  
Neither was this the judgement of S. Augustine alone: but the general wisdom of Christ's church, as himself professeth when he entereth into this question. In hac velut angustia quaestionis non aliquid nowm aut insolitum dicam, sed quod sanitas observat ecclesiae, ut cum quisque fratrum, id est Christianorum intus in ecclesiae societate constitutorum, in aliquo tali peccato fuerit deprehensus, ut anathemate dignus habeatur, fiat hoc ubi periculum schismatis nullum est, atque id cum ea dilectione de qua ipse alibi praecepit dicens, ut inimicum non eum existimetis, sed corripite ut fratrew. Non enim estis ad eradicandum, sed ad corrigendum. In the straightness of this question I will say nothing that is new or unwonted, but that which the soundness of the church observeth: 
The whole Church observed this moderation which Austen speaketh of.  that when any of our brethren, I mean Christians within the Church is deprehended in any such fault that he deserveth excommunication, let that be done, where there is no danger of any schism: and with such love as the Apostle commanded saying, Esteem him not as an enemy, but rebuke him as a brother. For you are not to root up but to amend.  
And to this end S. Augustine largely disputeth throughout that chapter, showing that excommunication is not to be used, where a schism is justly feared. 
August. Ibidem. lib. 3. cap. 2.  It can not be an healthful reproving by many, but when he that is reproved hath no number to take his part. But if the same disease hath possessed many, the good have nothing left for them to do but to sorrow and mourn. And therefore the same Apostle finding many defiled with fornication and uncleanness, in his second epistle to the same Corinthians, doth not command them not to eat meat with such. He that calleth excommunication, a proud, pernicious and sacrilegious attempt, where any number is linked together, that a schism may follow, what would he have said to you, that excommunicate Princes and whole Realms, whence not only dangerous schisms, but also cruel persecutions easily may, & commonly do arise?  

2. Thesalo. 3. The subject neither may nor can fly the Prince's company.  Again, the end of excommunication which Saint Paul toucheth, and the mean which he prescribeth do cease in Princes. If any man obey not our sayings, have no company with him that he may be ashamed. Now the prince's company the subjects may not fly, both in respect of the necessity, that all men have to deal with the magistrate, & duty that must be yielded to the Prince's person and precepts. And how should the people make their Prince ashamed, whom by God's Law they must honour and obey in all things, and by whom they must justly be punished if they offer default in any thing? And this the church of God wisely considering never urged any Subjects to dishonour their Princes, neither did Saint Ambrose separate Theodosius from the company of men: but he charged him in God's name to refrain the church and Sacraments until he appeased the wrath of God by repentance. He charged not the people to disgrace or shun their Prince, but he burdened the Princes own conscience, 
Theodoret. lib. 5 cap. 18.  knowing full well his religious disposition, and offering his life into the Prince's hands, if he misliked the fact.  
Yourselves provide for this mischief, but, as your manner is, by wicked & crafty dissembling, 
The Jesuits provide for this mischief by wily dissembling with Princes, till they be strong enough to take their crowns from them.  not by christian and sober forbearing the thing which you should not adventure. The Pope who is far enough off and free from all hazards, he must first pronounce the sentence, you will stand by and watch your time, when you may safely without loss of life or goods put his sentence in execution: till that pinch come, you may swear and stare, you be loving and obedient Subjects: but then in any case you must show yourselves, or else you be accursed for ever. Toledo teacheth you, that if there be danger of life or goods, you may finely juggle with excommunicate Princes, and serve them, and honour them with all circumstances, till you be strong enough to take their Crowns from their heads in spite of their hearts, and then you must spare them 
* Tum demum, obliget Catholicos, quando publica eiusdem bullae executio fieri poterit. facultas concessa Roberto Parsonio & Edmundo Campiano, 14. April. 1480. 8. Tim. 2. jerem. 19  no longer: and so much the dispensation which Campion and Parsons obtained of his holiness, when they came into this Realm, importeth.  Phi. 
Would you that men should communicate with heretical Princes?  Theo. 
Condemn their errors but pray for their persons: for so the Apostle willeth you. I exhort you therefore, that first of all supplications, prayers and intercessions be made for kings and for all that are in authority: when kings were Infidels and Idolaters. So God commanded his people, when they were carried to Babylon. Seek the prosperity of the city, whether I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray to the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall you have peace. Which Tertullian witnesseth the christians did in all their public assemblies. 

Tertul. in Apologet.  
The christians prayed not only for their conversion, but also for their health and welfare.   We call upon the everlasting God for the health of our Emperors, always beseeching God to send every of them long life, happy reign, trusty servants, valiant soldiers, faithful counsellors, orderly subjects, and the world quiet: and what soever people or Prince can wish for. Examine yourselves how far you be from the innocency and integrity of Christ's church. They wished all happiness to heathen Princes, and prayed for the security of their lives, and prosperity of their states. You curse and ban christian Princes, and lay plots not only for enemies to invade them, but for subjects to shake off the yoke, and shorten the days of their natural and lawful Princes.  Phi. 
The church of Christ prayed for her Princes if they were Pagans, 
The church prayed for the prosperity of heretical Princes.  but not if they were heretics.  Theo. 
What was Constantius; a Pagan or an heretic.  Phi. 
An Arian.  Theo. 
For him the church prayed.  Phi. 
For his conversion.  Theo. 
For his health, reign, and welfare.  Phi. 
Heretics perhaps, like himself, did.  Theo. 
I say catholics.  Phi. 
It was then at the beginning of his reign before his impiety was notorious.  Theo. 
About you fetch, and all will not serve. This testimony that the church prayed for Constantius, though an heretic, was given by a Council of catholic Bishops in the 21. year of his reign not long before his death.  Phi. 
Where find you that the church prayed for him?  Theo. 
Read the two letters, which the West Bishops sent from Ariminum to Constantius; and see whether it be not clear. 
Socra. li. 2. ca 37 Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 18.  In the first thus they say, We beseech you that you cause us not to stay from our cures, but that the bishops together with the people serving God in peace, may humbly pray for your health, kingdom and safety, in which the divine Majesty long preserve you. The conclusion of their second letter is this, 

Socrat. Ibidem. Accustomed prayers always made, in the church for Constantius the Arian; & the West Bishops desirous to continue the same.  
Hil. ad Constan. lib. 2.  
Athan. Apolog. ad Constan.   For this cause we beseech your clemency the second time, most religious Lord and Emperor, that you command us to departed to our churches, if it so please your godliness, before the sharpness of winter come, that we may make our accustomed prayers together with the people to the almighty God, and our Lord and Saviour Christ, for your empery, as we have always purposed, and now wish to continue.  
The writings of Hilary and Athanasius to this very Prince confirm the same. We beseech your clemency to permit, saith Hilary, that the people may have such teachers as they like, such as they think well of, such as they choose, & let them solemnize the divine mysteries and make prayers for your safety & prosperity. Athanasius by his prayers made for this prince in the open assembly of the people cleareth himself from having intelligence with Magnentius the murderer of his brother. With what eyes could I behold that bloody homicide? or how could I but call to mind your brother's face, whiles I made my prayers for your health? How could I endure to think evil of your brother, or send letters to his enemy, and not rather pray and beseech God for your welfare, which verily I did? A witness hereof is first the Lord, which hath given you the whole Empire, that was left by your Fathers. There can witness also with me Felicissimus the captain of Egypt, Asternis the Earl, Paladius the master of your Palace, and others. 
The zealous prayer of Atha. and the people for their Prince though an heretic. Athan. Ibidem.  My words were, Let us pray for the welfare of the most religious Emperor Constantius: and presently the whole people with one voice cried; O Christ be favourable to Constantius, and this cry they continued a long time. And appealing to the Emperors own conscience & knowledge: You have good trial that all (the christians) make their prayers and supplications to God that you may live in safety and continually reign in peace. And God grant you, O most gracious Prince, to live many years.  
Hear you deaf of years, and dull of hearts; the church of Christ prayed for heretical Princes in the midst of their impiety and tyranny: And when it was but objected to Athanasius, that he and others wrote letters to one that rebelled and took arms against the Prince: 
Athan. eadem Apol. ad Constan. Rebellion & deprivation of Princes not so much as thought on by christians, and specially by Bishops.  he made answer, Vincat quaeso apud the veritas, & ne relinquas suspicionem contra univer same Ecclesiam, quasi talia aut cogitentur aut scribantur à christianis & potissimum Episcopis. I beseech you, let truth take place with you, and leave not this suspicion upon the catholic church, as though any such things were written or thought on by Christians, and especially by Bishops. How far then were these men from your humours, which profess to depose Princes, and not only licence Subjects to rebel, but incite them to kill their Sovereigns, as you did lately Parry with pardon, praise, and recompense both here and in heaven?  Phi. 
They might do this in the beginning of his reign before he discovered his heresy.  Theo. 
These be senseless shifts. Hilarius wrote his book after the Council kept at Milan by Constantius, and Athanasius his, after Liberius was banished. For those points be mentioned in their writings, and fell out the one immediately before the other after the Council of Ariminum. And therefore the rathest of these defences came seventeen years after the beginning of Constantius reign and in the hottest of his tyrannical and heretical persecution, as the books themselves declare: And yet they not only endured but also obeyed him as their liege Lord, and detested all resistance in deed and thought as unlawful for Christians, and chief for Bishops  Phi. 
But when in process of time some Princes, 

The defence, Cap. 5.  
When & upon what occasions spiritual Pastors began to use the temporal sword.   through God's just judgement & the people's sin, were fallen to such contempt of religion (as it lightly happeneth by heresy and Apostasy) that excommunication, being only but a spiritual penalty, or other ordinary Ecclesiastical discipline would not serve: then as well Bishops as other godly persons, their own Subjects, did crave aid and arms of other Princes for their chastisement; as most holy and ancient Popes (even in the old days when the Protestants confess them to have been godly Bishops) did incite catholic kings to the same: that those whom the spiritual rod could not fruitfully chastise, they might by extern or temporal force bring them to order and repentance; or at least defend their innocent Catholic Subjects from unjust vexation.  Theo. 
You begin now to show yourselves in your right kind. From the church you leap to the field; meaning belike, as julius the second did, that since Peter's keys will not pleasure you, Paul's sword shall better steed you. The side of your book seemeth to direct us when, and upon what occasion spiritual Pastors began to use the temporal sword, 
Spiritual Pastors never used the temporal sword till the Pope began to rule all at his pleasure.  but the text itself runneth quite awry. We find there neither time prefixed nor spiritual Pastor named that ever used the temporal sword. Are rebellions such trifles with you, that you think to prove them with a Marginal note?  Phi. 
There is no war in the world so just or honourable, 
The defence, Cap. 5.  be it civil or foreign, as that which is waged for religion, 
War for the Catholic religion both lawful and honourable.  we say for the true, ancient, Catholic, Roman religion; which by the laws of holy church and all christian Nations, is adjudged to be the only true worship of God; and unto the obedience of which all Princes & people have yielded themselves, either by oath, vow, or sacraments, or every of these ways. For this, it is goodly and honourable to fight in such order and times, as we be warranted in conscience and law, by our supreme Pastors and Priests; and not for wild condemned heresies, against most lawful christian catholics, kings & Priests; as the rebellious Protestants and calvinists of this time do, without all order, law, or warrant of God or man. As the arms taken for defence of godly honour and inheritance in such sort & difference from heretical tumults, as is said, are so much more commendable and glorious; for that no crime in the world deserveth more sharp and zealous pursuit of extreme revenge, (whether it be in superiors or subjects) than revolting from the faith to strange religions.  Theo. 
Be you not marvelous sharp and sound disputers, which always prove that you need not, and ever infer that you should not?  Phi. 
We prove directly that which we undertook.  Theo. 
What undertook you?  Phi. 
That Princes might be deprived.  Theo. 
By sentence, mean you, or by violence?  Phi. 
By sentence if that will serve: but if they yield not thereto, then by violence.  Theo. 
Your judicial power to give sentence of deprivation against them, you would feign have established by the Scriptures and examples of the primative church: how short you came of that reckoning, I leave the wise to consider: You proceed now to the violent expelling them from their Princely seats, wherein it is a world to see how idly you hunt about, or rather purposely pursue the wrong foot, because in the right you find no relief.  

The Jesuits should prove that subjects may rebel against their Princes for religion, and they show that one Prince may war upon another.  War for the Catholic Religion is both lawful and honourable, you say: you must add of the subjects against their Prince, or else you range clean besides our question. We strive not what causes may lead christian Princes to make war on their neighbours, but whether it be lawful or tolerable for the subject to bear arms against his natural and absolute Prince. You prove, which is nothing to your purpose, that princes have waged wars for religion: & when you come to make your conclusion, you secretly convey this under hand which is most in doubtt betwixt us, and in general terms you proclaim that wars for religion are just and honourable. But Sir in this enterprise the person must be respected as well as the cause. 
In all wars the person must be warranted to draw the sword, as well as the cause good that they fight for.  Be the cause never so just, if the person be not authorized by God to draw the sword, they be no just nor lawful wars but barbarous and theenish uproars. For say yourself, when malefactors deserve to die, may private men put them to death without the Magistrate?  Phi. 
No.  Theo. 
And if they do, be they not murderers, though the crime which they revenge, be worthy of death?  Phi. 
They be.  Theo. 
Then if in private punishments men may not presume without his authority that beareth the sword, much less may they venture on open wars (which are wilful and furious executions by plain force without all order of justice) unless they be directly warranted by him that hath the sword from God to take vengeance of the wicked.  Phi. 
We be warranted in conscience and law.  Theo. 
We talk now of your conclusion, not of your commission. If Princes who bear the sword may lawfully wage war for religion, is it consequent, I ask you, that private men which have not the sword may do the same?  Phi. 
Private men may not bear arms without authority. 
Private men can give no warrant to use the sword.   Theo. 
And if they do, be they not plain thieves and murderers?  Phi. 
If they be not warranted to fight.  Theo. 
To rifle and slay one is theft and murder by the laws of God and man, what then are they that spoil Realms and kill thousands with armed violence, but grand thieves and murderers? 
They be but thieves and murderers that use the sword without the magistrates authority.   Phi. 
If they be not lawfully authorized thereto, they be no better than robbers and slaughterer's.  Theo. 
Then Princes may mage war if the cause be good, because God hath given them the sword to maintain justice: and, if that be refused, to offer force both at home and abroad; private persons may not do the like, be the cause never so just, for so much as they be not licensed by God to bear or use the sword.  Phi. 
I told you before, 
pastors can authorize no man to use the sword. They that bear it by God's ordinance, must licence others to use it. Pastors be no superior judges for bearing arms  that we be warranted.  Theo. 
So had you need. Your wars else for religion be no lawful & just arms, but desperate and wicked tumults. But by whom are you warranted?  Phi. 
By our supreme Pastors and Priests.  Theo. 
Do Pastors and Priests bear the sword?  Phi. 
I say not so, but they warrant us to take the sword.  Theo. 
Can they warrant you to take the sword, that have no authority to bear the sword?  Phi. 
They be superior judges to these that bear the sword.  Theo. 
What? In temporal causes?  Phi. 
No, but in spiritual,  Theo. 
Fight and killing are martial, not spiritual affairs.  Phi. 
Yet to be directed by spiritual Pastors.  Theo. 
We strive not for directing, but for authorizing of arms. Preachers may be consulted whether the quarrel be just, but only the Magistrate that hath from heaven supreme power of goods, lands, life and death can warrant the subject to use the sword.  Phi. 
The cause maketh the war lawful or otherwise. 
The defence.  It is godly and honourable to fight for religion, we say: for the true, ancient, catholic, Roman religion, in such order and time as we be warranted in conscience and law by our supreme Pastors & Priests: and not for vile condemned heresies against most lawful christian catholic kings and Priests as the rebellious Protestants and calvinists of this time do, without all order, law, warrant of God or man.  Theo. 
If Nabals' sheep be not all shorn, I dare warrant you better entertainment there, than ever David had. Spoils, massacres, conspiracies and treasons even to the destruction and murder of Princes by their own servants, 
How favourable the Papists be to their own tumults.  if a Priest say the word, you count in yourselves to be just, honourable and godly wars: If others do but stand on their guard to keep their lives and families from the bloody rage of their enemies, seeking to put whole towns and Provinces of them to the sword against all law and reason, and to disturb the kingdoms in the minority of the right Governors: or if they defend their ancient and christian liberties covenanted and agreed on by those Princes to whom they first submitted themselves, and ever since confirmed and allowed by the kings that have succeeded. If in either of these two cases the godly require their right and offer no wrong, impugn not their Princes, but only save their own lives, you cry, rebellious heretics, rebellious calvinists, fury, frenzy, mutiny, 

Laws of their own making do not excuse them from rebellion.  
The Jesuits take arms to depose Princes, that is, to subvert their states & lives, whom by God's law they should honour and obey.   & I know not what. You may pursue, depose & murder Princes, when the Bishop of Rome biddeth you & that without breach of duty, law, or conscience to God or man, as you vaunt, though neither life nor limb of yours be touched: we may not so much as beseech Princes that we may be used like subjects not like slaves, like men not like beasts, that we may be convented by laws before judges, not murdered in corners by inquisitors: we may not so much as hide our heads, nor pull our necks out of the greedy jaws of that Romish wolf, but the foam of your unclean mouth is ready to call us by all the names you can devise.  
Howbeit look well to yourselves: it is not enough for you to have laws of your own making to licence you to bear arms against your Prince, you must have God's law for your warrant: or else you come within the compass of heinous and horrible rebellion. For you do not defend yourselves, but impugn your Prince: you seek not the freedom of your religion, but the subversion of other men's estates: you do not take arms that your condition may be tolerable, but that her highness should be no Prince: you save not your own lives, but intent her death. These shameful and manifest treasons, against the law of God, nature and nations you smooth with a few faint colours, and publish them to the whole world for just, honourable, and godly wars. But deceive not yourselves: the breath of your mouths may not overbear the laws of God & states of men. You must show some better warrant than the Pope's decrees, or else your rising in arms against your Prince, though the Bishop of Rome back and abet you with all his Bulls and Decretals, is an unlawful, irreligious and wicked rebellion.  Phi. 


The defence.  
cap. 15. 2. Paral. cap. 15.   Whosoever seeketh not after the Lord God of Israel, let him be slain (said king Asa admonished by Azaria the Prophet) from the highest to the lowest without exception. And all the people and many that followed him and fled to him out of Israel from the schism there, did swear and vow themselves in the quarrel of the God of their forefathers. And they prospered and deposed Queen Maáchah Mother to Asa for Apostasy, and for worshipping the venereous God called Priapus.  Theo. 
Doth the example of king Asa, forcing his Subjects with an oath and under pain of death to seek after the Lord God of Israel, 
A king forcing his people is no proof for subjects oppressing their Prince.  serve you to prove that Subjects may assault their king and oppress him with arms? Will this go for a reason with you? The Magistrate may use the sword and put offenders to death, ergo the Subject may use the same and that against his Prince. Sure if you make such collections, we shall mistrust rebellion hath so possessed your brains, that reason hath no place in you.  Phi. 
This example proveth that heretics may be deposed, and put to death.  Theo. 
But by whom? By the Prince, or the people?  Phi. 
The king I grant was the doer.  Theo. 
Then seek farther for your conspiracies against kings; this example will do you no good.  Phi. 
The people that fled to him out of Israel from the schism there, did swear and vow themselves in the same quarrel with the king of judah. 
These strangers did take an oath to serve God, but not to impugn their Prince.   Theo. 
The strangers that fled out of Israel for their conscience sake, took an oath to serve the same God, but not to bear arms against their own country.  Phi. 
They prospered and deposed Queen Maáchah mother to Asa for Apostasy and for worshipping the venereous God Priapus.  Theo. 
You enlarge the number where you should not: which by your leave is a plain corruption of the Scripture. The text is, 
2. Chron. 15. 3. Kings 15. The mother could have no right to the Sceptre her son being in full possession of the crown.  And king Asa deposed Maáchah his mother from her regency, because she had made an idol. And again, not (they) but he deposed Maáchah his mother from her estate because she had made an idol. The Queen mother was removed from her honour & dignity by the king her son for her idolatry: but Asa did not put her to death though that were the sum of the oath which the king and the rest took: and he that did this deed, was the true king of judah, and in full possession of the crown many years before, and suffered his mother not in her own right but of reverence & courtesy towards her, to enjoy some part of her former degree and dignity: from the which he lawfully might and worthily did put her when she fell to erecting and worshipping Idols.  Phi. 
The text noteth not how long he was king, before he deposed his mother. 
2. Chron. 15.   Theo. 
After the death of Abiah, Asa his son (saith the Scripture) reigned in his steed, in whose days the Land was quiet ten years. Then came the AEthiopians out against him with an huge high host, & those he overthrew. And at his return the Prophet Azariah met him and encouraged him to go forward in the reformation of the Land, which he performed in all the Cities of judah and Benjamin; and gathered all the people of the Land together, in the fifteenth year of his reign, 

Asa had been king 15. years & above, before he removed his mother from her dignity.  
Asaes' mother lost the dignity which she had, but not the crown, which she had not.  
The defence, cap. 5.  
Deut. cap. 13.   where this oath was taken and pain appointed, before his mother was deposed. So that he, not she was rightful Governor of judah; and that which she lost was either the honour and dignity which otherwise did appertain to so great a State as the kings mother: or else that portion of the Land which was assigned to her to rule under the king in respect of her dowry. Howsoever, the kingdom she had not: and therefore the crown she lost not, neither find you here a Prince deposed by his subjects, but a Prince removing her that in nature was his mother, in condition his subject, from that authority or dignity (choose you whether) which before of favour not of duty he suffered her to have.  Phi. 
For that case also in Deuteronomie express charge was given to slay all false Prophets, and whosoever should avert the people from the true worship of God, & induce them to receive strange Gods and new religions; and to destroy all their followers, were they never so near us by nature. And in the same place; that if any City should revolt from the received and prescribed worship of God, & begin to admit new religions; it should be utterly wasted by fire and sword.  Theo. 

Death by God's law provided not for heretics, but for Apostates.  The commandment in Deuteronomie toucheth not heretics, but manifest Apostates, such as clean forsook the very name and outward profession of God, and served strange and new gods: and the rigour of this precept, I mean the punishment doth not bind us that are under the Gospel by the judgement of the best learned that ever taught in the church of Christ. For by the same law of God blasphemers, 

levit. 24.20. Exod. 22.21. The penalties of Moses law stand not in force under the Gospel. Aug. contra Cresc. li. 3. ca 50 nullis bonis in catholica hoc placet, si usque ad mortem in quemquam, licet haereticum saeviatur.  
Deut. 13.   adulterers, witches, strikers and cursers of Parents should die: Which penalties your own church did never execute, nor any christian Magistrate that ever we read of. Touching heretics you heard Saint Augustine's opinion before, that it never pleased any good man in the catholic church that heretics should be put to death. And therefore the ancient Fathers did not extend these precepts to heresy as you do, or else they thought themselves and the church of Christ not bound to the judicial part of Moses law, which properly concerned the jews Commonwealth and expired at the coming of our Saviour. But admit this place were meant of heresy, which is not so; when God saith, that Prophets shallbe slain: and thou shalt slay the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword and destroy it utterly: doth he speak to private or public persons? To private men he said, 
* Exod. 20.  thou shalt not kill; ergo this precept, he shall be slain, is directed to the Magistrate to whom God gave the sword for this purpose, that he should take vengeance of the wicked in his name and according to his law.  Phi. 
What if the Magistrate himself be the party that so sinneth, and should be put to death: shall he escape?  Theo. 
That is the case which you take in hand to prove, that the people may punish the Prince offending as well as the Prince may the people.  Phi. 
Either the people, or none must do it.  Theo. 
And since the people may not do it, it is evident that God hath reserved the magistrate to be punished by himself, and not given the people power over their Prince. 
The Prince is to punish others, and not to be punished by others.  David committed adultery, Solomon e●ected Idolatry; both offences being death by God's law. Might the people therefore have put David & Solomon to death? In many christian commonwealths, rapes, thestes, murders, be capital crimes and punished by death: shall the people therefore take their Princes if they be culpable in any of these, and by their own laws chop off their heads? I think you be not so mad to put the sword in every man's hand that first will use it.  Phi. 

Princes when they sin must be left to the righteous judgement of God.  Then Princes have impunity to do what they list without fear of Laws.  Theo. 
Princes appoint penalties for others, not for themselves. They bear the sword over others, not others over them. Subjects must be punished by them, and they by none, but by God whose place they supply. Saint cyril saith rightly, Nemo leges Regum impunè reprobat nisi Reges ipsi, in quibus praevaricationis crimen locum non habet. Prudenter enim dictum est, impium esse qui regi dixerit, iniquè agis. No man may break the laws of Princes without punishment but the Princes themselves, who may not be charged with the transgression (of their own Laws.) For it was wisely spoken, he is wicked that sayeth to a king thou art an offender. And if it be a monster in nature and policy to suffer the children to chastise the father, 
Children may not chastise their parents though faulty: much less subjects their Sovereigns. Deut. 25. Execution done upon Princes.  and the servants to punish the Master, what a barbarous and impious devise of yours is this to give the Subjects power of life and death over their Princes? Stick not to these things, if you be wise; least Children and Servants think it more need, you be purged for Frenzy, than answered by Divinity.  Phi. 
Neither pertaineth this to poor men only, but to the Governors and Leaders of the people most of all. As we see in the book of Numbers, where Moses by the commandment of God caused all the Princes of the people to be hanged upon Gibbettes against the Sun, for communication in sacrifice with the Moabites; and the rest of the people every one by the hand of his neighbour to be put to the sword for the same fault: wherein Phinees the Priest of God by slaying a chief Captain with his own hands deserved eternal praise and the perpetuity of his Priesthood. 
You would slay 3000.  By Moses also his appointment the faithful Levites slew 3300. of their neighbours, brethren, and friends, for committing idolatry and forsaking the true God. Mary in all this (as you see by the examples alleged) the Prophet and Priests must direct them for the cause and action, that they err not of fantasy, partiality, pride, and pretence of Religion, as heretics and rebels do, but the quarrel must be for the old faith, service and Priesthood, against innovation; and directed and allowed by those which by order and function have charge of our souls.  Theo. 
Can you see no difference between Nobles that be Subjects, and the Prince that beareth the sword? 
Numb. 25.4. Vers. 1. 2. This fact had the commandment of God and the magistrate for a warrant, rebellion against Princes hath neither.  Moses the chief Magistrate was commanded by God to hang up the heads and captains of the people for committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab and bowing down to their gods; and so he did. Your conclusion is; ergo the people may do the like to their Magistrates. You may hang this reason on a hedge for the goodness of it. Your antecedent hath two sufficient warrants, which your conclusion lacketh. First God precisely commanded that kind of revenge to be taken: and secondly the Magistrate was the revenger. How can you then upon this infer that Subjects may do the same, since Subjects be no magistrates, and have a straight commandment from God not to lay hands on his anointed?  Phi. 
Phinees the Priest of God slew Zimri the Prince of the house of Simeon, with his own hands, and thereby got the perpetuity of his Priesthood.  Theo. 
Phinees had for his warrant afore he did the deed the voice both of God and the Magistrate. For Moses had charged the judges of Israel before Zimri came with the woman of Midian into the tents: 
Numb. 25.5.  Every one slay his men that joined unto Baal Peor. And the Magistrate commanding, as in this case you see he did, it was lawful for Phinees or any other private person to execute that sentence.  Phi. 
Why then was Phinees so highly commended and recompensed at God's hands? 
God embraced the zeal of Phinees not for using the sword without authority, but for neglecting his own dignity, whiles he did execute the precept of God & the magistrate.   Theo. 
Not for attempting to kill without commission as you imagine, but for his readiness to accomplish the will of God, and word of Moses with his own hands in the sight of them all, and hastening in his own person to do that execution though he were the chief Prince of the tribe of Levy, and son to Eleazar the high Priest: whose zeal for his service God so embraced, that he willed the office of the high Priest, after his father's death to remain to him and his line for ever.  Phi. 
The Levites, before that, slew 3300. of their neighbours, brethren and friends for committing idolatry and forsaking the true God.  Theo. 
Why should they not, when as God and the Magistrate appointed them so to do? Moses gave them the charge in these words: 

Exod. 32.  
The Levites were charged by God & the Magistrate to do this execution.   Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side, and go to and fro, from gate to gate through the host, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did as Moses had commanded, and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. What fact can be more lawful than where God prescribeth what shall be done, and he that beareth the sword authoriseth others to do it?  Phi. 
The Priests you see made this slaughter of the people.  Theo. 
The Levites were not all Priests, though they were to attend on the Ark, and the rest of the service of God: Aaron and his sons had the Priesthood and not the whole Tribe of Levi. The Scripture itself will give you that distinction. The Levites were appointed unto all the service of the Tabernacle of the house of God. 
1. Chron. 6.  But Aaron and his sons burnt incense upon the Altar of burnt offering. And what should let the Levites to bear arms at Moses commandment, who afterward in defence of king joash at his coronation, in the Temple, did compass him, 
●. Chron. 23.  Every man with his weapon in his hand? Against the Magistrate they did not bend their swords as you do, but rather for obedience to the Magistrate, and therefore their example will not warrant your displaying of banners against your Prince.  Phi. 
Was Moses a Magistrate?  Theo. 
How think you, was he not?  Phi. 

Moses was a Magistrate. Gen. 14. Priests and Prophets among the jews were sometimes magistrates. Psalm. 99  The Scripture sayeth he was a Priest and a Prophet, not a Prince.  Theo. 
Those be no reasons to exclude him from bearing the sword. Melchizedec was a Priest of the most high God and king of Salem. Ely was a Priest and Samuel a Prophet, and yet both were Sovereign Rulers over Israel. Moses might anoint Aaron at the first erection of the Priesthood, and deliver the law of God unto the people, and yet keep the Civil regiment.  Phi. 
Why then doth David number Moses and Aaron among the Priests of God?  Theo. 
The word which David useth doth signify those that be chief in any service as well as Priests: as in the second of Samuel the eight chapter where it is said that 
* 2. Sam. 8.  Zadoc and Abimelec (the Sons of Phinees) were the Priests, it is presently added, and the sons of David c●hanìm haìu were (no Priests, but) chief Princes or Rulers: And yet the word is the very same that was used before to Zadoc and Abimelec the sons of Aaron. So in the 20. of the same book 
* 2. Sam. 20. The word cohen signifieth as well a Prince as a Priest.  Zadoc and Abiathar were Pristes' and Ira the jairite was cohen ledavid, not a Priest to David, for that had been wickedness against the law of God to make a mere stranger that was no Levite a priest, but a chief Prince about David. And so David joineth Moses and Aaron as the Principal servitors about God, and chief Rulers of the people: Moses for regiment, Aaron for sacrifices.  
And did the word exactly signify Priests, the letter beth which goeth before it, importeth either in the number of the Priests or together with the Priests: so that Moses and Aaron with the Priests called on the name of the Lord. But that Moses was a Priest after Aaron and his sons were anointed, is a manifest untruth against the Scriptures. God said to Moses, 
Exod. 40. Aaron & his sons only had the priesthood  Thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments and shalt anoint him. And sanctify him that he may serve me in the priests office. Thou shalt also bring his sons, and clothe them with garments. And shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their Father, that they may serve me in the Priest's office: so shall this their anointing be to them for an everlasting Priesthood in their generations. 
Numb. 3. Moses was Aaron's brother and not his son.  And again, Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons to execute the priests office, and the stranger that cometh near shall die. Which precept excluded not only the rest of the Tribes, but even the Levites themselves, that were not the sons of Aaron, from being priests or meddling with the sacrifices, that should be offered unto God.  
To Aaron God said: 
Num. 18.  Thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity (or burden) of the priests office. Thy brethren of the Tribe of Levi shalt thou take to minister unto thee: but thou and thy sons with thee shall minister before the Tabernacle of the Testimony. 
Aaron's brethren might not come near the Altar.  They shall keep the charge of all the Tabernacle, but they shall not come near the instruments of the Sanctuary, nor to the Altar, lest they die, both they & you. Where you see the priests office so tied unto Aaron and his sons, that the Levites his brethren, and of his father's family, might watch and ward about the Tabernacle and minister unto him and his sons that were priests, but not come near the Altar nor any instruments of the Sanctuary. How then could Moses be a Priest after Aaron was anointed, when the Priesthood was delivered and confirmed to Aaron only and his sons?  Phi. 
Moses was a Levite.  Theo. 
He was Aaron's brother, 
Moses might anoint Aaron, & yet be no Priest.  but the Priesthood was given to Aaron and his sons.  Phi. 
He anointed Aaron and his sons.  Theo. 
Not by his ordinary function as a Priest, but by special direction from God as a Prophet. For Aaron was called to that office, not by Moses but by God himself, 
Heb. 5.  as the Apostle testifieth, though he were anointed by Moses hands.  Phi. 
Moses might be a Priest before Aaron was called.  Theo. 
If Moses were a Priest, what needed an other to be chosen? Why should Moses be deprived of his Priesthood, he no way displeasing nor offending God? Reason you show both his calling and his anointing, before you challenge the Priesthood for him.  Phi. 
David sayeth he was.  Theo. 
What David sayeth, we saw before. The word by Saint hierom's own observation signifieth a Master or Ruler. 
Hieron. traditiones Hebraicae in libros Regum tomo 3.  Ira Iairites erat sacerdos David, id est magister: sicut alibi scriptum est: filii autem david erant sacerdotes, id est magistri fratrum suorum. Ira the jairite was a Priest of David's, that is a Ruler as it is elsewhere written, the sons of David were Priests that is Rulers of their brethren.  Phi. 

Hieron. in Psal. 98. S. Hierom & S. Aug. take the word Priest largely, for him that teacheth as well as for him that offereth: and in that sense Moses may be called a Priest, notwithstanding he were also a Magistrate. August. in Psalm. 98.  Saint Hierom and Saint Augustine writing upon this Psalm of David affirm that Moses was a Priest.  Theo. 
All that Saint Hierom saith is this: that Moses had the rule of the Law, and Aaron of the Priesthood, and that either of them did foreshow the coming of Christ, with a Priestly kind of proclamation: (Moses) with the sound of the law, and (Aaron) with the bells of his garments. Where S. Hierom calleth the Prophetical function of Moses to teach the people the Laws of God a Priestly kind of proclaiming, and foreshowing that the Son of God should come in flesh to teach us the will of his Father. Saint Augustine useth the word in like sense for that sacred service which Moses yielded unto God in reporting his Laws and precepts to the people. And therefore in the same place he sayeth of Samuel, he was made high Priest, which is expressly against the Scriptures, if you take the word Priest for him that was anointed to offer sacrifices unto God. For Samuel was but a Levite and no Priest, much less high Priest. The sons of Samuel are reckoned in the Scripture itself among the 
* 1. Chron. 6.33.34.  Levites apart from the priests office and lineage, and the high Priesthood was long before 
* Num. 25.13.  given to Phinees and his house by covenant from Gods own mouth, and in the days of Samuel was held by 
1. Sam. 14.  Abiah the son of Abicub, who was directly of the descent of 
* 1. Chron. 6.  Phinees.  
Saint Augustine elsewhere debating this question of Moses and Aaron, resolveth in doubtful manner. 
Aug. quaest. super levit. lib. 3. cap. 23.  Moses and Aaron were both high Priests, or rather Moses (the chief) and Aaron under him: or else Aaron chief for the pontifical attire, and Moses for a more excellent ministery. And in that sense Moses may be called a Priest, if you mean as Saint Augustine doth, an interpreter of Gods will to Aaron and others; which is the right vocation of all Prophets that were no Priests, and common to them all; save that by a more excellent prerogative than any other Prophet of the old Testament had: God spoke to Moses 
* Numb. 12.  mouth to mouth, and 
* Exod. 33.  face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. But this doth not hinder his civil power which was to be chief judge and sovereign executor of justice among th●m, and by virtue thereof to put them to death that were offenders against the law of God. And in his steed succeeded not Eleazar or Phinees the sons of Aaron, but 
* Numb. 27. Deut. 31.  joshua, and 
* judg. 1.  judah the captains and leaders of Israel.  Phi. 
Your collection of Samuel is not true. 
1. Sam. 16. Samuel no Priest.  For God sent him to do sacrifice when he anointed David, and therefore Samuel was a Priest.  Theo. 
My collection is grounded upon the law of God. Samuel was none of the sons of Aaron, ergo Samuel was no Priest, nor might not come near the Altar to offer any sacrifice in his own person.  Phi. 
The Scripture sayeth, 
* 1. Sam. 7.  He took a sucking Lamb and offered it for a burnt offering unto the Lord.  Theo. 
You mistake the speech of the holy Ghost. So jephtah said, 
* judg. 11.  That thing which cometh first out of the doors of mine house to meet me, I will offer it for a burnt offering: & yet jephtah was neither Priest nor Levite. So the Angel said to Manoah, 
* judg. 13.  If thou wilt make a burnt offering offer it to the Lord: and yet Manoah was of the tribe of 
* judg. 13.2.  Dan. Of David that was no Priest the Scripture saith, 
* 2. Sam. 6.  Then David offered burnt offerings & peace offerings before the Lord. And again, 
* 2. Sam. 24.  David built there an Altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings: and the Lord was appeased toward the Land. And likewise of Solomon, The 
* 1. Kings 3.  king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; a thousand burnt offerings did Solomon offer upon that Altar. 
* 1. Kings 9  Thrice a year did Solomon offer burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the Altar which he built to the Lord, and he burnt incense upon the Altar that was before the Lord. 
What the scripture meaneth when it saith that they which were no Priests offered.  Nothing is oftener in the Scriptures than these kinds of speeches: by the which no more is meant, but that either they brought these things to be offered, or else they caused the priests to offer them. For in their own persons they could not sacrifice them, because they were no Priests.  
In that sense the Scripture saith of Saul, that 
* 1. Sam. 13.  He offered a burnt offering at gilgal before Samuel came, not that Saul offered it with his own hands, as you before did fondly imagine, and said he was deposed for aspiring to the spiritual function: but he commanded the Priest to do it, who was then present in the host with the Ark of GOD, as the next chapter doth witness in two several places.  Phi. 
Then was Saul free from sin when Samuel reproved him. 
1. Sam. 14. vers. 3. & 18.   Theo. 
Samuel reproved him for distrusting and disobeying God. 
saul's offence was distrust & impatience: & not sacrificing in his own person.  For when God first advanced Saul to the kingdom, he charged him by the mouth of Samuel to go to Gilgal and there to 
* 1. Sam. 10.  stay seven days (before he ventured to do any sacrifice) till the Prophet were sent to show him what he should do: but he seeing his enemies 
* 1. Sam. 13.  gathered to fight against him on the one side, and his people shrinking from him on the other side, because Samuel came not; began to suspect that Samuel had beguiled him, and therefore upon his own head against the commandment of God, willed the Priest to go forward with his sacrifices, and to consult GOD what he should do. This secret distrust and presumption against the charge which God had given him, was the thing that GOD took in so evil part: and since he would not submit himself to be ruled by GOD and expect his leisure, God rejected him as unfit to govern his people. Neither did Samuel challenge him for invading the priests office, but for not staying the time that God prefixed him, before the Prophet should come.  Philand. 

The defence, Cap. 5. Numb. 27. The punishment of Princes for schism and revolt. 2. Paral. 13. 1. Paral. 21. 4. Reg. 8.  We read in the book of Numbers that the Captain and all the people, were commanded to go in and out, that is to proceed in wars according to the order of Eleazarus the Priest. Such were the wars of Abia & other kings of judah, that fought most justly and prosperously against the schismatical Israelites, and justly possessed the Cities which they conquered in those wars. As also Edom and Libuah revolted from king joram for Religion; even because he forsook the God of their forefathers, and could never be recovered to the same again. Wherein also the example and zeal of the children of Israel was very notable; that they would have denounced war against the Tribe of Reuben and Gad, only for erecting (as they took it) a schismatical altar out of the only place where our Lord appointed that sacrifice should be done unto his honour.  Theo. 
Ye be tried men to interpret Scriptures. The words which you apply to Eleazar the Priest, stand in the text 
* Numb. 27.21.  indifferent to be referred either to God or to jeboshuah, or to Eleazar: and you lustily leave out both GOD and the Magistrate, and will have the Priest to be the Master of the Musters. 
The Priest was to consult God for the kings wars but not to appoint the king what he thought good  And did the words pertain to Eleazar, no such power as you conceive is thereby given to the Priest, to calm and kindle wars when he list, but only to consult the Lord before his Ark, and to report back to the Captain and leader of the people, what the Lord said: that no wars might be undertaken without express warrant from God. This kind of ask counsel at God's mouth in their wars, you should find exemplyfied in sundry places of the old Testament, as judges 
* Ver. 18.28.  twenty, 
* Ver. 18.  first Samuel fourteen, 
* Ver. 2.4.11.12.  first Samuel twentie-three, 
* Ver. 8.  first Samuel thirty. But in this case the Priest had no farther authority than to inquire at God's mouth, and that he did when the king commanded him, which is far from licensing subjects to rebel against their king, as you would have it.  
The wars of 
* 2. Chron. 13. The wars of Abiah were of one Prince against an other.  Abia the king of judah against Israel, were not of Subjects against their Sovereigns, but of a lawful Prince bearing the sword, and thinking to recover the kingdom of Israel, which Roboam his father lost; from his enemies. Where you justify the wars of Abia against Israel more boldly than wisely: GOD himself prohibiting the children of judah and Benjamin in the days of Roboam his Father to 
* 2. Chron. 11.  fight against the children of Israel their brethren, and professing the division of the Kingdom to come from God and not from man.  
If you say that Abia sought not for the kingdom but for Religion, though his own words 
* 
2. Chron. 13.5.  
And not so much for religion as for renting the kingdom of Israel from judah.   sound to the contrary, know you that as jeroboam was stark nought, so Abia for all his cracks and your praises was little better. The holy Ghost, whose report we must believe before yours, saith, that he walked in all the sins of his Father, which he had done before him, and that his heart was not right with the Lord his God. And the sins of his Father are thus described in the Scripture: 
3. Kings 15. 3 Kings. 14.22.  judah wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord, and they provoked him more with their sins, which they committed, than all that which their Fathers had done. For they also made them high places, and images, and groves on every high hill and under every green tree. There were also Sodomites in the Land that did according to all the abominations of the people which the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel. This was in the time of Roboam, & Abia walked in all his ways, 
Abia was as bad as jeroboam.  and therefore lacked not much of jeroboans wickedness, though you make him a victorious & religious conqueror.  
That Edom and Libuah revolted from king joram, is very true: 
4. Kings 8. The men of Edom were profane infidels, and had no respect to religion when they revolted.  but that their revolt was either lawful or for religion, that you prove not. Edom had no such respect; they were profane persons and Infidels, and as soon as they saw their time, they cast off the yoke which the kings of judah had laid upon them. But not long after in the reign of Amaziah, they were meetly well plagued by the king of judah for their revolting, he smiting ten thousand of them with the sword, and taking other ten thousand alive, and casting them down from the top of a rock that they burst all to pieces, 
2. Chron. 25.  thereby to give them a just recompense for their former rebellion.  
The Scripture saith that Libuah, a city of the Priests as appeareth by the first allotment made in the 21. of the book of joshua, 
joshua 21. 4▪ King's 8.  rebelled at the same time, but it commendeth their rebellion no more than it doth the rebellion of Edom. 
Every thing reported in the Scripture is not by & by commended.  It will be as hard for you to prove either of them did well, as that yourselves may do the like. Lewd deeds are reported in the Scripture as will as good: but not commended. No more are these.  Phi. 
The text saith they did it, 
* 2. Chron. 21. They did evil to rebel, or else all the rest that obeyed, did not well.  because (the king of judah) had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers.  Theo. 
The Scripture doth not set down the cause why they might lawfully do it, but addeth this as a reason, why God suffered these troubles to fall on king joram. As if it should have said, no marvel to see these rebel against him, for he had forsaken the God of his fathers. And if this were a fault in king joram to forsake the God of his fathers, as in truth it was, how can the priests of Libuah be excused for severing themselves from the line of David without warrant from God, &, that which was worse, from the temple & service of God established by express commandment at jerusalem? If that be true which you say, that Libuah could never be recovered again to the kingdom of judah, 
This defection of Libuah from the kingdom of judah and temple of God, was directly against the law of God.  yourself convince them of a pestilent & wicked revolt. For though they might pretend religion against king joram, yet against the godly kings of judah which followed, as Ezechia●, josias & others, they could pretend none: & therefore by your own confession it was no defection from jorams idolatry, but a plain rebellion against the kingdom of judah, & an utter renouncing the Altar, Temple, & service of God at jerusalem. Which, how it might stand with their duties to God & his law, we yet conceive not: neither will you ever be able to justify that fact of theirs with all your cunning and eloquence.  
The ten tribes 
* joshua 22. The ten tribes had sufficient authority to fight with twain. judg. 20.  assembled to sight with Reuben & Gad for building an Altar by jordan against the commandment of God: and therein they did but their duties. If you ask by what authority they did it, the answer is easy. Their commonwealth consisting of 12. tribes, & all endued with like sovereignty, ten might lawfully repress two without any farther warrant, as after they did the Beniamits for that filthy fact of the men of Gibeah. But yet at this time joshua lived whom God himself had appointed captain & ruler of the 12. tribes, & therefore besides that authority which the whole had over a part, & that in common regiment is sufficient, there was a superior magistrate at the denouncing of these wars: and though they had fought together as equals, yet will not that example ratify the rebelling of subjects against their Princes, which is your purpose.  Phi. 

The defence, cap. 5. But what fights can you show of subjects against their Princes? The wars of prince against prince are nothing to this purpose.  Since Christ's law & religion was established, diverse great & honourable fights have been made for the faith against princes and provinces that unjustly withstood and annoyed the same.  Theo. 
What wars have been for religion since the coming of Christ, if you mean between Prince & Prince, Realm & Realm, is bootless for you to seek & needless for us to answer. We dispute not what causes may justly be pursued with battle, but what what persons are permitted to take the sword, & against whom. And unto the time of Gregory the 1. (which compass you take to bring us some precedents of your doings) you can not show that ever christian subjects did bear arms against their Princes for any quarrel of regilion, & were allowed. Rebellions were rife in those ages as well as now: but we deny that the Church of Christ, or the godly Bishops of those times did ever consent, allow or like those tumults: much less procure them, or use them for the safeguard of their Sees, as you bear men in hand they did.  Phi. 

The defence, Cap. 5. Euseb. li. 9 ca 6.  In old times of the primative church the christian Armenians lawfully defended themselves by arms against their Emperor Maximinus.  Theo. 
You that fear not to deprave the scriptures, will make no bones to corrupt & vitiate other Stories at your pleasures. 
The Armenians were no subjects but confederates.  The Armenians, being no subjects but confederates, when Maximinus would have compelled them to worship idols, & to that end offered them force, resisted; as they lawfully might, & of fellows & friends became strangers & adversaries. The words of Eusebius are very plain for that purpose. Maximinus had also war with the Armenians, 
Euseb. li. 9 ca 7.  who of long time before that had been friends & confederates with the Romans. That people being christians & very devout, this hateful tyrant attempting to force to the sacrifices of idols & devils, made them of friends foes, & of colleagues enemies.  Phi. 
The Catholic people of divers Provinces have often by force defended and kept their Bishops in their seats, 

The defence, Cap. 5.  
Wars made for religion.   against the Infidels; but specially against the commandments of heretical Emperors: yea and resisted them in defence of their Churches, and the sacred goods of the same. As the Citizens of Antioch defended their Church, against the Emperor Galerius his officers.  Theo. 
Your general and voluntary reports we may hardly trust, 
It is not enough to prove that some rebelled but this also must be showed that their rebellion was allowed.  since your special instances be so corrupted and wrested. And could you show that which you speak of, as you can not, you must also prove it well done, or at le●t to have been liked and allowed of the Church of Christ before we can receive it. The Apostles rule is strong against it: 
* Rom. 13. Well they might shut the Church doors against Ethnics whiles they were at the divine mysteries, but they never rebelled nor refused to suffer any punishment that Galerius or others would inflict on them.  You must be subject not only for wrath: but for conscience sake. Many thousand Martyrs, Bishops & others submitted themselves and endured the vilest torments that could be devised against them, as the ten persecutions of Christ's Church under heathen Princes most clearly witness: that ever any of their subjects rebelled against those bloody persecutors in respect of religion, must be your care to show: We reading all the monuments of those times verily find none, and by your silence it should appear yourselves know none: otherwise we do not think you would disfurnish your cause, and trouble the reader with impertinent matters.  
That the Citizens of Antioch defended their Church with arms against the Emperor Galerius his officers, I find it written in no good Author, neither do you quote the place: that Story you may put in your legend as taken thence by most likelihood. The temples of their bodies which were far more precious, they did not defend from the furious and insatiable rage of Diocletian, & Maximinus, but as well at Antioch, as in all other places subject to the Roman Empire; the christian men & women mildly & gladly suffered those 
Euseb. li. 8. ca 7.9.10.12.  torments, deaths and 
* Euseb. li. 8. ca 7.9.10.12.  shames, which in our eyes neither flesh could bear, nor nature brook: so that we have cause rather to marvel at their patience, than to mistrust their disobedience.  Phi. 
S. Basil and S. Ambrose people, defended them against the invasions of Heretics. 
* The defence, cap. 5. Nazian▪ de land Basil. Ambros. lib. 5. epist.   Theo. 
After Valens the Emperor had twice decreed to banish S. Basil, and was the first time stopped of his course by the sudden sickness of his son and terror of his wife, and the second time by a strange 
* Theod. lib. 4. cap. 19  trembling of hand and heart as he was subscribing the sentence of deportation against him, he never after offered to meddle with Saint basil, 
S. Basil would not suffer the people to grow to a tumult for his defence. See Nazianzenes funeral oration in the prayer of S. Basil.  but suffered him quietly to enjoy his Bishopric. Yet fell there out after this a contention between the Lieutenant of Pontus and Saint basil, about the liberties of the sanctuary for a Noble woman, that had taken the Church for her refuge, to save herself from one that would have forced her to marriage against her will. The Deputy required the woman to be delivered: the Bishop replied that he might not violate the Laws of GOD and man. The Deputy stomacking Saint basil, and the more for his stout defence otherwise of the Christian faith, sent for the Bishop to his Tribunal, and commanding him to be stripped, threatened to whip him, and to tear his flesh with Iron hooks. 
The people offered to save their Bishop from the private and intemperate rage of a deputy, but not from the Emperor. Nazian. in laudem Basilij oratio funebr.  This indignity the people could no longer abide, but seeing their Pastor thus shamefully handled without the emperors commandment or knowledge, upon the private displeasure of a Deputy for the liberties of the Church established by the Roman Laws, the whole city, men and women fell to an uproar, and were like enough to have done the Deputy some mischief, but that Saint Basil with much ado repressing the people, delivered his persecutor from that peril. This is the true report of Saint Basils' case even out of the same author which you avouch, Gregory Nazianzene.  
Their grief you see was not against the emperors power or fact, but against the malice of a Lieutenant presuming upon a private grudge without any warrant from the Prince, not only to do that which the Emperor in his own person had refrained, 
This tumult seemed tolerable, and yet S. basil would not allow it.  but in most spiteful and servile manner to abuse their Bishop against all order of Law: And this tumult S. Basil neither procured nor praised, but assuaged with his presence, and offered himself to the Deputies pleasure.  
Of S. Ambrose we spoke before by occasion, and thither we send you. It is most untrue that the people of Milan either did, or might take arms against the Emperor; 

S. Ambrose would not suffer the people of Milan to defend him against the Emperor.  
Ambros. epist. lib. 5. epist. ad Marcel. 33.   though he were then but a child, and therefore might make no Laws for Religion, or otherwise, without Theodosius joint Emperor with him, & in possession of the sceptre before him. Which exception, neither S. Ambrose, nor other godly bishops used against him, but submitted themselves with all meekness, when in reason they might have taken this advantage. Of the people S. Ambrose himself giveth this testimony. In singulis vobis Iob revixit, in singulis sancti illius patientia & virtus refulsit. Quid enim praesentis dici potuit a viris Christianis, quàm quod ●odie in vobis locutus est Spiritus sanctus? Rogamus august, non pugnamus, non timemus, sed rogamus. Hoc Christianos decet. In every one of you job is alive again; in each of you his patience and virtue shined. What could be said fit by Christian men than that which the holy Ghost this day spoke in you? We beseech, O Emperor, we offer not arms. We fear not (to die,) but we entreat (thy clemency.) This beseemeth Christians to desire tranquility of peace & faith, but to be constant in the truth even unto death. And for his part, when he heard that his Church was taken up by the (Emperors) soldiers, 
Ibidem.  he fet only somewhat the deeper sighs & said to such as exhorted him to go thither, deliver up my Church I may not, but sight I ought not. 
Pugnare non debeo.   Phi. 
But the people were in a commotion: which appeareth by that S. Ambrose answered when they willed him to assuage their fury, It lay in him not to incite them, but he had no means to repress them.  Theo. 
Truth it is that the people flocked to their Churches, and chose rather to be slain in the place, than to leave them unto Arians. But that they offered arms, or attempted any force either for S. Ambrose or against Valentinian, is a manifest untruth. The merchants were amerced and imprisoned: 

See the fifth book and 33. epistle of S. Ambrose for this whole action.  
This casual disorder was much against the Bishops will: & yet nothing near a rebellion.  
Lib. 5. epist 33.   the Nobles were hardly threatened, and S. Ambrose himself charged as with a sedition, and yet all the violence that was offered was this. The people passing from one Church to an other met a Chaplain of the Arrians, and some unruly persons, as in such heats it can not otherwise be chosen, began to illude and abuse the man; but the Bishop presently sent his Priests and Deacons, and rescued him from that injury: which yet the Emperor took so grievously that he laid a number of them in Irons and imposed a great mulet upon the whole City to be paid within three days. Farther force was none offered by the people of Milan, and yet of that small disorder Saint Ambrose saith, If they thought him to be the inciter (or stirrer) of the people they should straightway revenge it on him, or banish him into what wilderness they would. And to that end, 
* Ibidem.  he departed home to bed to his own house, that if any man would have him into exile, he should find him ready. 
Had the Jesuits been in S. Ambrose place they would have told the Emperor an other tale.  Had you been there, you would not only have set the people against the Prince, but encouraged the subject to pull the young boy by the ears, and to teach him better manner against an other time to meddle with Bishops: and it grieveth you to see Ambrose so faint hearted as you take it, that when so fit opportunity served him and the rest, they would give no precedent to rebel against Princes: which is the thing you seek to prove, and long to do.  Phi. 
Not the people only, which may do things of headynes without counsel or consultation: 
The Defence, cap. 5.  but the bishops of Countries so persecuted by heretical Princes have justly required help of other Christian kings.  Theo. 
If the multitude of Christians in the primative Church for all their rashness and headynes were afraid in respect of the Apostles doctrine to rebel against Powers, 
If the people were afraid to rebel in the primative Church, what think you were the Bishops?  whom shall you persuade that their religious and godly Pastors were firebrands of sedition? If they taught others to obey, with what conscience could they themselves resist? Or rather with what face do you slander them with that they never did?  Phi. 
Holy Athanasius: 

The defence, cap. 5.  
Theodoret. li. 2. cap. 13.  
The example of Athanasius.  
Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 13. Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 7. Dama. in Pontific.  
Athanasius no rebel.   (who knew his duty to his sovereign well enough & in what case he might resist him) asked aid against Constantius the Arrian the first heretical Emperor (whom Pope Felix declared to be an heretic) of his own brother Constance Catholic Emperor of the West. For fear of whose arms the said Arrian restored Athanasius and other Catholic Bishops to their Churches and honours again, though after this Catholic emperors death the other more furiously persecuted Athanasius than before.  Theo. 
He that never sounded the fidelity and honesty of Jesuits afore this time may take hence his light how to trust them in other cases. Did Athanasius ask aid (of arms) against Constantius the Arrian?  Phi. 
For fear of arms the said Arrian restored Athanasius and other Catholic Bishops to their Churches and honours again.  Theo. 
But did Athanasius move Constans so to do?  Phi. 
He asked aid of Constans against his brother Constantius.  Theo. 
But did he ask that aid, to be restored by arms? For of that aid we now dispute, & that aid must you mean, if you will say aught to the purpose.  Phi. 
He accepted it, and therefore it is likely he requested it.  Theo. 
You would prove by this example that Athanasius (who knew his duty to his sovereign well enough, and in what case he might resist him) not only used but asked (forcible) aid against Constantius of his own brother.  Phi. 
So he did.  Theo. 
Be you well in your wits to avouch it with such confidence? 
Athanasius horribly bel●ed by the jesuits.   Phi. 
Why should we not?  Theo. 
Why should you not? Athanasius himself, when that very point was objected to him, not only abjured it as false, but detested it unto Constantius as a wicked and ungodly part for himself to have stirred brother against brother. What extreme boldness was it then for you to fasten that on him which he defieth and forsweareth?  Phi. 
Where doth he so?  Theo. 
Where you might soon have found it, but that you thought to have brought the matter from words to blows before this tyme.  


Athanasius cleareth himself of that which the jesuits father on him.  
Athanas. ad Imperator. Constantium Apolog.  
Did this man stir Constans against Constantius?   It was laid in his dish by Constantius amongst other things after the death of Constans, that he provoked and incited his brother against him, and that he resisted the Prince's precepts. To this Athanasius answereth in his Apology to Constantius: I am not mad, I am not besides myself, O Emperor, that thou shouldest suspect, I had ever any such thought. And that made me say nothing to it, when others questioned with me about it, lest whiles I laboured to clear myself, some perhaps would make a doubt of it. But to your highness I answer with a loud and plain voice, and with my hand held out, as I learned of the Apostle, I call God to witness against my soul, & as it is written in the book of kings, I swear, the Lord can bear me record, and his anointed, (your brother:) (suffer me I beseech you so to say) I never made mention of you for any evil before your brother of blessed memory, I mean that religions Emperor Constans; neither did I ever stir him up against you as these 
* And jesuits.  (Arrians) do slander me; but contrariwise whensoever I had access unto him, he himself recounted your gracious inclination; and God knoweth what mention I made of your godly disposition. Suffer me and pardon me most courteous Prince. That servant of God Constans (your brother) was not so open nor so lent his ears to any man, neither was I in such credit with him, that I durst speak a word of any such matter, or derogate from one brother before an other, or find fault with a Prince, in the hearing of a Prince. 
Athanasius saith it had been madness to have done that which the jesuits say he did.  I am not (so) mad, neither have I forgotten the voice of God, which saith, Curse not the king in thine heart, nor backbite the mighty in the secrets of thy chamber. For the birds of the air shall tell it, and the fowls which fly shall betray thee. If the things which be spoken in secret touching you Princes can not be hid; what likelihood, that I in the presence of a Prince, and so many standing by, would say any thing of you otherwise than well?  
And showing how often he spoke with the Emperor Constans & in whose presence, & to what effect, which were to long to repeat, he concludeth: 
Athanas. Ibidem.  I beseech your highness (for I know well the force of your memory) call to mind my behaviour when it pleased you to admit me to your presence, first at Vimimachum, then at Caesarea, and thirdly at Antioch, whether I did so much as offer an evil word of Eusebius my bitter enemy, or gave a displeasant speech of any my pursuers. If then I refrained my tongue when I was to plead against them in mine own defence, what madness had that been for me to traduce an Emperor before an Emperor, and to stir up one brother against an other?  
What think you? Doth not Athanasius reject that which you would father on him, as a manifest untruth; nay as a villainous and frantic attempt to set brethren together by the ears, and to stir wars between Princes? Why then do you burden a godly Bishop with that which he never thought; and which he was farthest from? Why make you Athanasius your rest for rebellion against Princes, whereas he thought it unlawful in hart to curse a cruel & heretical Prince? How far he did, & said he was bound to obey Constantius, his own words will testify, and therefore no reason we believe your vaunting and facing that he procured war against Constantius, when he himself affirmeth the contrary. 
Ibidem.  They lay to my charge, saith he to the same Prince, that I obeyed not your precepts, by the which it was enjoined me that I should departed from Alexandria. 
How far the was he from rebelling?  I never resisted the commandments of your highness: no no: God forbidden I should. I am not he that will withstand the Governor of any City: much less so great a Prince. Truly I prepared to departed: for so Montanus (your messenger) knoweth, that upon the receipt of your letters, if your grace vouchsafed but to write, I might presently be gone, & with my readiness to obey prevent your rescript. 

Be they sober or well in their wits that not only think but openly affirm they may resist and deprive the prince?  
The people of Alexandria were very seditious.  
Socra. li. 7. c. 13.   For I am not so mad as to think I may contradict such precepts. With what forehead then can they say, I obaied not powers? Never reckon this man for a resistant that so many ways protesteth and confirmeth his obedience to Princes: learn you rather to follow his submission, and draw him not against his own both deeds and words, to be of your faction.  Phi. 
The people of Alexandria were twice or thrice in an uproar about him: first under Constantius, and after under Valens.  Theo. 
The people of Alexandria were very tumultuous, and raised many horrible garboils both in the Church and common wealth. Socrates saith of them, Populus Alexandrinus prae alijs populis seditionibus delectatur, & si quando occasionem seditionis fuerit nactus ad intolerabilia mala prorumpit, nec sine sanguine sedatur. The people of Alexandria delight in sedition more than other Cities, and if at any time they catch any occasion to make a tumult, they run headlong to foul outrages, and never end but with blood. The self same report Euagrius giveth of them: 
evag. li. 2. ca 8.  The people are soon stirred and easily incited to a tumult, most of all others they of Alexandria: who by reason of their great number, & those obscure persons, and of all sorts, are insolent, rash, bold, and in fury will venture on any thing. 
Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 2. & lib. 5. cap. 16. & li. 7. cap. 13. evag. lib. 2. cap. 5. & 8.  Lamentable examples whereof you may read in the stories of the church, describing the horrible fights and slaughters that were between the jews, Gentiles, and Christians of that City, as well against the truth as with it. And therefore in these populous and tumultuous Cities, if you did show some insurrections of the people for their pastors, it would do you no great good. Men have raised tumults in all ages, and that doth justify rebellion in you, 
thieves and murderers far more tolerable than deposers of Princes.  no more than cain's sword dipped in his brother's blood at the first beginning of the world, and never since dry, doth warrant thieves to take men's lives by the high ways side; yea rather less: for they kill to supply their needs, you to revenge your griefs: they unhorsed private men, you unthrowe Princes: they rifle houses, you spoil kingdoms: they fly upon the fact, you stand to the defence of it before the whole world.  
far from this affection were S. Basil and S. Ambrose, as even now we saw: and Athanasius as far, if you dare trust him on his oath: if not, you shall shift him nearer by his acts. 
Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 9  When he saw the people of his Church grudge (at the emperors precept to remove him from his seat) and ready to take weapon in hand, he departed the city. Under Valens the people of that city likewise resisted and would not suffer any violence to be offered Athanasius by the Captains, 

Sozom. lib. 6. Cap. 13.  
Athanas. ever submitted himself, when he saw the people inclined to any tumult for his cause.   until the emperors pleasure were precisely known touching Athanasius. In so much that the multitude flocking together, and a great hurlie burlie rising in the City, a sedition was feared. When the people some days after was appeased Athanasius by night closely conveyeth himself out of the City. Others say that foreseeing the rashness of the multitude, and fearing lest he should seem to be the author of that evil which might ensue, he hide himself all that time in his father's tomb. Thus when he might have been defended by the people, he would not: and because they suffered him not to departed from them by day, he frale from them by night, and left his Bishopric to be disposed by the prince.  


Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 18.  
And so did chrysostom.   The like did chrysostom in his troubles. For when the people knew (of his deposition) they broke out into an uproar, and would not suffer those that had it in charge from the Emperor to carry him into banishment. Chrysostom fearing lest any other crime should be fastened on him, either that he did not obey the Emperor, or that he stirred the people to sedition, the third day after his deprivation privily leaveth his Church and yieldeth himself to be carried into exile. So that by S. Chrysostom's judgement it is first a fault in a Bishop, 

The Defence, cap. 5.  
Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 17. 30. Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 19   not to obey the Prince, next it is an other fault to stir the people to sedition, be the cause never so good, as Chrysostom's was not bad.  Phi. 
Likewise against Valens the Arrian Emperor; Petrus successor to Athanasius and brother to S. Basil, did seek to the Pope of Rome for succour, as all other afflicted Bishops and Catholics ever did. 
* Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 37.   Theo. 
The Bishop of Rome in those days was neither so mighty that he could, nor wicked that he would assist subjects with arms against their Sovereigns. Peter Bishop of Alexandria brought letters from Damasus Bishop of Rome, 
The tumult at Alexandria for the receiving of Peter and rejecting of Lucius.  allowing his election and Confirming the same: the people upon that spying their time, displaced Lucius an Arrian, and received Peter their right Bishop.  Phi. 
And what was this but resistance to the Prince?  Theo. 
Resist they might and did, but not with arms.  Phi. 
Which way then?  Theo. 
By refusing his communion, disobeying his jurisdiction, and withdrawing their duties from him, & yielding the same to Peter as to their lawful and true Bishop.  Phi. 
Socrates saith the people taking courage expelled Lucius, and set Peter in his place. 
Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 37.   Theo. 
They might drive him away, and make him forsake the City though not with arms. But whatsoever the people did against Lucius in their heat, 
The people drove Lucius from his See: but not with arms.  having, as I noted before unto you out of the same writer, a very sharp and seditious humour, and being miserably handled by Lucius, as scourged with whips, their flesh torn with hooks, and diversly tormented with fire unto death: the letters of Damasus incited them to no such thing, but only approved the election of Peter.  Phi. 
But Peter, it should seem, allowed the people in their enterprise, for by their tumult he recovered his Bishopric.  Theo. 
You must not imagine rebellions, where none are written. The people drove Lucius from the See, being an intruder, an heretic, and a murderer, other tumult the Story doth not mention.  Phi. 
The Prince had placed Lucius there.  Theo. 
The election of Bishops in these days belonged to the people and not to the Prince, and though Valens by plain force placed him there, 
The people might cleave to their true pastor, though the Prince by force had placed an other in his steed.  yet might the people lawfully reject him as no Bishop, and cleave to Peter their right Pastor.  Phi. 
Might they reject him with arms?  Theo. 
I said not so.  Phi. 
But so they did.  Theo. 
That must you prove: we find no such thing in the Story, neither of Socrates nor Sozomene.  Phi. 
Socrates saith they expelled him.  Theo. 
But not with arms.  Phi. 
Do you think he would yield without force?  Theo. 
Do you think any great force needed for a whole City to expel one man? But why come you with thoughts when you should bring us proofs? That he was expelled, we grant: 
That Lucius was expelled from his Bishopric is confessed, but the mean how it was done is not expressed.  but whether it were done by forsaking, threatening, compelling, or invading him; the Story doth not express, neither may you suppose what you list without any proof: Had they assaulted him with arms, it had been as easy to have slain him there; as to have driven him thence: but no doubt Peter their Bishop, kept them from that, which Moses a convert of the Saracenes, not long before bitterly reproved in Lucius.  Phi. 
You mean Moses the Monk that Mavia the Queen of the Saracens required to have for the Bishopppe of her Nation, whose faith the Bishop of Rome confirmed in the same letters with Peter's election.  Theo. 
I do.  Phil. 
What of him?  Theo. 
When he was brought to Lucius to be made Bishop; he said, 
Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 36.  I think myself unworthy of this function: but if it be profitable for my Country that I take it, Lucius shall never lay hands on me (to make me Bishop:) for his right hand is imbrued with blood. Lucius answering that he should not rail, but first learn what religion he taught. I ask not a reason, saith Moses, of thy religion, thy doings against thy brethren convince what religion thou hast. A christian doth not strike, 
Lucius detested for shedding of blood by one that was a convert of the Saracens.  doth not slander, doth not fight. The servant of God may not fight. But thy works openly show themselves by those whom thou hast banished, whom thou hast cast to be devoured of beasts and consumed with fire. If Moses thus abhorred Lucius for fight and striking, what would he have said to Peter for bearing arms and rebelling, if he had been so good a warrior as you make him?  Phi. 

The defence, cap. 5.  So did Atticus Bishop of Constantinople crave aid of Theodosius the younger against the king of the Persians that persecuted his Catholic subjects, 
Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 18. Niceph. lib. 14. cap. 21.  and was thereby forcibly deprived, and his innocent subjects delivered.  Theo. 
The christians of Persia being barbarously persecuted by Bararanes an Infidel, and put as Theodorete showeth to strange and 
* Theodoret. li. 5. cap. 39  unusual torments, fled their Country, and saving themselves within the Roman Dominion, besought the Christian Emperor they might be harboured within his land and not be yielded unto the fury of their king. The Persian presently sent Legates to have them back that were departed his Realm. 
How the Persians were harboured by Theodosius the younger.  Atticus the Bishop of Constantinople 
* Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 18.  opened their cause to the Emperor, and laboured what he could for them. Theodosius the Emperor would not deliver them, as being suppliants to him, and no offenders against their king, but only that they professed the Christian Religion: and having besides just 
* Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 18.  cause to make war upon the Persians for that they spoilt his merchants and would not restore his Goldminers, which they hired of him, bid open battle to them, and caused the king to be glad with peace, and to 
* Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 20.  cease his persecution against the Christians.  

Can the jesuits find no difference between deposing princes, by their own subjects & harboring of strangers by other princes?  Here is nothing for your purpose; unless you say that subjects may rebel for Religion because strangers may be harboured for religion, which were a mad kind of conclusion. The Persians asked not arms against their King though a Tyrant, but refuge for themselves; neither did they assault their Prince on the one side when the Romans invaded on the other, but with prayer expected what end God would give.  
Atticus was no subject to the king of Persia: and therefore whatsoever he did against a stranger and an enemy, is no precedent for subjects to do the like to their Princes; and yet all that he did was this; 
Atticus no subject to the persian, can be no precedent for subjects.  Atticus Episcopus supplicantes cupidé suscepit, & totus in eo erat, ut pro viribus, ipsis succurreret, & Imperatori Theodosio, quae gererentur significavit: Atticus the Bishop embraced their request (for themselves) with great good will, and laboured what he could to help them, and signified their state to Theodosius the Emperor.  

Theodosius the Emperor had other good causes to war upon the Persian.  Theodosius was a lawful magistrate, and had other, and those just causes to war upon the Persian, and in that he refused to deliver the profugient and innocent Christians to the slaughter, he had the Law of nature and nations for his defence. And lastly the king of Persia was neither deprived of his kingdom, as you falsely report, nor his subjects discharged from their obedience: but a peace concluded wherein the King was contended to cease from pursuing the Christians. 
Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 20.  All this you shall find, not in the second book as you quote, but in the seventh where 
Cap. 18. & 20.  Socrates describeth the occasion and conclusion of this Persian war. From him Nicephorus taketh his light, and more than Socrates said before he neither doth nor could affirm.  Phi. 
So did holy Pope Leo the first, 
The defence, cap. 5.  persuade the Emperor, called Leo also, to take arms against the Tyrant of Alexandria for the delivery of the oppressed Catholics from him and the heretics Eutichians: 
The example of Pope Leo the first.  who then threw down Churches, and Monasteries, and did other great sacrileges. Whose words for examples sake I will set down. 
Leo. epist. 75. evag. li. 2. ca 8.  O Emperor (saith Saint Leo) if it be laudable for thee to invade the heathens, how much more glorious shall it be to deliver the Church of Alexandria from the heavy yoke of outrageous heretics, by the calamity of which Church all the Christians in the world are injuried?  Theo. 
Leo was so holy that he never taught any man to bear arms against his Prince: 
Leo requested the Prince to punish his subjects, what is that to the deprivation of Princes? evag. li. 2. ca 8.  and yet it did nothing hurt his holiness to pray the Emperor to pursue with due punishment the wicked uproar that was made in Alexandria by Timotheus an heretic, that placing himself in the Bishopric, and killing Proterius the true Bishop at the font in the Church: caused the carcase by some of his faction to be drawn along the streets in a rope, and to be so cut and mangled that the very entrails drayled upon the stones, and the rest of the body to be burnt and the ashes scattered into the air.  
That villainous and devilish fact, Leo the Bishop of Rome beseecheth Leo the Emperor with all severity to revenge, assuring him that it is as glorious a conquest before Christ to punish such outrageous heretics, 
It is a glorious thing for a Prince to punish heretics but not for subjects to rebel against their Prince.  as to repress miscreants and Infidels. But how this should serve your turns we can not imagine. Will you reason thus? Leo the Bishop of Rome persuaded the Emperor to chastise some of his subjects that were heretics and murderers, Ergo the people may assault their Prince with arms. Take heed left Timotheus heresy and fury revive in you again, if you fall to liking such consequents.  Phi. 
In brief; 
The defence, cap. 5.  so did S. Gregory the great move Genadius the Exarch, to make wars specially against heretics as a very glorious thing.  Theo. 
You speak truer than you are ware of. 
Gregory made the like request to the emperors deputy.  In deed Gregory the great wrote to Genadius the Exarch in the self same sense that Leo before did to Leo the Emperor, which is that Magistrates ought to resist and punish the adversaries of Christ's Church, as well as the troublers and disturbers of the Commonwealth; neither is there any difference in their writings or meanings, save that Leo wrote to the Prince himself, and Gregory to his Deputy.  
And since you be come to Gregory, 
For 600. years after Christ, no subject took arms against his prince for any matter of religion.  it is high time you begin to awake and remember yourself that for six hundredth years you have not, nor can not show us any one example, where heretical Prince, was deposed, or subject allowed to bear arms against his Sovereign. Which is a sufficient conviction that Pagans and heretics were all this while honoured, obeyed and endured by the Church of Christ, if they were Princes. Or if that collection be not good, hear Saint Augustine's confession of him that was the very worst of them, I mean julian the Apostata: and learn that they which suffered and obeyed him, 
Aug. in Psal. 124.  would never resist nor rebel against any. julianus extitit infidelis Imperator, nun extitit, Apostata iniquus, Idolatra? Milites Christiani seruierunt Imperatori infidels. Vbi veniebatur ad causam Christi, non agnoscebant nisi illum qui in caelo erat. Quando volebat ut idola colerent, ut thurificarent, praeponebant illi Deum. Quando autem dicebat producite aciem, ite contra illam gentem, statim obtemperabant. Distinguebant Dominum aeternum a Domino temporali, & tamen subditi erant propter Dominum aeternum, etiam Domino temporali. julian was an unbelieving Emperor: 
If Apostates were served & obeyed by Christians, what Princes should be deposed?  was he not an Apostata, an oppressor and an Idolater? Christian soldiers served that unbelieving Emperor. When they came to the cause of Christ, they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is heaven. When he would have them to worship Idols and to sacrifice, they preferred God before their Prince. But when he said, go forth to fight, invade such a nation, they presently obeyed. They distinguished their eternal Lord from their temporal, and yet were they subject even unto their temporal Lord, for his sake that was their eternal Lord and master. 
Caus. 11. quaest. 13. §. julianus.  The like testimony your Law bringeth out of S. Ambrose. julian the Emperor though he were an Idolater, had yet under him Christian soldiers: to whom when he said, go, fight for the defence of the commonwealth, they did obey him: but when he said, go fight against the Christians, than they regarded the Emperor in heaven (before him.)  Phi. 

The defence, cap. 5. What Princes may be excommunicated & when.  The holy Bishops might most lawfully (and so sometimes they did) excommunicate the Arrian Emperors, and have warranted their Catholic subjects to defend themselves by arms against them: But they always did not so; because they had no means by reason of the greater forces of the persecutors. As there no question but the Emperors, Constantius, Valens, julian, and others might have been by the Bishops excommunicated and deposed, and all their people released from their obedience, if the Church or Catholics had had competent forces to have resisted.  Theo. 

The Jesuits finding no example in the primative church where a prince was urged with arms by his own subjects, come to this shift, that they might have done it, though they did it not.  vain shifts you have brought us many, but none vainer than that which here you broche. You undertook to show us ancient examples that Princes were judicially deposed by Priests, and impugned with arms by their own subjects: You be now come to the uttermost pitch of Antiquity, and finding yourself not able to be as good as your word, you tell us that though Bishops did it not, yet they might most lawfully have warranted their Catholic subjects to defend themselves by arms, against (the Arrian Emperors.) But sir, you were to bring us their examples what they did, not your vaunts what they might have done. The point we began with, was; what Bishops in this case might do. You to show what they might do, promised us the particulars of ancient ages what they had done: and having perused six hundred years after Christ, and perceiving no such deed done, you come with a return at the last, that though they did it not, yet they might have done it, whereas we rather collect they might not do it, because they did it not. For had it been most lawful, as you say; we can prove it most needful they should have done it. 
If the Bishops might have deposed princes and did not, them were they permitters & increasers of their heresy and tyranny.  The blaspheming of Christ, the murdering of his saints, the seducing of many thousand souls, (which things were not only committed by their means, but also maintained by their power, that were suffered to bear and use the sword for the strengthening and establishing of their error;) were causes sufficient to move the Bishops to do▪ what they lawfully might to prevent these mischiefs, and save the Bishops you cannot from the blemish of permitting and increasing the pestilent heresies of Arius and others, if they did not what they might in duty to withstand, and depose those Princes that were the chief patrons of those impieties.  Phi. 
There is no question but the emperors Constantius, 
The defence, Cap. 5.  Valens, julian, and others might have been deposed by the Bishops and all their people released from their obedience, if the Church or Catholics had had competent forces to have resisted.  Theo. 
You falsely and wickedly slander the Martyrs of Christ's church, 

The jesuits slander the ancient martyrs of christs Church, as if they had been willing but not able to resist their Princes.  
Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 22.  
What opportunities the christians had to distress Constantius.  
Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 25.   when you avouch they wanted not will, but power to resist their Princes. The Christians had forces sufficient and many fit opportunities offered them to set those heretical Emperors besides their Seats, and would not. Constans the West Emperor was of power sufficient to have repressed Constantius his brother, for fear of whom Athanasius was restored to his Bishopric by Constantius, and with whom if the Catholics of the East would have but joined themselves, it had been most easy for them to have taken the Sceptre from Constantius.  
When Constans was slain, Magnentius the Tyrant surprised all Italy, subdued Africa and Lybia, and had France in subjection: and the soldiers of Illyricum erected Betranion against Constantius; in which distress if the Christians would but have forsaken Constantius and not ventured their lives for him, he must have been deprived of the West Empire, if not of the East also. Athanasius being charged that he with others secretly by letters incited this Magnentius, to take arms against the Emperor, answered as I showed you before: 
Athanas. apolog ad Constant.  Cast not this suspicion, O Emperor, upon the whole Church as though such things were written or thought on by Christian men, and specially by bishops. The like occasion was offered the Christians to displace Constantius when Gallus, 
Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 34.  who was both Cesar and next to the Crown began to advance himself to the Empire; but they took it, as you see by Athanasius words, to be no Christian man's part to think on bearing arms against their Emperor though an heretic.  

And julian.  Of the Christian soldiers under julian you heard S. Augustine say they 
* In Psal. 124.  served their temporal Lord (though an Idolater and an Apostata) not for lack of force to resist, but for respect of their everlasting Lord in heaven. Otherwise the Christian soldiers had julian in his voyage against the Persians far from home and from help, and might have done with him what they would; and yet they chose rather to spend their lives for him, than to lift up their hands against him; and the Christian world in his absence stirred not against him, but with patience endured his oppression and with silence expected his return.  Phi. 
They were heathen soldiers that were with julian in the Persian wars.  Theo. 
Their own words testify they were christians, for when jovinian the next day after julian's death was chosen Emperor by them, & refused the place, because he thought the most part of the soldiers to be Gentiles, 
* Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 22.  they cried all with one common voice and confessed themselves to be christians.  

And valens.  Against Valens, the church of Christ had forces abundant, if she would have sounded or used them. For all the time of his reign not only the West Emperors were Catholics, first Valentinian and after him Gratian, but Procopius at Constantinople taking arms against Valens, and the Goths detaining all Thracia from him, 

Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 3.  
Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 35.   gave the Christians great advantage to have shaken him clean out of the East Empire: if their wills had been answerable unto their strength.  

And Valentinian. Paulus Diaconus de gest. Romanor. lib. 1.  Valentinian the younger infected with Arianisme, Maximus a rebel of this land thrust quite from the West Empire & made him fly into the East parts, and had not Theodosius a Catholic Prince, conquered that Tyrant and restored the young Prince to his Sceptre again, he had lost his Crown for ever. Where you see not only what forces the Catholics had, but how far they were from deposing heretical governors, that would hazard their lives to restore them.  


And Anastasius.  
evag. li. 3. ca 44 Anastasius an heretic offered to resign his Crown & the people would not suffer him. Regard of duty and the Apostles doctrine kept the primative Church from resisting heretical princes.   And what think you was the force of all the christians in the world, when the people of one City falling into a sedition for matter of Religion so prevailed and passed all the power of resisting, that Anastasius the Emperor was feign to come to an open place without his Crown, and by heralds to signify to the people that he was ready with a very good will to resign the Empire into their hands? At the sight of whom, the people moved with that spectacle changed their minds, and besought Anastasius to keep the Crown, and promised for their parts to be quiet. Yet was Anastasius both an heretic and an excommunicate person, if your own words before, or stories otherwise may be trusted.  
Not therefore disability but duty, not lack of competent forces, but a reverent regard of the Apostles Doctrine kept the primative Church of Christ from resisting her Princes. She never determined, she never attempted any such thing: she might often times have repelled them from their Seats and would not, but taught all men to submit themselves, and rather to be crowned as martyrs for enduring, than to be punished as rebels for invading their Princes. For 
* Rom. 13.  they that resist, shall receive judgement, which not only the ancient Christians but the very Barbarians did confess. Athanaricus king of the Goths, when he came to visit Theodosius, 
Paulus Diaconus de gest. Romanor. lib. 1.  Sine dubio, inquit, Deus terrenus est Imperator, contra quem quicunque manus levare nisus fuerit, ipse su● sanguinis reus existit. No doubt, saith he, the Emperor is the God of the earth, against whom, whosoever will offer to lift up his hand, is guilty of his own blood.  Phi. 
Yea the quarrel of Religion and defence of innocency is so just that heathen Princes not at all subject to the Church's Laws and discipline may in that case by the Christians arms be resisted, 

The defence, cap. 5.  
Se. S. Thomas 2.2. quaest. 10. artic. 10.   and ●ight lawfully have been repressed in times of the Pagans and first great persecutions, when they vexed and oppressed the faithful; but not otherwise (as most men think) if they would not annoy the Christians, nor violently hinder or seek to extirpate the true faith and course of the Gospel. Though S. Thomas seemeth also to say that any heathen king may be lawfully deprived of his superiority over Christians.  Theo. 
What S. Thomas seemeth to say we care not, so long as we know what S. Paul saith: 
Rom. 13.  and that is, You must be subject, not only for fear of wrath, or lack of force, when you can not choose, but even for conscience sake, though you were able to resist. If your schools have gotten any other doctrine than this, look you to that: we be the disciples of Christ, and not of Occam, Scotus, or Thomas; men may by this perceive what your schoolmen would adventure in other points of Religion, that in so clear a case of conscience and obedience, they would flatly contradict the holy Ghost. 
Their scrolls resolve directly against S. Paul. Rom. 13. Luke. 20.  Heathen Princes may not be resisted by their Christian subjects: of them Saint Paul wrote when he said, Whosoever resisteth power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and of them Christ spoke, when he charged us to give unto Caesar, the things which are Caesar's. They might not therefore lawfully have been repressed in the times of the Pagans and first great persecutions when they vexed and oppressed the faithful, because sufferance made their subjects martyrs before God, whom resistance would have doubbed for rebels against God and man.  
If your meaning be, that by Christian Princes, (had there been any such in those days, 
This is nether pertinent to our question nor any part of their meaning. ) they might lawfully have been repressed and pursued with arms, you altar the question, and touch not our case: We reason not what Christian Princes may do to heathen Tyrants, but what duty Christian subjects must yield to their Princes, be they Pagans or others that bear the sword. And for that we have the manifest voice of God's spirit which I have often repeated, and against the which we give ear to no creature, man nor Angel.  
That voice the church of Christ diligently remembered, and constantly followed, as Tertullian witnesseth. 

Tertullian. ad Scapulam.  
Never rebels were christians in the primative Church.   We are disfamed, saith he, concerning the emperors majesty, but never yet Albinians, Nigrians nor Cassians, (Albinus, Niger, and Cassius being rebels in his time) could be found to be Christians. A Christian is enemy to no man, much less to the Prince: whom he knoweth to be appointed of God▪ & so of necessity must love, reverence, and honour him, and wish him safe with the whole Roman Empire. Therefore we sacrifice for the health of the Emperor, but unto our God and his God, and with chaste prayer, as GOD hath commanded. 
The reasons why Christians would not resist, taken out of their own confessions.  So that we pray for the emperors health more than you, ask it of him that is able to give it. And God forbidden we should take those things which we suffer, in evil part, since we desire to suffer them, or imagine any revenge against you, which we wait for at God's leisure. Yet needful it is we lament your case, since not a city of yours shall escape at God's hand for the shedding of our blood.  

Tertul. in apologetico.  And again in his Apology for all Christians: Thou that thinkest we have no care of the welfare of our Princes, look upon the words of GOD, I mean our books, which neither we suppress, and many chances bring to your eyes. Know, that there we are commanded for the plentiful increase of our charity to pray to God for our enemies, and to wish well to our persecutors. 

Ibidem.  
Christians commanded by God to pray for their Princes though they were persecutors.  
Ibidem.   Yea namely and plainly he saith, Pray for kings, for Princes, and powers, that all things may be peaceable (unto them.) For the Empire can not be shaken but we also must be partakers of the fall. And after some words, But what speak I more of the religion and piety of Christians towards the Emperor? Whom we must needs reverence as one that our Lord and master hath chosen. And to speak the truth, Caesar is rather ours (than yours) as being ordained by our God. And giving a better reason for their obeying than you can for your warring: We are saith he, the same men to our Princes that we are to our neighbours. To wish evil, to do evil, to speak evil, to think evil, is indifferently forbidden us towards all men. We may do that to no man, which (we say) we may not to our Prince: and if to no man, so much the less to him that is so highly advanced by (our) God.  
This is sounder and seemelier doctrine for Christians than that which you bring us out of Thomas Aquinas. And where you will us by the note in your margin to See S. Thomas a Saint of your making, we will you to See S. Paul and S. Peter Saints past all doubting. 
See S. Paul & S. Peter for obedience to heathen Princes.  You see the continual obedience of Christ's Church, so long as Pagan and heathen Princes had the sword. She taught that all men, and most of all Christians, should love, reverence and honour heathen Princes as ordained by God, to bear the sword, even by the God of Christians, and that they might neither wish evil, do evil, speak evil or think evil of any such Powers, much less resist them with arms and deprive them of their superiority over Christians, as your new saint seemeth to say.  
And lest you think the Christians of those times served and honoured heathen Princes rather for fear than for conscience, (which is an open slander to them, and a lewd shift of yours, directly thwarting the words of Saint Paul, 
Rom. 13.  You must be subject not because of wrath only, but also for conscience sake.) You shall hear Tertullian'S report in the same place what forces the christians had, if they had thought it lawful or godly to resist when they were cruelly vexed and oppressed. 
Tertul. in apologetico.  One night, saith he, with a few fierbrands, would yield us revenge sufficient, if it were lawful with us to requite evil with evil. But God forbidden, that either they, which take part with GOD, should revenge themselves with human fire, or be grieved to suffer, wherein they be tried. If we would not practise secret revenge, but profess open enmity, 
Mark what faces the Christians had 200. years after Christ.  could we lack number of men, or force of arms? Are the moors think you, or the Parthians, or any one nation whatsoever, more in number than we, that are spread over the whole world? We are not of you, & yet we have filled all the places & rooms which you have; your Cities, islands, Castles, towns, assemblies, your tents, tribes and wards, yea the very Palace, Senate, & judgement seats. For what war were we not able and ready, though we were fewer in number than you that go to our deaths so gladly, if it were not more lawful in our religion to be slain than to slay? We could without arms never rebelling, but only dividing ourselves from you have done you spite enough with that separation. For if so great a multitude as we are should have broken from you, into some corner of the world, the loss of so many Citizens would have both shamed you, & punished you. Believe me you would have been afraid to see yourselves left alone and amazed, as amongst the dead, to see silence & desolation every where. You would have had more enemies, 
Desolation would have followed if the Christians should have but forsaken the Pagans. The Citizens almost all Christians.  than inhabitants, where now you have fewer enemies by reason of the multitude of your Citizens that are almost all Christians. Within two hundredth years after Christ, the beeleevers, as you hear by Tertullian, wanted neither number, strength nor courage to resist or revenge their persecutors. What numbers and forces than had they four, five, six hundredth years after Christ, when they were backed by Princes, defended by Laws, and provoked with favours and honours to profess Religion? and yet all that while, neither under Pagans, nor Arrians, did they, or would they resist with arms, but yielded their lives with all submission, though they wanted neither means, nor multitude convenient for any wars.  Phi. 
Howsoever that be; 
The defence, cap. 5.  plain it is that kings that have professed the faith of Christ and the defence of his Church and Gospel, may be and have been justly both excommunicated and deposed for injuries done to God's Church and revolt from the same; as sometimes also for other great crimes tending to the pernition of the whole people subject unto them.  Theo. 
You presume more in seven lines than you are able to prove in seven years. That Popes have attempted to depose Princes, and for the performing of their enterprise have shaken the Church with horrible schisms and wearied the world with slaughter and bloodshed we know full well, you need not urge it. But that they justly did, or might depose Princes which is the point we strive for, though you affirm it to be plain, we deny it to be true: and therein the pawn of your bare credit, if you knew not so much before, we take for no good evidence in this cause.  Phi. 


The defence, cap. 5.  
Princes excommunicated & deprived for defects in religion.   To speak specially of matter of religion, and the crimes thereunto belonging: Leo the third was excommunicated and deprived of all his temporalities in Italy by Gregory the second. For defect also in Religion and of the Church's defence, were the Greek Emperors discharged, and the Empire translated to the Germans by Pope Leo the third. As afterward divers Germane Emperors for notable injuries done to God's Church, for sacrilege, and for heresy; by godly discipline of the Church, and by the diligence of sundry Popes, have been brought to order, or in fine deposed; or else where they would not obey Christ's Vicar, either in themselves, or in their posterity have been notoriously by God confounded. As Frederick the first, Frederick the second, Otho the first, jews, the third, jews the fourth, and whom we name last (because we must say some thing more of him) Henry the third (or as some call him) the fourth, by Gregory the seventh; which example the Libeler and other heretics most mention; for that the said Henry so obstinately resisted (though otherwise by the invincible courage and constancy of the Pope often brought to penance and extremity) that in fine by arms he drove the said Pope out of his Sea; and placed an Antipape: 
An Anti pape.  that is to say, one so opposite to Christ's Vicar as Antichrist shall be against Christ▪ which by arms and Patronage of this wicked Emperor, usurped and occupied the Apostolical throne against the true Pope Gregory the seventh, whom the Libeler (after the vulgar vain of rebellious heretics) vouchsafeth not the name of Gregory the seventh, but calleth him commonly Hildebrand: as the heretics when they were in arms in Germany against their Emperor, 
Heretical malice.  would not name him Charles the fifth, nor Emperor, but Charles of Gaunt.  Theo. 

No precedent for the deprivation of princes within a 1000 years after Christ.  Finding no precedent for the Deprivation of Princes within the first six hundred years after Christ, you go lower to get somewhat for your purpose: and within the next four hundredth years you name us one that was not deprived of his Empire, but denied his revenues in Italy by the rebellion of the soldiers and Citizens of Rome, Ravenna, Venice, & other places against him.  Phi. 

Zonar. annal. to. 3. in imperio Leon. Isa●ri.  The Greek and Latin writers do consent that this was Gregory's act. Zonara's saith, Gregory which then ruled the church of old Rome refusing the fellowship of the Bishop of new Rome, & of all that were of his opinion, wrapped them together with the Emperor in a Synodical excommunication, and stayed the tribute which till that time was paid to the Empire: and made a league with the Germans. 
Vrspergens. in anno 718.  Vrspergensis saith, Gregory the Pope of Rome prohibited any tribute to be given to the Emperor out of the City of Rome or out of Italy. 
Otho Frisingen. lib. 5. cap. 18.  Frisingensis hath the like, Gregory the Pope warning the Emperor often times by letters, and finding him incorrigible persuaded Italy to revolt from his Empire. And so Sigebert, 
Sigebert. in anno 731.  Gregory reproved Leo the Emperor for his error, and turned both the people of Rome and the tribute of the West parts from him. More I could bring you, but these are enough.  Theo. 
You speak truer than you are ware of. The rebellion of the Italians against Leo the third was like enough to be Pope Gregory's act. 
The rebellion of the Italians against Leo might be the Pope's secret practice, but he durst not appear in the matter.  For the Bishops of Rome were then malcontents, to see the Bishops of Constantinople live in such wealth, ease, and honour, and themselves neglected by the Greek Emperors and afflicted daily by the Lombard's. And therefore I think they were forward enough to kindle the people against their Prince upon the least occasion that might fall out. And that may be the meaning of those Greek and german writers which you bring, that the Bishop of Rome occasioned or secretly encouraged the rebellion of Italy against Leo: But that he took upon him in those days to be the deposer of Princes, as now he doth, or that he openly showed or pleaded his universal and supreme power to dispose kingdoms, which is the thing that you should prove, that I deny: and therein your own stories, as well the elder as the later sort of them, that otherwise be very partial, will justify my speech.  
Diaconus alive in those days, saith: Leo the Emperor took the images of Saints at Constantinople and burned them, 
Paulus Diaconus de gestis Rom. li. 8. in Leo. The Bishop of Rome deprived not Leo the third of his temporalities.  and commanded the Bishop of Rome, if ever he looked to have his favour, to do the like. But the Bishop refused to do it, and all the soldiers of Ravenna and Venice resisted this precept with one consent, and but that the Bishop of Rome prohibited them so to do, they had attempted to make an other Emperor over them. Regino, that lived 200. years before Sigebert, Frisingensis, Vrspergensis or Zonaras, saith the same.  
Blondus a diligent searcher and reporter of antiquities, 
Regino in anno Dom. 655. Blondus decadis 1. lib. 10. This was a rebellion of the soldiers, and not a deprivation of the Popes.  where partial affection doth not blind him, saith: The Emperor dealt by fair means at first with the Bishop of Rome, if he would have his favour, to pull down and burn the images in all places of Italy as he had done in the East. Upon this precept of the Emperor, first the citizens of Revenna, than the people and soldiers of Venice broke into an open rebellion against the Emperor and (his deputy) the exarch, and laboured to the Bishop of Rome, and to other cities of Italy to abrogate the Empire of Constantinople and to chose one of Italy or Rome for their Emperor: and the rebellion went so far, that rejecting Magistrates which the exarch had appointed, 

The Pope durst not openly be seen to take their parts howsoever he privately incensed or favoured this tumult.  
Naucle●us generat. 25.   every city and every town began then first since the inclination of the Roman Empire to create and elect Magistrates of their own, which they called Dukes. But Stephen the Bishop of Rome repressed that attempt of the Italians to choose a new Emperor because he hoped Leo would upon better advise hereafter forbear such enormities. Yet the rebellion of the people of Rome, and of other persons in Italy went forward, and every day increased against the Emperor. Nauclerus agreeth with Blondus, save that he maketh Gregory the second then Bishop of Rome, when Blondus nameth Stephen.  

Platina in Gregory 2.  Platina telleth his tale this way. Leo the Emperor, the third of that name, when he could not have his will at the Bishop of (Rome) proposed an edict that all men under the Roman Empire, should take out of their Temples the images of all the holy Martyrs, and Angels, for avoiding of idolatry as he said: and who so did not, he would account him for an open enemy. Gregory (the second) not only obeyed not, but also warned all the Catholics, (so your adherentes call themselves, though they be nothing less than Catholics) that they should not fall into that error for any fear or precept of Prince. 

This made the Germans and Grecians impute this rebellion to the Bishop of Rome: & perhaps not without cause if all his private packing had been known.  
Sabel Ennead. 8. lib. 7.   By the which exhortation the people of Italy were so animated, that they lacked very little of choosing themselves an other Emperor: but Gregory interposed himself to stay them by his authority from doing it.  
Sabellicus adding a third cause why the people of Rome and Italy were sore grieved with the Emperor, and withheld their tribute, and not long after divided the Empire, which was the continual impugning of them and prevailing against them by the lombards without any help from the Grecians.  
Leo, saith he, prayed (the Bishop of Rome) friendly that following his example, he would raze the images of Saints out of all the temples (in Italy.) Wherein the Bishop not only would not gratify the Prince, but wrote unto all the churches that they should continue their most ancient custom. That procured Leo passing hatred amongst other Nations but chief among the Italians, 
The Italians were many ways grieved with the Grecians and that made them take light occasions to revolt.  insomuch that the people of Rome began to consult of the choice of a new Emperor within Italy, and the hearts of all Italy were joined with them in that attempt, and that consent of theirs had broken forth into an open defection, had not the Bishop of Rome enterposed his authority, and restrained the fierceness of his citizens by mollifying them and admonishing them to persist in their former duty to the Emperor, when as that conspiracy had already so prevailed; that Marinus the ruler of the city & his son the precedent of Campania being slain by the people, & the Exarch likewise murdered at Ravenna, the cities & commons had chosen for themselves new Magistrates.  

Aeneas Sylu. in Decad. Blond. lib. 10. Decad. 1.  Aeneas Silvius, even when he was Pope Pius the second speaking oft his uproar made against Leo the third saith: To this rebellion the Bishop of Rome did not consent, hoping that Leo would be better advised.  

The Pope calleth Leo most religious Lord the last year of his life.  If the report of other Writers be not sufficient, the letters of Gregory the 2. & Gregory the 3. will witness no less: the one writing in the 7. year of Leo, the other, in the 23. which was the last year of the reign and life of Leo the 3. where they call him not only Emperor but most religious Lord: which could not be▪ if for his impiety they long before had forsaken his obedience as Zonaras the Monk imagineth. 
aven lib. 3. annalium fol. 289.  Gregory the 2. endeth his letters with, imperant Domino pijssimo Augusto Leone, à Deo coronato, magno Imperatore, imperij eiu● anno septimo. In the 7. year of the reign of the great Prince crowned by God, 
Ibidem fol. 291.  Leo the Emperor (our) most gracious Lord. Gregory the third writeth, imperant Domino pijssimo Augusto Leone, Imperij eius anno vicesimo tertio. In the 23. year of the reign of (our) most religious Lord Leo the Emperor. 
Marianus in annis 727. & 741.  Both which letters Marianus Scotus remembreth with their dates in his account of times and years. If Leo the last year of his life were called religious Lord and Emperor by the Bishop of Rome: how can it be true, that either of the Gregory's forsook his obedience and deprived him of all his dominions in Italy, long before his death?  
Who stirred this rebellion against Leo the third, I will not dispute: The Grecians had good cause to suspect the Bishop of Rome, and to think him to be the very author and contriver of it, as Zonaras doth: but that which he did was closely done under hand, by conspiring privily with other places and inciting the people by secret means to revolt from the Empire. 

The Bishop of Rome did not then take upon him to be the deposer of Princes.  
This proveth rebellion of the people against their Prince if the Jesuits will, but it concerneth not the Pope's censures.  
The Defence, cap. 5.   As for any open and apparent act, he was so far from taking upon him to deprive the Emperor by judicial sentence in his Consistory, that he durst not be known in this tumult to stand with the people, or favour their doings by any public aid or consent, but seemed rather to stay them by his persuasion, and to labour against that defection of theirs in the sight of others as your own Stories do confess. And therefore you may prove, if you will by this example a rebellion of the Romans against their Prince, which the Bishop of Rome neither did, nor durst avouch; but deposition of Princes by the Pope's censures, which is the point that we demand, you can not prove by this or any other precedent in the West parts for a thousand years after Christ.  Phi. 
You can not deny but that for defect in religion and of the church's defence the Greek Emperors were discharged and the Empire translated to the Germans by Pope Leo the third.  Theoph. 
That the Empire was divided I do not deny, 
The division of the Empire.  but that it was done for defect in religion, or that the Pope alone of his absolute authority did it, both these I deny: and therein though certain Monks and Friars of yours do slubber up the matter, and attibute the doing thereof to the Pope's sole and sovereign power: yet the truer and exacter writers of your own side do witness the contrary.  
And that first it was not done for any defect in Religion, 
The Empire was not divided for any defect in religion. Synod. Nicenae 2. actio. 2.  the time, when it was done, will declare. The second Council of Nice was celebrated in the eight year of Constantine and Irene, as the first session of the Council doth specify: Where not only the Legates of Adrian Bishop of Rome say of themselves, Nos postquam ab Apostolico Patre nostro Adriano litteras accepissemus, eas ad pios nostros Imperatores pertulimus, The letters which we brought from our apostolic Father Adrian we delivered to the hands of our religious Emperors, (Constantine and Irene.) But Adrian himself writing to them by name, 
Ibidem epist. Adrian. ad Constant. Imperat. & Iren. matrem eius.  saith: Being lately by your godly commandment advertised of your pleasure, we offered prayers & thanks to almighty God for your Empire. And growing to an end, Haec sunt serenissimi & pijssimi Imperatores: These are the things most gracious & godly Emperors, which we have gathered out of the Scriptures, etc. the which by our apostolic relation we present to the good affection of your Majesties with all humility and sincerity: beseeching your clemency and as it were kneeling in your presence, and prostrate before your feet, I with my brethren make supplication & request to you in the sight of God, 
The Pope confesseth the church of Rome to be the Greek Emperors: in the second Nicene Synod: and after that council was no change of religion in Greece. The Empire was divided by the public decree of the Roman state and not by the Pope's keys.  that keeping the tradition of this your most holy & blessed church, you will detest the wicked rage of heretics that you may embrace this catholic and apostolic church of Rome which is yours, without dissolution. At this Synod Constantine and Irene were acknowledged by Adrian and his Legates for Emperors of Rome: and after this Synod till the division of the Empire, there was no change of religion in Greece, but the affairs of the church stood in the same state in which they were at the time of this Synod. And sure it is that Irene was wholly addicted to images, for by her help this council was kept & images restored: and yet in her reign, when she alone had the rule of all, the Empire was divided. So that religion can not be pretended for the translation of the Roman Empire from the Greeks to the Germans.  
Again the main consent of your Stories is; that the Senate and people of Rome did concur with the Bishop in this action, & their decree that he should, and request that he would crown Charles for their Emperor, are expressly remembered in the most of your writers, otherwise deriving all the power they can in these and such like cases to the Bishop of Rome. Platina and Blondus say it was done, Populi Romani scito ac precibus: by the decree and request of the people of Rome: 

Platina in Leone 3.  
Blondus Decadis 2. lib. 1. Naval. volume 3 generatio. 27. in anno 800. Sabel ennead. 8. lib. 8.  
aven annal. boior. lib. 4. fol. 344.   Nauclerus saith it was done, populi Romani consensu: with the consent of the people of Rome: Sabellicus saith, Scito rogatuque populi Romani. The Pope did it by the determination and petition of the people of Rome. aventinus saith, Pontifex, Senatus, populusque Romanus, imper●um transfer, iure suo in Germanos Carolumque tacito Senatus consulto, plebiscitoque decernunt. The Bishop, Senate, and people of Rome, conclude by a decree of the Senate and people secret among themselves, to remove the (Roman) Empire, and in their own right to derive it unto the Germans and unto Charles.  


Sigeber. in ann. 801.  
The Romans pretended the wickedness of Irene to be the cause why they forsook the Grecians.   Sigebert showing the time, and adding the cause, saith: Romani qui ab Imperatore Constantinopolitano iam diu animo disciverant, nunc accepta occasionis opportunitate, quia milier excaecato Imperatore Constantino filio suo eis imperabat, uno omnium consensu Carolo Regi Imperatorias laudes acclamant, eumque per manus Leonis Papae coronant, Caesarem & Augustum appellant: The Romans, which in heart were long before fallen from the Emperor of Constantinople, taking this occasion and opportunity that a woman, which had pulled out the eyes of her own son the Emperor, had gotten the Dominion over them, with one general consent proclaim king Charles for their Emperor and crown him by the hands of Pope Leo, and salute him as Caesar and Emperor (of Rome.) Frisingensis saith of her: 
Otho Frisingen. lib. 5. cap. 29.  Digna cuius diebus orbis imperium quod in manus faeminae non dignè devenerat, ad Francos transferretur. She well deserved that in her days the Empire of the world, which came into the hands of a woman by so vile means, should be translated to the Germans.  
Aeneas Silvius giveth an other cause that moved them no less, than this. 
Aeneas Silvius de authoritate Romani Imperij, cap. 9  Demum verò negligentibus Romam Graecis, eamque nunc Barbarorum, nunc aliorum direptions relinquentibus, populus ille Romanus, qui suo sanguine tantum pararat imperium, qui suis virtutibus Monarchiam fundaverat orbis, venientem in auxilium eye Carolum magnum Francorum Regem, qui urbem sacraque loca ab omni hostium incursione defendit, concurrente summi consensu Pontificis Caesarem salutavit: The Princes of Greece beginning to neglect the city of Rome, 
A second cause pretended for the division of the Empire.  and to leave it to the spoil of Barbarians and others, the people of Rome which with their blood had gotten so great an Empire, and with their virtues established the Monarchy of the world, saluted Charles the great king of Germans (as he came to help them, and had defended the city and temples from all invasions of enemies) for their Emperor, not without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.  
So that the wiser sort even of your own fellows do neither pretend religion, nor the Pope's supereminent power over all kingdoms, for the translation of the Empire as you do, but set it down as an Act done by the general consent and authority of the Bishop, Senate and people of Rome for mere civil respects. And at the time of their defection from the Grecians, they neither deprived Prince, 
The indignity which the Romans conceived against Irenes' usurpation & cruelty.  nor pretended any Papal censure for the matter; but abhorring to see a wicked woman (that had thrust the right heir and her own son from his throne, and pulled out his eyes) to invade and hold the Monarchy of the world by injury and tyranny, they rejected her as an usurper and disposed otherwise of their own state by electing a new Emperor.  Phi. 
They would never after be united again to the Grecians.  Theo. 
You range without your bonds. The division of the Empire so long as it was neither for matter of religion, 
The division of the Empire maketh nothing for the Pope's depriving of Princes.  as I have proved, nor done by the Pope's apostolic power, as your own companions grant, but by the consent of the whole state of Rome, either for displeasure to see themselves neglected in their miseries by the Grecians, or for disdain that a wicked Tigress usurped the Empire without all right, is nothing to your question; and therefore whether it were lawful or unlawful for the Romans so to do, can do you no more good, than it can do us, 
Many realms fell from the Greek Empire before the Romans.  to prove that the Queen of England, or the king of France may depose Princes, because either Realm had long before that severed and disjoined themselves from the Roman Empire, and had by this time, when the Romans fell away, peaceable and absolute regiments of their own.  Phi. 
These Countries were conquered, and so by the Law of arms divided from the Empire.  Theo. 
So could we say that Italy was conquered first by the Lombard's, and after by Charles, who took their king captive, and by the law of arms inherited his crown. But we stand not on that as being without our compass: it sufficeth to confute you that the Empire was divided by the Romans for earthly respects, as appeareth by the confession of your own fellows, & not any Prince deposed by the Pope's authority for default in matter of religion. You heard before what Aeneas Silvius said: Blondus, Sabellicus, Nauclerus and others report the like occasion and reason for the Romans dividing the Empire.  


Blood. Decad. 1. lib. 10.  
Upon what occasion the Empire was divided, by the report of their own stories.   Aistulfus king of the Lombard's, saith Blondus: invaded and spoiled the parts of Italy that belonged to the Romans. The Bishop of Rome did his best with gifts and entreaties to pacify the wicked king; and when he perceived it did not avail him, he wrote to Constantine the Emperor, and showed him in what state the City of Rome and all Italy stood, assuring him that unless he did ●ende help, the City and the whole Country would be subdued by Aistulfus: The Emperor moved with the earnest petition of Gregory▪ (the third) wrote to Aistulfus, but his Legates brought nothing back from Aistulfus but words, and those sharp enough. The Bishop hearing this and seeing no good done, called an assembly of the whole people of Rome, 
The Pope himself pretendeth not religion in this consultation.  and there at their earnest motion and request resolved to deal thus with the Emperor, that unless he would secure the City and Country in this extremity with his presence and army, they would seek some other way to save and defend themselves. The messengers were scant gone, but Aistulfus sent heralds to menace the Bishop and people of Rome, that unless they would yield themselves and the City, he would come and take them by force, and kill man, woman, and child. The Pope did not cease with presents and promises to win Aistulfus to continue the league which he had begun with the Romans. 

Help sought from the king of France by the common assent of the people of Rome.  
Sabel. ennead. 8. lib. 8.   And when he laboured in vain, and the messenger which was ●ent to the Emperor neither returned, nor gave them any hope of aid (from the Empire) TOGETHER WITH THE PEOPLE OF ROME HE DETERMINED to desire the help of the king of France.  
Sabellicus putting Stephen where Blondus doth Gregory, sayeth: Not long after Aistulfus took Ravenna, which when the Bishop of Rome by Legates required to have restored, the Lombarde not only refused, but with great threats willed them to tell the Bishop and people of Rome, that except they did render their city and whole Dominion into his hands, he would shortly come and subdue them with arms, and kill them every one. Stephen amazed with these terrors of war gave counsel to send to Constantinople, whence they which were sent signified by letters that there was no looking for help from Constantine, either for that he would not or could not, and therefore they must seek some other way. 
Navel. volume 3. generat. 26. anno 753. Blond. Decad. 1. lib. 1.  The Bishop appalled with these letters, dealt with the people that some might be sent into France to king Pipine. Nauclerus and others say the same, insomuch that when Aistulfus straightly besieged Rome three months and wasted all that was round about it with fire and sword, Blondus saith, Dum tantis fluctuat angiturque vel detrimentis velpericulis Roma & Italia, Constantinus Imperator nullam subveniendi curam suscepit. Whiles Rome and Italy tottered and was ready to sink under these ruins and hazards, Constantine the Emperor had no manner of care to relieve them.  
This neglect of their calamities, not religion, made the Romans seek and take all opportunities to forsake the Grecians. I speak of the people, not of the Pope: 
The Pope had his secret purposes in labouring the division of the Empire.  for he had deeper reaches and other purposes in laying this plot, and those were the bettering his state and enriching himself with the spoils of the Empire, and aspiring to be free from the Prince's check, to whom till that time he was wholly subject: which were the chief intentes of his first joining with the Germans. And therefore when he was once set at liberty from the yoke of the Grecians and endued with a good part of the emperors revenues in Italy, he never left practising till he brought the Roman Sceptre to nothing, and himself to this height that we now see him in, by the final ruin and subversion of the East & West Empire.  Phi. 
Might the people of Rome forsake the Grecians that bore the sword?  Theo. 
Look you to that. You may prove them rebels, 
The Jesuits by this may prove the Romans to be rebels if they lift, they can not prove the Pope to be the disposer of kingdoms. See Zonaras annalium, lib. 3.  if you be so disposed; you can not prove the Bishop of Rome to be the deposer of Princes. That which was done had the common consent, & was the public Act of the Roman state, when there was no disagreement in religion between them & Irene; but a dislike for lack of convenient aid in their distresses as some affirm, or else a discontentment to see that furious woman usurp the imperial dignity, and no lawful successor left to vindicate the same out of her hand, as others seem to say.  
Whatsoever the cause was that moved the Romans; the Empire amongst the Grecians at that time went neither by succession nor election, but they were fallen to cutting of throats, and he that was mightiest took the sword. justinian the younger was deprived of the Empire and banished, 
The Grecians were fallen to catching and fight for the Sceptre, before the Romans shrank from them.  and his nose cut off by Leo the second: and Leo the second thrust from the throne and imprisoned by Tiberius the third. Against them both when justinian had prevailed and recovered his crown and put them to death, Philippicus in open field slew justinian, and got his place: but kept it not long. For Arthemius the next year after took from him the Sceptre, and both his eyes. Theodosius saw that, and he set Arthemius besides the stool, and with main force of arms made him of a Prince a poor Priest, and was himself within one year served of the same sauce by Leo the third. This wretched tumbling for the Empire by rebellion and murder might provoke the Romans to give ear to the Pope's private whisperings: and when they saw Constantine the sixth the last of Leoes line deprived both of his kingdom and eyesight by his own mother, to forsake her as well as the Grecians did after deprive her, 
The Grecians deprived Irene as usurping the sceptre.  and close her in an Abbay; but that I esteem not, so long as the Pope by the power of his keys did not divide the empire, for defect in religion, as you vainly avouch.  Phi. 
Many writers witness with us that the Bishop of Rome translated the Empire. 
The Pope by right of his keys had nought to do with the Roman Empire   Theo. 
We do not deny but the Bishop as a principal part of the city and policy of Rome had a stroke therein, and gained well thereby: but that he did it by his Priestly power as Peter's successor, and not rather the people and the Bishop joining together with their common advise and authority as a politic state, that you shall never prove.  Phi. 
What had the people to do with translating the Empire?  Theo. 
Nay what had the Pope to do with disposing the temporal sword? 
The people had more to do with translating the Empire than the Pope.  The Roman state and Commonwealth had as good right to dispose the Roman Empire, as all other christian & heathen kingdoms and countries had to settle the sword and sceptre that reigned over them. And since all other nations, once members of the Roman Empire, were suffered to plant those several forms of regiment which they best liked, and when the right heirs failed, to elect their own Governors, I see no cause why the Romans might not provide for themselves, as well as other Realms had done before them, specially if the purportes of your Stories be true, that they were neglected by the Grecians when they were besieged by the lombards, and the sceptre at Constantinople went not by descent or succession, but by violent and wicked invasion and sedition; but that the Bishop of Rome by his Priestly keys, or apostolic power did or might dispose the Empire, that we deny: And if any of your side to flatter the Pope, make report that he did it of his absolute power, and judicial authority, we little esteem such stragglers: as having the general consent of your best authors and chiefest pillours for the contrary.  Phi. 
The chiefest of our side are against the most of your assertions. You hold opinion that Leo the third was not deprived of all his temporalities within Italy by Gregory the second: 
Platina foully overseen in the translation of the empire. Plat. in Greg. 3. Nau●. volume 2. generatio 25. anno 725. Volum. 2. generatio. 25.  and yet Platina and Nauclerus say, that Gregory put him Imperio simul & communione fidelium, both from his Empire & from the communion of the faithful.  Theo. 
This they say of Gregory the third, not of Gregory the 2. as you do: but it can be true of neither. Nauclerus by and by reciteth Epistle of Gregory the third written the same year that Leo the Emperor died, where he calleth him Dominum pijssimum, Augustum Leonem: most religious Lord, Leo the Emperor. Sabellicus leaveth out the word (imperio) as unlikely to be true, & saith that Gregory the third magno Cleri, populique consensu piorum communione private: 
Sabel. ennead. 8. lib. 8.  put the Emperor (Leo) from the communion with the consent and liking of the clergy and laity. Blondus holdeth hardly that Gregory the third was not Bishop of Rome, whiles Leo the third had the Empire.  
Again the Empire could not be translated in the time of Leo, but Constantine his son must likewise lose the same; his father taking him into the society of the crown the fourth year of his empire, and writing seven where Constantine wrote four, as appeareth by the letter of Gregory the second to the Germans, and Bonifacius 
Habetur Auentin. li. 3. fol. 888. Blondus Decad.  oath and contestation before the same Gregory. Now to Constantine 
1. lib. 10. & Sabellic. ennead. 8. lib. 8.  the son of Leo did the Bishop of Rome send both 
Platina in Gregorio 3.  letters and Legates for help against Aistulphus when he besieged Rome, as to the right owner, protector, and Emperor of that city. And therefore it must needs be false that Platina saith, the tutele of the church was removed from the Emperors of Constantinople to others by this Gregory in the reign of Leo: for so much as 
* Suprà fol. 414.  Blondus, Sabellicus and Nauclerus witness the defence of the city against the lombards was craved at Constantine's hands by those whom Platina placeth after Gregory.  
And the chiefest reason which he giveth of this transferring the defence of the church is most false. Gregory derived it to others, sayeth he, 
Plat. in Greg. 3. Platina contradicteth all other stories.  maximè quod urbem regiam aegrè Leo à Saracenis tutaretur: chief because Leo was hardly able to defend his own city (of Constantinople) from Saracens: whereas the Saracens besieged not Constantinople but the 
* Sigebertus, Zonar. & Cuspinian.  first year of Leo, before his edict against Images came forth: and Luitprandus besieged Rome not (Interim) as Platina sayeth, but a long time after: and the Bishop of Rome sent first for help into France not when Luitprandus, but when Aistulphus besieged him: and then he sent not unto Charles as Platina would have it, but to Pipine the father of Charles, with many such errors which convince Platina to be a very indiligent and insufficient writer in this point.  
Nauclerus contented himself with the words of Platina, 

Sabel. ennead. 8. lib 8.  
Much shuffling in popish writers about the division of the empire.   & searched no farther: which Sabellicus perceived to be so repugnant to the course of other Stories, that he sayeth, Neque tempora legentibus, neque rerum ordo constare liquid● potest. It is hard for the reader to distinguish either the times or the order of those things which were done, by reason Platina in these words runneth so on head against the rest. And therefore you shall pardon us for receiving a man of mean judgement, and one that writeth very negligently of these affairs, before the rest, that purposely and largely treated of those matters as near as they could get the knowledge or come by the likelihood of those actions.  
These be your presidents for the depriving of Princes between sixe-hundreth and a thousand years after Christ. Other or better you have not, and these you see, be very slender.  Phi. 
We could allege more, but you will shift them, as you do these.  Theo. 
We shift not, when we reprove the partial and corrupt reports of your own fellows by better and elder testimonies. More if you have, you need not spare.  Philand. 
Philippicus was deprived of the Empire by the Bishop of Rome: and so was Childerike of the kingdom of France.  Theoph. 
Your Law doth not stick to boast that 

Philip & Childerike deprived.  
Caus. 15. quaest. 6. ¶ alius.  
Plat. in Zach. 1.   Zacharias deposed Childerike King of France, and placed Pipine in his room.  Philand. 
So he did.  Theo. 
Who saith so besides you?  Philand. 
Platina sayeth; Eius authoritate regnum Franciae Pipino adiudicatur. By Zacharies authority the kingdom of France was adjudged unto P●pine. And Frisingensis affirmeth that Pipine was absolved by Pope Steven from the oath of allegiance, 
Frisingen. lib. 5. cap. 22.  which he had given to Childerike, and so were the rest of the Nobles of France; and then the king being shaven and thrust into a Monastery, Pipine was anointed king: which you think much the Pope should do in our days.  Theoph. 
Set aside your helping and interlacing the Story, and I see no cause why Zacharie should be thought by his apostolic power to have deposed Childerike. 
Well the Pope might make a pack, for the deposition of Childerike: but his keys were then of no such power as to depose Princes. Caus. 15. quaest. 6. ¶ alius.   Philand. 
Deposed he was.  Theoph. 
But neither for religion, nor by the Pope's Consistory.  Philand. 
For the cause of his deposition I will not greatly strive. Our Law sayeth he was deposed, Pro eo quod tantae potestati inutilis erat, for that he was unfit for the kingdom, but sure Pope Zacharie deposed him.  Theoph. 
Sure you be deceived. Pope Zacharie was then of no such account that he could depose Princes. He was consulted whether it might lawfully be done or no, but farther than so the Bishop of Rome did not in open sight intermeddle with the matter, whatsoever his privy practices were: though many of your Monks and Bishops to grace the Pope, do make it his only Act.  Philand. 
In all these cases our Stories are against you; and no reason we credit you, to discredit them.  Theoph. 
I desire you not to credit me: and give me leave to do as much for you: but if your own Stories make with us, I see no cause you should discredit them.  Philand. 
We do not.  Theoph. 
You may not.  
Then touching the persons which did the deed: Sabellicus saith, Proceres Regni & populi amplexi Pipini virtutem, 

sabel. ennead 8. lib. 8.  
The germans consulted the Pope, whether it were lawful for them to depose the Prince or not. Blondus Decad. 1. lib. 10.   pertes●que regis amentiam, Zacharia Romano Pontifice prius consulto, regis appellatione Childerico adempta, ut spes etiam regni adimeretur in clerum detondent, Pipinum regem creant. The Nobles & Commons (of France or Germany) embracing the valour of Pipine and hating the foolishness of their king, having first consulted Zacharie Bishop of Rome, took from Childerike the name of a king, and to cut him from all hope of aspiring to the crown, they sheer him a Monk, and elect Pipine for their king. Blondus saith, I find in Alcuinus, Paulus, and diverse others, which wrote the Acts of the Francs, that the Nobles and Commons of that Nation duly considering the worthiness of Pipine, & sottishness of Childerike, consulted Zacharie the Bishop of Rome, whether they should tolerate so foolish a king any longer, 
The whole nation deposed Childerik.  & defraud Pippin of his deserved princely honour; & when the Bishop made answer, that he was (best worthy) to be king which could best discharge the duty of a king: the Frankes with the public consent of the whole Nation pronounced Pipine for their king; and Childerike was shorn and made a Monk. 
Nauc. generat. 26.  Nauclerus saith: The Franckes elected Pipine for their king by the public consent of the whole Nation: which is all one with that Blondus sayeth, 
Caus. 15. quaest. 6. ¶ Alius & gloss. ibidem in ver. Deposuit.  They declared or pronounced him for their king. And this is the reason that your own gloze limiteth your Law in this sort, Deposuit, id est deponentibus consensit: Zacharie deposed Childerike, that is he consented to those which deposed him.  Phi. 
The most of our Stories say, 

The deposing of Childerike to make Pippin king of France had a further reach than every man saw.  
The Pope and Pipin divided the west parts of the world between them.   he did it.  Theoph. 
Your Stories are very forward to attribute every thing to the Pope that may any way increase his power. And it may be the Pope had an oar in that boat more than every body well perceived. For Pipine was the man on whom the Pope wholly relied, and whose power he afterward used to quail the Lombard's, and defeat the Grecians; that the Pope and Pipine▪ might divide the spoils of the West between them. And therefore I can be soon induced to think that a main plot was laid, first to make Pipine king of France: and then by his help to turn the Greek Emperor out of Italy that the Pope might have share of the revenues of the Empire, as not long after it came to pass: but that the Pope then claimed any power to depose Princes and give kingdoms; or that the better sore of your own stories stay on any such pretences, you shall never show. Zacharie being consulted made answer, what the Germans by God's Law, as he thought might do: but he did not appoint them by sentence or censure, what they should do.  Philand. 
How shall we know that in this diversity of reports?  Theoph. 
You shall hear Zacharies answer to the Legates that were sent about this matter: 
aven lib. p. 299 Zacharies answer to the Germane Legates.  and that you may safely trust.  Philand. 
I mistrust not his own words.  Theop. 
You need not, he would favour himself as much as he might with any good colour. When Volorade and Burcharde were sent to Zacharie to understand his judgement, his answer was, I find in the sacred story of the Divine Scriptures that the people fell away from their reckless and lascivious king, that despised the counsel of the wise men of his Realm, and created a sufficient man, one of themselves, king, God himself allowing their doings. All power and rule belong to God, Princes are his ministers in their kingdoms. And rulers are therefore chosen for the people, that they should follow the will of (God) the chief ruler in all things, 
This Pope claimeth no power to depose Princes, but supposeth it to be lawful for any realm to provide themselves of a fit king.  and not to do what they list. He is a true king that guideth the people committed to his charge according to the prescript and line of God's Law. All that he hath, as power, glory, riches, honour and dignity, he receiveth of the people. The people create their king, and the people may (when the cause so requireth) forsake their king. It is therefore lawful for the Franckes and Germans refusing this unkindly monster (Childerike) to choose some such as shall be able in war and peace by his wisdom to protest and keep in safety their wives, children, parents, goods and lives.  
I will not examine the Pope's divinity, in that he saith, Princes have their powers of the people: which the Scripture sayeth they have of God: 
Rom. 13. jeroboam & the ten tribes had Gods warrant for their revolt, and so had not the Germans when they chose Pipine. When princes are unfit for the regiment of their people, their own Realms and not the Pope must have care of that defect. Extreme folly and frenzy be just causes to remove Princes from bearing the sword.  this is plain, he claimeth no power to depose Princes, but allegeth an example that the people may change their king when he is not able (for frenzy or folly) to do the duty of a king. And by that concludeth it lawful for the Germans to refuse that simple idiot, which had the Sceptre by succession, and elect an other.  Phi. 
Though you hold the Pope may not, yet you confess the people may depose their Prince.  Theo. 
I tell you not what I think, but what Pope Zacharie said to the Germans.  Phila. 
Do you like or dislike that he said?  Theo. 
I should have asked you that question: but because you prevent me, you shall hear what I say. Z●charie toucheth not the causes for which Princes may be deposed, but the persons by whom it must be done, if it be needful to do it: and that is by their own Realms, and not by tribunalles abroad, as you suppose.  Phi. 
Then it may be done.  Theo. 
When it should be done, the whole Realm must do it, and not the Pope.  Phi. 
But neither he, nor they can do it, except you first assent that it may be done. There can be no deposers, if Princes be not deposeable.  Theo. 
There may fall extremities: when Princes are not able to guide themselves, much less their Realms.  Phi. 
What be those?  Theo. 
I named them before, frenzy & folly. As if the right heir to any Crown be a natural fool; or he that is invested in the Crown, wax mad, and run besides himself. In either of these two cases any Realm by public consent and advise may choose an other.  Phi. 
What unlikely cases you bring us which never yet fell out in proof?  Theo. 
yes that they have. Childerike, of whom we spoke even now, was deposed by the Germans for a fool. 
The last of Pipines' race deposed for a bedlam. Regino lib. 2. anno 887. evag. lib. 5. c. 11  And Charles the 3. the last Emperor of Pipines' line (God's justice requiting his children with the very same measure that he met before unto his master) was deposed by the same people for * a bedlam. As also when justinus the younger was * distract of his wits, Tiberius was placed in the Empire.  Philand. 
You make Childerike a fool, because you would avoid the Pope's power to deprive Princes.  Theophil. 
If you made him not a fool, when you put him from his right under that pretence, I do him no wrong: Your Stories blaze him for a frantic fool. Blondus and Nauclerus say they did it 
Blond. Decad. 1. lib. 10. Naucl. volume 3. gener. 26.  Pensantes Regis amentiam: considering the madness of the king: Sabellicus addeth thereunto, 
Sabel. ennead. 8. lib. 8.  * Regis deliria & ineptias, the folly and frenzy of the king. Gaguinus saith he was 
Gag. li. 3. in Carolo Martel.  * homo vecors & bellua: a very sot and a beast: and for that cause his title in your Stories is Childericus stupidus, Childerike the fool: whether he were or no, God knoweth: but this we see, they handled him like a fool, and the Pope had information against him that he was Deneger monstrum, a monster and not a man; and therefore were the causes which they alleged for this deposition true or no, we greatly care not. They pretended a cause sufficient, if it were true; and the Pope confessed it lawful for the whole Realm to displace such a Prince, as was both unfit and un-able to bear the sword.  Philand. 
But Stephen absolved Pipine from the oath of allegiance which he had given unto Childerike. 
Vrss ergens. in anno 753.   Theoph. 
High time to absolve Pipine from his oath three years after Childerike was deposed, and he placed in the kingdom. 
Regino, lib. 2. anno 753.  Regino, whence that fable first came of Stephen's sickness at Paris and his recovery by a vision of Saint Denis, saith not a word of any such absolution, but only that Stephen confirmed Pipine and his two sons as lawful kings of France, 

The Jesuits must prove that the Pope may dispense with a lawful oath.  
The staggering of their stories make many men think that Childerike was no fool.   and adjured the Nobles not to choose them a king of any other line so long as Pipines' race endured. The rest is added by Monks and Friars in favour of the Pope as infinite other things are in the accidents of every Age. Howbeit absolving from others if they be lawful and good, is a greater matter than we yet believe your holy father may deal with.  
The wavering of your Stories in the cause of Childerikes deposition, (for sometimes they urge a defect in Childerike, sometimes they plead a right in Pipine without the king, and above the king, as having the regiment of that Realm and all public affairs committed to him and his, for the space of fourscore years by way of inheritance before he sought the crown:) this wavering in the cause, and curious seeking for absolutions, and confirmations maketh many men suspect that your pretences against Childerike were not all true. But whether Pipine had better interest to the Crown of France than Childerike: by reason the 
* Auent. lib. 3. fol. 293. & Nau volume 3. generatio. 26. anno 750. & Frising. lib. 5. cap. 13. This power of the Marshal over the King made Pipin aspire to the crown.  Marshal of the Palace was become the kings master, in so much that the king could not command his own diet but at the Marshal's pleasure; and was governed and overruled in all things by him as a boy by his tutor, which is the constant report of all your witers touching the state of the german kings, when Pipine aspired to the crown: or whether Childerike were an idiot and the last of his house, as for the better strength of Pipines' title your stories avouch, I will be no judge. Childerik I say was deposed by the Nobles and commons of his nation, and the Pope being consulted whether it were lawful for them so to do, made answer, they might, but added no word of his divine power to dispose kingdoms to his liking. And this for Childerik may suffice.  
For Philippicus the answer is easier. 

Beda de sex aetatibus mundi.  
Regino lib. 1. in anno 648.  
Marianus in Philippico.  
frisingen's. lib. 5. cap. 15.  
Vrspergens. in anno 713.   He was a rebel and slew his Master in the field, and therefore without any farther cause the Romans might refuse both his name & his reign. To this usurpation when he added as they thought impiety, it was no marvel to see them so earnest against him: But in this as in many other things your later Stories stray from the former. The elder sort of Historiographers as Beda, Regino, Marianus, Frisingensis, & Vrspergensis say: The people of Rome decreed that neither his name, nor letters, 

Blondus decadis 1. lib. 10. Nauc. volume 2. gener. 23. Sabel. ennead. 8. lib. 7.  
Sigebert. in anno 712.   nor coin should be received: the later, as Blondus, Sabellicus and Nauclerus have changed their tune, and say: The Bishop of Rome did it at the clamour and petition of the people. Sigebert as indifferent between them saith, the Bishop and the people jointly did it. So handsomely you can hammer things when they come to your fingering, and such credit your Stories deserve when the case concerneth your holy Father's authority.  

more examples than these they have not for a 1000 years after Christ.  These be all the examples you do or can bring for the space of a thousand years after Christ, where Princes were deprived of their crowns by the Bishop of Rome: and these how little they make for your purpose, I leave to the judgement of the christian Reader.  
Your catalogue of the german Emperors, that ensueth: As of Fredrick the first, 
The eldest of the german Emperors that were offered deprivation by the Pope, was Henry the 4. jews the 3. was not deposed.  Fredrick the second, Otho the fift, jews the third, jews the fourth, and Henry the third (or as some call him the fourth) maketh show to the simple, but doth you no good. The eldest of these that were offered deprivation by the Pope, is Henry the fourth whom Gregory the seventh a thousand, threescore and six years after Christ provoked with that injury, but to his own & utter overthrow.  
You reckon jews the third, and jews the fourth for Princes deprived of their Empires by the Bishop of Rome, but reason were you did first tell us whom you mean, and how you prove it. Marianus Scotus and they that follow him make▪ jews the third to be Lodovicus Balbus to whom Pope john fled & anointed him king of the Romans, 

Marian. in Lodovic 3.  
Sabel. ennead. 9 lib. 1.  
This jews was not deposed.   when the Nobles of Rome inclined rather to Charles the third, and gave him possession of the city, who was after anointed by Pope john at his return; Lodovic the third living scant two years after his coronation. Martinus Polonus numbereth him for jews the third that was next after Arnulphus: but whether it were Lodovic the son of Arnulphus, 
Marian. in Lodovic. ●3. Blondus Decad. 2. lib. 2 Marian. in Lodovic. filio Arnulph. Platina in Benedict. 4. Martinus in Arnulph. Plat. in Formos'. This jews was never crowned.  or an other of that name the son of Boso, he doth not determine, only he saith Berengarius caught him at Verona and recovered the Empire: which Blondus and Marianus report of Lodovic the son of Boso, and not of Lodovic the son of Arnulphus, as Platina doth. In this uncertainty of your Stories you might have done well to have distinguished the person, & pointed out your author: you now drive us to suspect that you go about to have them deposed that were never crowned.  
Of Lodovic the son of Arnulphus, Martinus saith: He succeeded his father, sed ad coronam Imperij non pervenit, but he never was crowned Emperor. And Platina confesseth the same: In the place (of Arnulphus) we read that Lodovic was made Emperor, quem tamen nusquam habuisse imperij Coronam accepimus: of whom we do not find that ever he had the Crown of the Empire. If he never received the Crown, how could he be deposed from the Crown?  Phi. 
Perhaps the Pope kept him from it.  Theo. 
Perhaps you can not tell: but think you that Princes will lose their Crowns for your perhaps?  Phi. 
He never had it.  Theo. 
But had he any wrong to be kept from it?  Phi. 
How think you of that?  Theo. 
Your proofs be very mighty that must depend on my thoughts.  Phi. 
We brought in these instances as it were by the way, to let you see what store of examples we had.  Theo. 
Then take them out of the way, for they do but hinder your cause.  
When Charles the third, otherwise called Carolus Crassus, grew both sick and lunatic, the Nobles of Germany clean forsook him, and choose Arnulphus which as some say was the son of Charlemagne, but as Blondus affirmeth, was 
The last of Pipines' line deposed for a mad man.  obscurissimo natus loco, a man very basely borne, and not of Charles line: by reason whereof 
Blond. decad. 2. lib. 2.  the kingdoms which before were subject to Charles, now as destitute of a right heir, began to fall in sunder on every side, & to choose kings of themselves. Then France 
Regino lib. 2. anno 888.  took Charles the child, cognamed Simple, and when his simplicity displeased them, they 
Blond. ut supra.  set Otho the son of Robert Duke of Saxony, in his place. At the same time the people of Italy meaning to have a king of their own, could not agree on the matter, but chose some Berengarius; and others Guido, and so had two kings in Italy both calling and bearing themselves as Emperors. Besides these defections, Arnulphus had long and sharp wars with 
Italy forsook the Germans & choose to themselves two kings of their own.  Rodolph that proclaimed himself king of Province, and with the 
Regino lib. ●. anno 888.  Nortmanes that ranged in many parts of France and Germany. So that the Pope did not depose jews the third, as you would insinuate: but Italy seeing the line of Charles to be expired, thought to make an Emperor of their own bowels, and to keep off strangers that before had the rule over them: and so they did for threescore years, till barbarous invasions, and domestical seditions, and disorders made them glad to send to Otho the great, 
Seditions and invasions made the Romans glad after 60. years to submit themselves again to the Germans.  and to receive him for their Emperor, and to yield to a form of electing to the Empire by certain Bishops and Princes of Germany, which hath endured until this present.  
This your own Stories abundantly confirm, save that some write of Arnulphus that he marched with his army through the midst of Italy and took Rome, and caused himself to be crowned Emperor, (as Regino saith who then lived) by Formosus the Bishop of Rome: which 
Regino lib. 2. anno 896. Decad. 2. lib. 2 Blond. Decad. ● lib 2.  Blondus doth scant believe. Howsoever that were, they all agree that Berengarius and Guido were chosen kings of Italy when Arnulphus was first advanced to Charles his place. Blondus saith, Arnulpho apud Francos in Imperatorem creato Romani & caeteri Itali nullum ab imperatore novo dissidijs Regni Franciae implicito auxilium adversus rebels Longobardoes affuturum intelligentes, Berengarium Foron●liensem Ducem Roma oriundum crearunt Imperatorem. 
another change of the Empire, but not by the Pope's keys.  Arnulphus being chosen Emperor by the Germans, the Romans and Italians perceiving they might look for no help against the rebellious Lombard's from that new Emperor, having his hands full of the dissensions of his own kingdom, created Berengarius the duke of Frioli a Roman their emperor. Neither yet did they so well agree in that election but that other chose Guido the Duke of Spoletum to be king of Italy. Otho Frisingensis maketh the same report. 
Otho Frisingen. li. 6. ca 9 & 10.  Charles the next year after he was deposed, died. From that time to Otho we find the regiment at Rome very confused. For after the death of Charles, which reigned six years and led a private life, the seventh year the Empire was rend in many parts, every Province desirous to have a several king: only Arnolfus had the greatest share. Therefore the Italians make themselves two kings: Berengarius Duke of Friault, and Guido Duke of Spoletum. Of the which Berengarius chased out of his country by Guido ●led for succour to Arnolfus.  
You can not prove hence that Arnulphus or jews his son were deprived by the Pope, but only that the Romans made an other defection from the Empire: who after they had once tasted the sweetness that came by cutting the empire in pieces (for where before they were suppliants & subjects, 
The Romans were no losers by often cutting the Empire in pieces  now by the largesse of Pipine they were Lords of half Italy) by their wills could never have rested. And though the Germans and Italians differ in their reckonings; the Germans accounting Berengarius and those that succeeded him until Otho the great, for usurpers, and contrarywise the Italians accepting them for their natural and true Emperors; 
The Germans and Italians differ in their reckonings.  Yet that is no cause for you to avouch that the Pope deposed any of them. For put the case either way, that the Germans were lawfully excluded as having no right, or wrongfully debarred of their right, you may conclude hence a just allegation, or a civil sedition in the Romans, but no deprivation of Princes by the Pope.  

jews the son of Boso was not deprived by the Pope.  If by jews the third you mean jews the son of Boso, (for him you may mean, and by your indistinct speaking, you drive us to guess at your meaning;) he with violence gate some dominion in Italy, putting Berengarius to the worst; and by negligence lost not only that he gate, but his eyes also, which he might have saved with staying at home: marry the doers of it were Berengarius his enemy, and the citizens of Verona which betrayed him: mention of the Pope there is none, except you think it unfit for his holiness that any treason should be wrought without him, for that his● See is so well practised in them. Of this jews, 
Otho Frisingens. lib. 6. cap. 15.  Otho saith: In the year of our Lord 905. Lodovic the son of Boso getting the Empire expelled Berengarius: and having the whole kingdom of Italy at his beck, dismissing his army, went to Verona with a small train, where being betrayed by the citizens (that sent for Berengarius from the place where he was in exile) he was caught and his eyes pulled out. 
Three Lodovikes, & not one of them deposed by the Pope.  And after that Berengarius held the kingdom of Italy together with the Roman Empire. So have we three Lodovikes, each of them in sundry writers surnamed jews the third, and not one of them deposed by the Bishop of Rome.  

Henry the fourth was the first, that ever was offered doposition by any Pope.  Henry the fourth was the first that was troubled with the Pope's presumption to depose Princes: but he was so far from taking it, that he put the Pope besides his cushinne, and had him deposed from his triple Crown, not only by force, but also by judgement and sentence as good or better than that which the Pope pronounced against him. Respect whether you will, the cause, or the manner of their proceeding each against other.  Phi. 
You crack of this Emperor: 
The defence, cap. 5.  For that in fine by arms he drove the said Pope out of his Sea, and placed an Antipape, that is to say, one so opposite to Christ's Vicar, as Antichrist shall be against Christ: which by arms and patronage of this wicked Emperor usurped and occupied the apostolic throne against the true Pope Gregory the seventh.  Theo. 
We crack not of Princes as you do of Popes, neither do we defend them in open wickedness as you do Popes in their pestilent disorders and outrages: only we say neither your holy father with his proud claim, nor you with your smooth tongues may take from Princes their Crowns, without warrant from God, of whom they have their power, and by whom they are exalted to their Royal dignity. And therefore if you will play the proctor for Pope Hildebrande in that attempt of his to deprive Henry the fourth, leave wasteful words, and spiteful speech, and go to the matter. Scoffs and taunts are soon cast and recast without any pains or praise.  Phi. 
Because this good and notable Pope, 
The defence, cap. 5.  was not able in fine to resist the emperors forces (the which Emperor, as all the histories of that time record, was a most wicked, sacrilegious, simoniacal and heretical person) the adversaries of God's Church do triumph (as the Libeler here doth) over the blessed man: as Herode might have done over john Baptist, whose admonition was taken in so evil grè, that it cost him his life: as also the executing of the Church's sentence, which is Gods, hath done to many a Prophet and Bishop in the world.  Theo. 
If to call Gregory the seventh, 
It is no sin nor wrong, to call Gregory the seventh Hildebrand. The Jesuits mannerly speeches of the Emperor.  Hildebrand, which was his proper name, and whereof neither he nor you should in reason be ashamed, be a note of rebellious heretics as you term them: what is it for you to call a Prince (on whom by God's Law you are forbidden to rail) a most wicked, sacrilegious, simoniacal and heretical person? What is it to say that all the stories of that time record the same, and to produce none? As for john Baptizm you may use his name when you follow his works. Herode was an incestuous Tyrant, yet did not john Baptist take the sceptre from him nor arm his subjects against him, but warned him of the breach of God's Law, which he wilfully committed, and the punishment which would ensue at God's hands: farther practices against Herode john Baptist had none, and therefore you might as well have yoked Belial with Christ, 
Acts. 12. vers. 22.  as Hildebrand with john Baptist. But you must be suffered, when other things fail you, to have glorious words: which is a right Herodian affection.  Phi. 
By the event of things, whosoever measureth the right of cause; 
The defence, cap. 5.  will make a good religion and a good defence of the execution of justice. For so most tyrants might be justified for a time, 
The contention between Pope Gregory the seventh and Henry the third Emperor.  against all the Saints of God. This Gregory say they was in fine banished by the Emperor: And so was Saint chrysostom by Arcadius and Eudoxia, and died in banishment as Gregory the seventh did: yet they were but homely Christians that would justify the Emperors, and condemn. S. chrysostom.  Theo. 

Prove the Pope's right to depose Princes & we remit the success.  We measure not the right of causes neither by the sequel nor success of things, for then the Saints of GOD from the first beginning of the world should have had an evil cause, since their success hath always been to lose their lives for bearing witness unto the truth. We make it no reason that hildebrand's cause was evil, because in the end he was banished: We all this while have stood with you on this point, that neither Hildebrand nor any other Pope had or hath right to depose Princes. Your commendation of Hildebrand, and accusation of Henry the fourth, if both were true, are little to this purpose, unless you will reason thus, the Pope was a good man and the Prince an evil, Ergo the Pope might depose the Prince, which were a very ridiculous conclusion.  Phi. 

That right is yet unproved.  The Pope's right to depose Princes we have proved before.  Theo. 
Not yet that we see. Your authorities came very short of it, your examples shorter. Some shifts and sophisms you have here and there offered us, but so weak that children would hardly be deceived by them. Those you thought, being destitute of other helps, to strengthen with examples: and having searched all the corners you could for a thousand years after Christ, you find not one, till you come to Gregory the seventh: who did attempt it but could not effect it, and lost his Popedom for enterprising it.  
And here you slip from the right of the cause to the praise of the Person, which is utterly impertinent to this purpose. 
The praise of the person is nothing to the right of the cause.  For what trow you, is every thing good that good men do? May you not so commend any vice? What sin is there but some good man otherwise hath fallen into? If to measure things by their events, be no sure way to judge rightly of them, what is it to allege no better ground for the Deposition of Princes than the bold attempt of the Bishop of Rome? Were the Person commended not by the assentation of his adherents, but by the confession of his adversaries: that proveth not his fact to be good, or his enterprise lawful. We must balance things by the Laws of God, and not by the fancies and affections of men: and yet touching the Person, if the syncerest of your own side may be trusted, I see no such cause to commend him.  Phi. 

The defence, Cap. 5.  This Pope, whom they specially hate, because (as it may be thought) he was the first man that authentically condemned the Berengarians heresy, and in open disputation refuted it; though certain of the said emperors flatterers and enemies of the Sea apostolic (as the fashion of our heretics is at this day) wrote slanderous libels against him; 
Pope Hildebrand a good man.  yet was he a very notable good man and learned, and did suffer whatsoever he did suffer, for mere justice: in that he did godly, honourably and by the duty of his Pastorship, whatsoever he did against the said Emperor: whereof we could allege all the best writers of those days, or near that time, but that we should be tedious.  Theo. 


Hildebrand might well be a dealer in Berengarius recantation for the goodness of it.  
The jesuits should condemn themselves if they should not commend Hildebrand.   Whatsoever Berengarius heresy was, the recantation which your holy Father with his learned advise prescribed him, is a very wicked and palpable error. If Hildebrand were the author of that condemnation, we envy not his praise. A lewder or grosser folly, was never uttered with tongue.  
No marvel to see you so forward in affirming that Gregory the 7. was a very notable good man, and learned, and did suffer, whatsoever he did suffer, for mere justice, and did Godly and honourably, and by the duty of his Pastorship whatsoever he did against the Emperor: he was the first Pope that ever served or fitted your rebelling humour: Your case and his are all one, and therefore unless you should praise him, you must dispraise your own doings, which you will not, you be so far entered into these Italian policies, and perceive them to be so profitable for your Rhemish monarchy. But Sirs, if you were asked under benedicite whether S. Peter did better in submitting himself to Nero, 
Which like they better, Peter enduring or Hildebrand displacing Princes.  and charging all others to do the like, or Pope Hildebrand in taking the crown from Henry the fourth, and dischargeing his subjects, which would you prefer? The mild and Christian submission of Peter suffering death at Nero's hands, or the disdainful and arrogant stomach of Gregory the seventh, making the Emperor with his Queen and young Prince in extreme frost and snow, wait his leisure three days barefooted, and in woollen, 
Lambert. Schaf. Abbas Vrsperg.  at the gates of Canusium, whiles himself was warm in a Lady's chamber: and (notwithstanding this rare example of humility in a Prince) practising a general revolt of his Nobles and people from him, and causing an other to be chosen in his place, and licensing his own subjects, 
The mildness of Pope Hildebrand.  servants and sons to bear arms against him, and filling the Christian world with unnatural, and parricidial wars and bloodshed? I know you dare not in plain terms disgrace Saint Peter, but in deeds evident to the eyes of all men you take part with Pope Hildebrand against Saint Peter: extolling and praising him for a very notable good Pope, that first gave this detestable and damnable adventure.  
He did suffer, you say, whatsoever he did suffer for mere justice. It was mad mere justice that the Church of Christ for a thousand years would not be so much as acquainted with; 
What justice call you that which the Church of Christ for 1000 years counted wickedness?  and a madder imagination of yours that all that refused to be partakers of Hildebrands wickedness, were flatterers to the Emperor, and enemies to the See apostolic: far better cause have we to say, that they which conspired with the Pope against their Prince, upon so great submission as Christendom hath not seen the like, were 
* Jude epist.  DESPISERS OF GOVERNMENT, 
* Rom. 23.  RESISTERS OF POWER, and consequently disobeyers of Christ, and worse than hirelings of Antichrist. And if you may shake them off that lived in the same age, and wrote of things they saw with their eyes, and heard with their ears, who smoothed not the vices of men, but defended the ordinance of GOD: What should bind us to regard the corrupt and partial judgements of those that came some hundreds after and knew no more of the certainty of those actions, than we do at this instant; and were withal so wedded to the Sea of Rome, that in respect thereof they did resist, as you do now both the power of man, and the truth of God?  Phi. 


The defence, cap. 5.  
Lib. 3. cap. vlt. factorum memorabilium.   We have for Gregory the seventh the grave testimony of Baptista Fulgosius a noble and learned man, that was Duke of Genua above an hundred years past, which we shall not let to set down as we find it in the Latin. Constantissimus habitus est Gregorius septimus Pontifex, qui quòd Henricum tertium Imperatorem propter aperta nimis Symoniae crimina, pro Pastorali officio reprehendebat, gravibus ab eo iniurijs affectus est. Itaque iniuriarum magnitudine compulsus, Henricum Gregorius ut haereticum Imperij honore privauit. Cum autem Henricus solut ecclesiastica censura non emendatione vitae, sed armis quaereret, alium creari Pontificem enixus capta urbe obsidere Gregorium caepit. Quae mala cum Gregorius pateretur nunquam tamen a justo proposito dimoveri potuit. That is, 
The testimony of the Duke of Genu● for Pope Hildebrand.  Gregory the seventh was notable for his constancy; who for that according to his Pastoral charge, he had admonished Henry the third Emperor to leave his known impiety of Simony, was by manifold intolerable injuries vexed by the same Emperor; and by the greatness of his wickedness was compelled to deprive him as an heretic, of his Imperial dignity. But Henry seeking not by amendment of his life but by arms to be absolved from the censure; he went about to set up a new Pope, and besieged the City of Rome and brought the Pope into great distress. In all which miseries Gregory could never be removed from his just purpose. 
See Vrsperpen. lib. 5. annalium.  So he writeth of the parties both. And of the horrible crimes for which the Emperor was most justly in the sight of all good men deposed.  Theo. 

How knew Baptista Fulgosius the goodness of Hildebrand that lived 400 years before him?  Truth dependeth not upon nobility but sincerity. Noble men have their affections and oversights in writing as well as others. Baptista Fulgosius lived four hundredth years after Gregory the seventh, and had no better intelligence of the cause than we have at this day. In his banishment he collected certain examples out of such books as came to his hands, to spend the time, & ease his misery: but he took not upon him to judge between your stories which were credible and which not. All that he saith of Gregory the seventh, is (Constantissimus habitus est) he was counted very constant, & could never be removed from the purpose, 
Lib. 3. cap. 8. de Constant.  which he thought to be just: the rest is a report of the fact, no debating of the cause.  

A noble man's fancy is no fit balance for this cause.  And had this exiled Person given greater commendation to Gregory than he doth, every Noble man's fancy that is or hath been these five hundredth years in Christendom, must not appoint what power the Pope shall have over Princes. And if Nobility might prejudice truth, as in deed it can not, why should the judgement of Baptista Fulgosius in this case be preferred before a thousand others of greater Nobility that have taken part with their Princes against the Pope? 
No reason that Prince's rights should be tried by Italian Dukes.  Meaner states than Princes will not lose their liberties for the Duke of Genua; and therefore if you seek for the right of the cause, it must be tried neither by Dukes, Popes nor Princes. The word of God doth not go by the verdicts of men: If you stand not on that, but on the vices of Henry and virtues of Gregory: Your Italian Duke is too young to pronounce exactly what they were that died some hundreds before he was borne.  Phi. 
Trithemius reporteth in brief thus, 
The defence, cap. 5.  of the wickedness of this Emperor: Episcopatus, Constantiensem etc. He sold the bishoprics of Constance, Bamburgh, Mentz and divers others for money: those of Ausbourg, & Straisbourgh for a sword: 
Trithem. in Chron.  that of Munster for Sodomy: and the abbacy of Fuld for adultery: Heaven and earth witness and cry out on these: and for the same abominations he standeth excommunicated, and deprived, and therefore hath no power, nor just title to reign over us Catholics.  Theo. 
This is the next way to build the Tower of Babel, 
If Baptista knew little of Hildebrand Trithemius knew less of Henry the fourth.  to descend from a Duke to an Abbot: from one that lived fiveskore years ago to one that died not much more than threescore years since; and to think by men of your own faction, that were alive in this our age, to make proof of things that were done five hundredth years before. Trithemius an Abbate of late days, hath no credit in this case: you must show us some elder writer and nearer the time wherein these things were done, or else we shall pass it over as a peevish and pestilent slander.  Phi. 
We have elder if you list to believe them: but you will discredit them, as you do Trithemius.  Theo. 
I discredit not Trithemius: 
Trithemius a man of their side & our age is no good witness in this case.  but le●ue him his due commendation: only I say there is no reason that a man of your side, and our age, should be the first and sole deponent of matters many hundredth years elder than himself.  Phi. 
We have long before him that did witness the same.  Theo. 
Produce them.  Phi. 
Dodechinus, who lived within an hundredth years of that time, hath the same report word for word of Henry the fourth that Trithemius hath.  Theo. 
We find that repeated by Dodechinus, 
Dodechinus in anno 1090.  but not of his own knowledge or judgement. Valtrame Bishop of Megburg wrote a sober and seemly letter to County Lodovic to persuade him to submit himself to the king and not to resist the powers which God had ordained. 
This pestilent slander of Henry the 4. came first from the mouth of a rebel that sought to supplant him.  Lodovic puffed with pride and filled with disdain wrote back to Valtrame a furious and spiteful libel both against the Bishop and the king: wherein these things are objected to the Prince without farther trial or testimony. Both their letters Abbate Dodechine inserteth in his story. So that the first author of this tale was Lodovic, in favour of himself, disfaming the Prince which he sought to subvert: and what credit that can have in the ears of indifferent men, let the wise consider.  
Where he saith the Emperor sold the bishoprics of Ratisbon, 
Three bishoprics for one sword is no such heinous Simony.  Ausbourg, and Straisbourgh for a sword, his malice was so great that he could not dissemble his folly. For he that took but a sword for three bishoprics, was no great Symonist: your holy father would have made a better bargain for himself, if he had had the sale of them. Sure sword were very dear, or bishoprics very good cheap, when the Prince let go three bishoprics for a sword. Such toys you seek to deface Princes, and so quickly you give credit to him that will say any thing against them.  
How Henry the fourth behaved himself, in giving the abbey of Fulde and Bishopric of Monster, I know not, neither do I find it credibly reported in any good writer. The rebellious heart, and convicious mouth of Frederick first raised this unclean suspicion upon the Emperor: and you now are as earnest to proclaim your Abbasses for Whores, 
The jesuits are content to make their abbasses whores, and their Bishop's Sodomites, to deface this Emperor.  and your Bishops for Sodomites, rather than you will distrust the bare accusation of a Malcontent against his Prince; you be so linked with him in cause and condition: But for our parts as we detest the vices, so we believe not every crime, that an enemy and a rebel in excuse of himself list to upbraid his Prince with: we require some surer proof for so heinous a crimination as this is before we trust the unbridled tongue of a seditious subject against his Sovereign.  


The greatest fautors of Hildebrand alive at the same time with him, never charged him with these unclean surmises.  
Dodechinus in anno 1106.  
Marianus in anno 1075.  
He that will rebel against his Prince must be a slanderer of his Prince, or else he shall seem to rebel without cause.  
Vita Henrici 4. habetur in fasciculo rerum sciendarum colony impresso.  
He toucheth the very crimes that the Jesuits object.  
Vrsperge●s. in anno 1071.   Marianus Scotus and Lambertus Scafnaburgensis, which lived, both of them, at the same time with Henry the fourth, and were to flatterers of his, but fautors of Hildebrand, and of the saxons that rebelled against him, never charged him with those enormities. Dodechinus himself, when he cometh to the final censure of Henry's faults and offences, omitteth these as unlikely; or at least, as unproved; and saith, He sold all spiritual livings, and was inobedient to the Sea apostolic, by setting Wigbert in Gregory's place, by exceeding the order of Christianity toward his lawful wife, and by neglecting the sentence of the apostolic See. These be the crimes for the which Dodechinus saith he was justly cast out of the Church. And Marianus, saith he, was excommunicated, maximè propter Symoniam, chief for Simony, not for Sodomitry.  
He that wrote the life of Henry the fourth presently upon his death, a modest, ancient, and Christian reporter of such things as happened unto that Emperor, saith of the Saxons and others that sought to palliate their civil sedition with a fair show, Confictis, conscriptisque super eo criminibus, quae pessima & immundissima potuit odium & livor excogitare, & quae mihi scribenti tibique legenti nauseam parerent, si ea ponerem, vera falsis miscentes apud Romanum Pontificem Gregorium septimum, eum deferebant: Feigning and articulating crimes against him, the worst and most uncleanest that hatred and envy could imagine, which are loathsome for me to write and thee to read, if I should name them, and mingling some truth amongst their lies, they complained of him to Gregory the seventh the Bishop of Rome. Vrspergensis saith: The Saxons, making a general conjuration against the King, put up against him to the See apostolic, accusationes blasphemas & inauditas; blasphemous accusations, and never heard of before. These blasphemous and feigned accusations you rake up again, and publish them to the world with great sooth upon the credit of an Abbate that lived in this our age; such is your discretion and gravity that you patron not only the violent and armed rage of rebels against their Prince, but even their unhonest and loathsome suspicions.  
If we would bring against Gregory the seventh not laymen but Bishops, 
It were easy to paint out Hildebrand in his colours, if that were to this purpose.  not one but many, not strangers but his own Italians, Romans and Cardinals, that knew him and were conversant with him, he would lack a great deal of that praise which you, and other such pharisaical Friars as you be, give him. The Council of Worms, where were present universi pené Teutonici Episcopi, almost all the Bishops of Germany, condemned him of great perjuries, new-fangled abuses, and manifold infamies of life: 
Vrspergens. in anno 1076.  after that thirty Bishops of Italy gathered together at Brixia, having there the Legates and letters of nineteen Bishops assembled at Mentz with the Nobles of Italy and Germany, 
Vrsperg. in anno 1080.  not only avouched of him; that he most impudently intruded himself into the See of Rome by fraud and money, subverted the ecclesiastical order, troubled the regiment of the Christian Empire, sought destruction of body and soul upon their Catholic and peaceable king, and maintained a perjure against him, but in fine they adjudge, 
Vrsperg. Ibidem.  the said Hildebrand a most shameless person, breathing out sacrilege and spoil, defending perjuries and homicides, calling in question the Catholic and apostolic faith of the body and blood of Christ, the ancient scholar of the heretic Berengarius, an observer of dreams & divinations, a manifest conjuror, and a worker with a familiar spirit; & therefore fallen from the true faith to be canonically deposed, and expelled from his Bishopric.  Phi. 
These be the slanderous libels, 
The Jesuits believe one rebel against his Prince without pr●s●: but they will not believe the Bishops & Nobles of Italy & Germany judicially pronouncing against the Pope.  which I told you some of the emperors flatterers and his enemies wrote against him.  Theo. 
You believe not the report of so many Bishops and Nobles judicially proceeding, and ●inding him culpable in these things, and affirming so much to his face: and even now you when you heard the malicious and slanderous accusation of one private man against his Prince, neither discussed, nor proved, but objected only in defence of his rebellion, you believed that and put it in print to the view of all men, with no less levity than partiality; as if all were true that liketh you be it never so unlikely or untrue: and again all false that fitteth not your fancy be there never so many deponents for it, and judges with it, both Bishops and nobles. Such indifferency well becometh such writers as you are, which seek nothing but that your tales may take place, be they never so unchristian or uncredible.  Phi. 
Will you believe men in a faction one against another?  Theo. 
If the Prince's faction may not be credited against the Pope, why should the Pope's faction be received against the Prince?  
And yet the Prince's faction against Hildebrand, 
Italy displeased with Henry for submitting himself to Hildebrand.  if it were a faction, was very general. France, Germany and Italy were of that faction, in so much that when the Emperor had reconciled himself to the Pope at Canusium, and Legates were sent to absolve such as were excommunicate, the Princes and people of Italy fell to an uproar against the Emperor for submitting himself, and meant to have set his son in his place, as Schafnaburgensis confesseth in these words: When the Legate came, 
Lambert. Scafnaburgens. in anno 1077.  and showed to the people of Italy the cause of his coming, a vehement offence and dislike was conceived against him. Fremere omnes, & saevire verbis ac manibus caeperunt, Apostolicae Legationi irrisorijs exclamationibus obstrepere, convicia & maledicta utcunque turpissima furor suggessisset, irrogare, se excommunicationem illius nihili estimare, quem ipsum omnes Italiae episcopi justis de causis iam pridem excommunicassent, qui sedem Apostolicam per Symoniacam haeresim occupasset, homicidijs cruentasset, adulterijs alysque capitalibus criminibus polluisset, regem secus ac deceat egisse, crimenque gloriae suae intulisse nunquam abolendum, quod homini haeretico & probis omnibus infamato maiestatem regiam submiserit, etc. They all began to mutter, and to manifest their grief of mind with words and hands, and to deride and interrupt the Pope's Lagate, & to taunt him and rail on him even as their rage lead them, saying, that they esteemed not (Hildebrands) excommunication, whom all the Bishops of Italy long before had excommunicated, for that he gate the apostolic Seat by Simony, 

All the bishops of Italy had condemned Hildebrand for capital crimes.  
Hildebrand infamous for all vices.   and had imbrued it with blood, and defiled it with adulteries, and other capital crimes: and that the king had done otherwise than became him, and had utterly blemished his glory in submitting his royal majesty to an heretic, and one that was infamous for all vices. This sedition growing ripe, they were all of one mind and determination to refuse the father, who had made himself unworthy of the sceptre, and to choose his son to be their king, though very young and unfit for the affairs of the Realm: 
Hildebrand an Apostatical Pope.  and to go to Rome with him, and elect them an other Pope, by whom both he should be crowned, and all the acts of this Apostatical Pope should be reversed.  
This opinion his own people had of him, how learned and godly a man soever he seemeth in your eyes: and these were not procured by the Prince, but ready to forsake the Prince, for humbling himself to so infamous an heretic as Hildebrand was, whom you call a very notable good Pope. The rest of his goodness if I should lay forth as Beno the Cardinal, 

He that will see the rest of Hildebrands virtues, let him read Beno the Cardinal of his life and acts.  
The fact and not the life of Hildebrand is the thing which we strive for.  
The pope had his flatterers as well as the Prince.   that lived with him, describeth him; all other the vicious and infamous Popes which the whore of Babylon hath bred us, would seem punees to him: but thither I refer the reader that list to behold the man of sin exalting himself in the Church of God: I seek to examine the fact and not the life of Gregory the seventh: if that were good, though he were bad, I will use no advantage.  Phi. 
These were his enemies.  Theo. 
To an evil man how could they be but enemies, if that they said were true?  Phi. 
True? not a word of it.  Theo. 
So say you: but what if we believe them before you: have we not good cause so to do?  Phi. 
These were such as held against him, and therefore hardly would speak well: But others and the best of that age greatly commend him.  Theo. 
Were they not such as took his part?  Phi. 
Yes: but yet they would not lie for him.  Theo. 
Might not the Pope have flatterers as well as the Prince?  Phi. 
He might, but these were none.  Theo. 
How shall we know that?  Phi. 
They were godly Monks and Bishops, that would not flatter.  Theo. 
They might be godly, and yet be deceived in judging of other men's persons. The best men are hardest to believe evil reports concerning others, though perhaps true if they were perfectly known: and yet there were other causes which wan him the favour of many Monks and Bishops in those days, and of many Romish writers since that time: and those were, the suppressing of married Priests, and advancing of Monks, and the exempting of Bishops from their Princes: which things the Church of Rome after him greedily embraced, and holdeth unto this day as the glorious, acts of Hildebrand.  Phi. 
Do you dispraise them?  Theo. 
The Church of Christ till that time suffered the marriage of Priests, 
Marriage in Priests and obedience to Prince's impugned by the names of fornication & Simony.  and expected the Prince's consent in the choice of her Bishops: both which Hildebrand impugned at one tyme.  Phi. 
He impugned Concubinaries and Symonists.  Theo. 
So your cloisterers called such as were married, and preferred by the Prince, and for that cause they took stitch with the Pope against the Prince, and highly commended Hildebrand as the first beginner of ecclesiastical purity and liberty. But in deed it was but a quarrel sought out by the Pope under a fair pretence to tread down Princes, and exalt himself. 
hildebrand's grief against the Emperor.  He could bear no such sway as he would in the Church so long as the Bishops did depend on the Prince, and not on the Pope. For by their help the Prince often times not only crossed, but deprived the Pope, if he waxed unruly, or over lusty. This was it, that Hildebrande could not digest.  
Lighting therefore on a Prince that was young and somewhat lascivious, 

hildebrand's policy to quell the Emperor.  
These advantages the Pope had against the Prince.  
Lambert. scafnaburg. in anno 1077.   and perceiving the Nobles of his Realm to dislike and disdain one an other: and seeing the normans in Italy able to withstand the emperors force, and the Saxons in Germany willing to cast off the Yoke, as they thought of bondage: and getting into such favour with Mathilda, a great & mighty Lady of Italy, that she should not be out of his sight, but as a very friend of Gregory's saith, Pontificis Lateri comes individua adhaerebat, eumque miro colebat affectu, she cleaved to the Pope's side as his continual companion, and loved him exceedingly. Hildebrande having these opportunities, gave the adventure both to pull all spiritual livings out of the Prince's gift, that the Clergy might depend on him and not on their Prince, and to show himself the censurer and deposer of Kings and Emperors if they withstood him. 
Hildebrands first attempt was to pull the Clergy from the king.  And for that cause he first decreed it to be Simony to take any spiritual living at a lay man's hands, and in the same Synod did excommunicate as well the givers as the takers, were they Dukes, Princes, or Kings which he knew the Emperor neither could nor would endure. Not long after he received divers and sundry suggestions against the King from the Saxons, who sought by arms what they could to prevail against the Prince, 
The next was to make himself the corrector & master of Princes.  and when that succeeded not, fell to slandering and accusing their king: for answer whereto the Pope summoned the King to appear at Rome, and prefixed him a day to clear himself of those crimes. And when the king neither would lose his right in bestowing his bishoprics and Benefices as he saw cause, and as his progenitors before him had done: and refused to come in Person to answer the complaints of rebels against him, but sent his Agents to refel their objections: the Pope discovering the malice and pride which till that time he concealed, 
The mystery of iniquity showeth itself.  took the Prince's messengers and cast them in Prison, and caused them to be carried about the City as gazing stocks; and in his Synod deprived the Emperor both of the communion of the faithful, and of his Crown and kingdom also, and to his dying day would not be removed from his purpose.  Philand. 

Men of their own religion have observed in Hildebrand as much as I report.  These be your vain collections which we regard not.  Theo. 
I look not you should regard mine: but if your own writers which have laboured in this matter, find the report which I make to be true, you may not so lightly neglect them. aventinus a man addicted to your religion, not to ours, exactly and uprightly weighing the parts and proofs of this cause, observeth the same that I do, and a great deal more.  Philand. 
aventinus was too favourable to the Germans his Countrymen. 
Auent. annal. lib. 5. fol. 562.569. & sequent.   Theop. 
Any writer may be touched in that sort with favour or affection. If you reject men of the same profession with you, because they differ in judgement from you: much more is it lawful for us in this contention between the Prince and the Pope, to refuse such as were altogether inclined and devoted to the See of Rome. If you trust not Aventine because he was a German, why should we trust those Monks and Bishops that were joined in faction with Hildebrand against the king?  Philand. 

The Jesuits trust none but Italians, & such as flatter the Pope as fast as themselves.  Will you trust none but your seluee?  Theoph. 
You do not so much as trust yourselves: we allege none but your own men in this case, and you trust them not.  Philand. 
We give you some cause why we trust them not.  Theoph. 
None, but this that you like them not: your other exceptions be very frivolous. If some were Germans and favoured the Prince, others were Italians and flattered the Pope. You trust not the one, nor we the other; let therefore the sticklers of both sides alone▪ and examine the doers themselves. I hope you will believe Gregory's words, and not distrust him, as you do the rest.  Philand. 
He will not bely himself.  Theo. 
Then touching the causes of Henry's excommunication, the Pope himself maketh this report to the Princes of Germany. 

Vrspergens. in anno 1076.  
Hildebrands own confession for what causes he did excommunicate the Emperor.   Pro hijs illum causis, primum videlicet quod ab eorum communione qui pro sacrilegio & reatu simoniaca haeresis excommunicati sunt se abstivere noluit: deinde quod pro criminosis actibus paenitentiam non dico suscipere, sed nec promittere voluit, Synodali judicio eum excommunicavimus. For these causes, to wit first for that he would not forbear their company which were excommunicated for the sacrilegious and heretical guilt of Simony, next for that he was so far from taking any penance (at our hands) for his criminal acts, that he would promise none, we by a Synodal sentence did excommunicate him. Here be the two causes which the Pope pretended for his excommunication and deposition of the prince: partaking with Symonists, and refusal of judgement & penance at his hands.  Philand. 
Were not Simony and obstinacy two great crimes?  Theoph. 
Your holy father did call that Simony which was none.  Philand. 
The Prince did sell bishoprics and Benefices.  Theoph. 
So your Monks affirm, but they lie the more. The Pope himself you see doth not charge him with selling bishoprics or benefices, but with retaining their society that did.  
Lambertus that lived in that time, 

Henry the 4. free from Simony by the report of his very enemies.  
Lambert. Scafn. in anno 1075.   and wholly favoured Gregory, confesseth that by many examples the Prince showed, how much he detested the corruption and ambition of Prelates and Abbates seeking preferment by money and flattery. When the Abbay of Fulde was void, and the King with his Nobles conferring about the choice of a new, the Abbates and Monks, saith Lambertus, as it had been at a solemn game, began to offer some golden mountains, other great booties out of the lands of the Abbay; and some, more services to the commonwealth than accustomed, and in offering they kept neither mean nor modesty, horum impudentiam rex vehementissimé, ut dignum erat, detestatus, 
Did not this prince vehemently detest Symonists?  the king most vehemently detesting their impudency as it became him, when he was importuned with their prayers and offers, on the sudden led with a divine spirit as men thought, called one Ruzelin a Monk that stood before him, which came to the court about the business of his house at the commandment of the Abbate, and never dreamt of any such thing: and putting the Pastoral staff in his hands first himself named him Abbate, and prayed the rest both soldiers and Monks to consent to his election.  
Likewise when the Abbate of Loressan was dead, 
Lambert. Scafn. Ibidem.  and the Monks and soldiers (he meaneth the Clergy and the people of the place) had elected the Prior with one accord to succeed and came to the Court, (for the king's consent) neither was it thought that the king would dissent, 

No prince freer in his elections than Henry the 4.  
If the Pope had committed no worse Simony than henry the 4. did the Church had been in better case than it is.  
The Monks of purpose diffame the prince to flatter the Pope.   for that the Prior was in some grace and favour with the king by reason of his diligent service afore that time, the king caught an other of the Monks of the same house by the hand, which came with the rest of his brethren, thinking on no such thing, and drew him into the midst of the company amazed at the matter, and to the great admiration of all men gave him the Pastoral staff. This report the very mislikers of Henry the fourth do give him touching his hatred and detestation of Simony and his Princely disposition to make free choice of Bishops and abbots. If some times he were led with affection and fancy, I know neither Pope, people, nor Prince that may not be often affected, entreated and deceived in their gifts and elections, be they never so wise, and otherwise never so sincere. But your Monks, as Marianus, Dodechinus, and others did the Prince great wrong to diffame him with all posterity for one that sold all spiritual livings: especially where the Pope himself charged him with no such thing in his synodal sentence against him.  Phi. 
All Stories cry out on Henry the fourth for Simony.  Theoph. 
Neither do I think that his time was free from it, though his person were. The writer of his life seemeth to complain of those that were about him and had the governing of him in his nonage. After the young king was taken from his mother's lap, 
Vita Henrici 4. in fasciculo rerunsciendarum.  and lighted into the hands of his Nobles to be brought up by them: whatsoever they prescribed him, as a child he did it: he exalted whom they would, and deposed whom they willed him, in so much that they did not serve him but reign over him. 
Henry the 4. abused by his tutors in his minority.  When matters of the kingdom were handled, they regarded not the commonwealth but their private respects, and in all things which they went about, the first and chiefest mark they aimed at, was their own 
This fault of other men is imputed to the Prince by the Monks.  gain. But when he came to that stay of age and wit that he could discern what was honest and profitable (for himself and his Realm) what not; retracting those things which he had done at the suggestion of the Nobles he condemned many of his own facts, and becoming as it were a judge of himself, he changed things where need so required. I will therefore neither excuse him for licentiousness of life, when he was young, nor those that were about him from bribery: but the Simony which your holy Father shot at was an other matter.  

The true cause why Hildebrand was offended that the Prince should give spiritual livings.  He saw the Clergy did rely too much, as he thought, upon their Prince, by reason all bishoprics, abbeys, and Benefices were in the kings gift: and none placed in them but such as loved and honoured the King, which was not for the Pope's purpose, the whole Clergy by their example and doctrine leading the people to reverence and obey the magistrate. The first step therefore to weaken the king not by sedition on the sudden, but by defection in continuance, was to get the Clergy to be neither promoted by the King, nor beholding unto the king: but to exempt first their livings, 
This was the way to pull first the clergy & after the people from the Prince.  and after their persons from the kings power, that thereby they might the more freely take part with the Pope against the King without all danger, and draw the people after them under pretence of Religion, when time should serve. Which at first was not spied of Princes, till all too late they found by proof that when the Pope began to quarrel with them and excommunicate them for very trifling and earthly causes: the Bishops, Priests and Monks presently syded with the Pope against the Prince, 
Princes were never weakened till their clergy took part with the Pope against them.  and taught the people that it was damnable, to aid, maintain or assist any Person or Prince excommunicate against the Church, (so they called the Pope and his Cardinals) and this terror of conscience made subjects even by heaps abandour their Princes, and aggregate themselves to the Pope's faction, which otherwise they would not have done, had they not been rightly instructed by their Pastors to obey their Princes, and not to fear frivolous and rash excommunications from Rome, whiles Popes will rule all, and be resisted by none.  
The first layer of this corner stone in the kingdom of Antichrist was Hildebrand with his skilful exposition of Simony, 

Hildebrand made it Simony for a lay man to present to a spiritual living.  
Platina in Gregor. 7.  
Vide cause 16. quaesi. 7. ¶ Si quis deincept.   who resolved in his Counsels at Rome, that to accept any spiritual living from a layman, were he King or Caesar that gave it, must be taken for Simony: and as well the giver as the taker be cursed and excommunicated. These be his words: Following the steps of our holy fathers, as we have done in former Counsels, so in this by the authority of almighty GOD we decree and pronounce, that he which hereafter accepteth any Bishopric, Abbay or other ecclesiastical Benefice, at a lay man's hand, shall in no wise be counted a Bishop, Abbate or Clerke, and that he shall not dare approach to Rome under pain of the greatest curse, until repenting him of his fact, he hath refused the place gotten by such ambition and contumacy, which is all one with Idolatry. 

Lustily said and like a Pope.  
Ibidem.   To the same censures we will have Kings, Dukes, and Princes tied and subjecteth, which shall presume to give bishoprics or other ecclesiastical dignities, a thing neither fit nor lawful. This, saith Platina, he decreed, lest the Church of Rome should receive any hurt by bribery and Simony.  
Gregory decided it to be Simony for a layman to present to a Benefice, or for a Bishop to expect the Prince's consent, whereas in the primative Church, 
This was never counted Simony before Hildebrands time.  the people, which were laymen, chose their Pastors, and for a long time the Bishops of Rome themselves were not chosen without the Prince's consent, and that which Hildebrande affirmeth here to be Simony, the Bishops of the same See before him confessed to be godly, and the Emperors were possessed of it as of their right ever since the days of Charles, which was very near three hundredth years.  
That stood good (saith Platina six hundredth and eighty years after Christ) in the election of the Bishop of Rome which the Emperor or his Deputy in Italy confirmed. 

Platina in Benedict. 2.  
The Bishop of Rome could not be chosen without the Prince's consent.  
Lambert. Schaf. in anno 1073.   This was in force a thousand years after Christ even when Hildebrande came to the Popedom, as appeareth by the message which Henry the fourth sent to the Romans upon the choice of Hildebrand, and his answer back again to the Emperor. For when the Romans after the death of Alexander had elected Hildebrand without expecting the Prince's pleasure, the King sent Eberhardus an Earl to the States of Rome to know the cause, quare praeter consuetudinem maiorum Rege inconsulto Romanae ecclesiae Pontificem ordinassent, ipsumque, si non idoneè satisfaceret, illicité accepta dignitate abdicare se praeciperet: Why they had created a Bishop of Rome without the kings consent against the ancient use of their fathers, and to command him that was chosen, if he made not due satisfaction, to forbear the dignity which he had unlawfully taken. To this Hildebrand answered, that he was chosen of the Romans, and violently constrained to take the place, 
Hildebrand when he came to be Pope durst not be ordered without the Prince's pleasure.  and yet by no means could be brought to permit himself to be ordered Bishop (of Rome) until he certainly knew that the king and the Nobles of Germany had consented to his election: and for that cause he had hitherto differred his consecration, and surely would differ it, until he were advertised of the kings pleasure by some trusty messenger.  


That which Hildebrand condemned was long before confirmed to the Prince by the former Bishops of Rome.  
Distinct. 63. ¶ Adrianus.   The like Custom and privilege the Prince had to consent to the elections of all other Bishops within his Empire, before they could be ordered as your own Law confesseth, and he that withstood it was accursed by the Pope's own mouth long afore Hildebrande was borne. Adrian the Pope, with a whole Synod (of an hundredth fiftie-three Bishops) yielded unto Charles (the great) right and power to choose the Bishop of Rome and to dispose the See apostolic. Also Adrian defined that the archbishops and Bishops of every Province should receive investiture of Charles, so that unless a Bishop were first liked and invested by the King, he might not be consecrated by any man. And whosoever did against this Decree, he accursed. In an other ●●●ncell held at Rome Leo the eighth of that name, 

Hildebrand accursed by his predecessors.  
Distinct. 63. ¶ In Synod.   after the example of Adrian confirmeth this custom to Otho the first, King of the Germans, and Emperor of the Romans. I Leo with the whole Clergy and people of Rome do settle, confirm and establish, and by our apostolic authority we grant and give unto our Lord Otho the first, and his successors, power for ever to appoint a Bishop of (this) chief apostolic See: and likewise archbishops and Bishops, that they shall receive investiture of him: in so much that no man of what dignity or profession soever he be, 
This was the yoke which Hildebrand could not endure.  shall have power to choose a Bishop of this chief apostolic Seat, or to consecrate any other Bishop without consent of the Emperor. If therefore a Bishop be chosen by the Clergy and people, let him not be consecrated, unless he be first allowed and invested by the foresaid king. And if any man attempt any thing against this our apostolic sentence, we determine him to stand excommunicate.  


Martin. Polon. in Adriano & Leone 9  
Plat. in Pasc. 1. & Leon. 8.  
Sigebert. in anno 1111.   These grants and confirmations, your own Stories do witness, though Blondus seem to doubt of them, as unlikely. Sigebert saith, From Charles the great, for the space of three hundredth years and above, during the lives of threescore and three Bishops of Rome, they that were Emperors of Rome gave bishoprics and abbeys by the delivery of a ring and a staff, & that then was counted lawful. Now in the days of Hildebrand, 
This was the chief quarrel between Hildebrand and Henry the 4.  against the Decrees of their fathers, the Popes in their Synods have determined, that no Bishopric nor ecclesiastical investiture can or should be given by a lay man with a staff and a ring: and they which so received bishoprics or other ecclesiastical preferments, were excommunicated.  
Thus Hildebrand pretended to follow the steps of his fathers when he forsook them; and concluded that to be Simony which was none, and made it a cause of deprivation for the Prince to hold that right which two Bishops of Rome with their Synods expressly confirmed to Charles and Otho, 
Was not this a wise cause to deprive a Prince of his Crown?  and sixty three Bishops had suffered and approved in the german Emperors, and himself had protested to the Prince's Legates at his first entrance to the Bishopric. If this were not a mere quarrel unjustly sought by the Pope upon the Prince against all order and equity, your nearest friends shall be my judges.  
The second cause of hildebrand's presumption against the Prince is like the first. 

The Prince was not bound to appear in the pope's consistory.  
Refusing the Pope's penalty is no deprivation in a Prince.  
Any Pastor may remit the Prince's sins as well as the Pope.  
Mark the stately proceed of Hildebrand against the Emperor.   For what Law, divine or human, forced the Prince to go to Rome at the Pope's call? How prove you, that for sin committed against God the Pope may enjoin what penance he list? And the Prince must abay? Or that if the Prince refuse the Pope's new found and needless penances, he must be deposed?  Philand. 
Would you not that Princes should repent their wicked lives?  Theoph. 
yes, and amend them with all Christian care and speed: But what power hath the Pope by God's Law to pardon the sins of Princes more than an other Bishop hath? Or why should Princes repenting not be forgiven, without performing such penance as the Bishop of Rome list to devise for them? Had Gregory dealt with Henry the fourth to correct those things which were amiss, and to return to GOD with earnest and hearty repentance, we would not have misliked that fatherly monition, both to give ear to the sinister and slanderous informations of subjects and Rebels, against their Prince; to cite him in person to appear at Rome that was his Sovereign Lord and master; to repel his messengers with reproach and infamy that came to clear him; to deprive him of his kingdom, for not consenting to such penances as the Pope in pride and rage should impose; to make him stand three days in the cold frost barefooted before he could be admitted to presence: 

The devil himself may minister as good justice as Hildebrand did.  
The pope's arbitrary penances are no parts of our conversion unto God.   and after his submission and absolution given by the Pope himself to set up his servants and sons to take his Crown from him: If this be justice, the devil himself may suffer for justice as well as Pope Hildebrand.  Phi. 
Are Princes too good to do penance for their sins?  Theoph. 
Prove first that such penances as you list to enjoin, are necessary parts of our conversion unto GOD, and then we will say, Princes may be blamed for refusing them: otherwise you wickedly abuse the keys in that you make them serve your lusts to compass your purposes, and to be revenged of your enemies, under colour of repenting and reconciling unto God.  Phi. 
Must not the Church also be satisfied?  Theo. 
If Popes under the name of the Church play the Tyrants, and content not themselves with those signs of inward sorrow, 
The Pope abuseth the keys to increase his gain and power.  which God accepteth, they be now not forgivers of sins, nor watchmen over souls, but cunning huntsmen after g●●●e and perverters of truth with their profane policy, which turn the ke●●s and Cannons of Christ's Church to enrich themselves, and to get a Lordly Dominion over all persons and places by restraining the Sacraments and enjoining penances, such as they see make most for their advantage. And this hath been the manner of all your late Popes, upon private and earthly displeasures and quarrels to curse and ban both Prince and people, till amends were made them even in their own liking, as if Christ had ordained the Sacraments to be, not seals of his grace and helps of our faith, but baits to catch kingdoms, and rods to revenge such Princes as will not, or can not procure the Pope's favour. For so the Bishops of Rome have used their excommunications against Princes and others, as the examples that follow, will fully declare.  

How Hildebrand sped with his enterprise.  To make an end first with Hildebrand, if either the success that GOD gave him in his furious attempt, or the judgements of your best and syncerest Stories near that time, be worthy to be regarded, they condemn this act of Hildebrande as unjust and ungodly. Rodolf, whom the Pope and the Saxons set up against his master, lost his right hand in the field as he sought to get the Crown from him, 

The just reward of a rebel, showed in Rodolph.  
Vrspergens. in anno 1080.   and when by reason of that and other wounds he was ready to give up the ghost, Vrspergensis reporteth of him, that looking on the stump of his arm, and fetching a deep sigh he said to the Bishops that were about him, behold this is the hand wherewith I swore allegiance to my Sovereign Lord Henry: and now I leave you see, both his kingdom and this present life: you that made me aspire to his throne, take you heed that you lead me right, I followed your advise.  


Sigebets. in anno 1080.  
Hildebrand Prophesieth against himself.   The same year that Rodolf was slain, Hildebrand by revelation from heaven, as he said, foretold that that very year the false king should die, but his conjecture of the false King which he interpreted to be Henry, deceived him, saith Sigebert. For Henry fight a set battle with the Saxons: Rodolf the false king and many of the Nobles of Saxony were slain. If this were a revelation from God, as Gregory pretended, then by the foretelling and performing of this accident, GOD himself pronounced him the false King, whom the Pope erected and maintained against Henry the fourth: If it were no revelation from above, but a consortion with spirits from beneath, then was Gregory no such Saint as you make him, that had fellowship with Devils, and his own master betrayed and beguiled the frantic humour of his infernal disciple.  

Hildebrand himself turned out of his Popedom.  Four years after, Hildebrande himself was forsaken of his own people, and by their consent deprived of his Popedom, and he feign to fly to the barbarous normans for refuge, and there in banishment died. Romani Imperatorem Henricum recipiunt in urbe, & eorum judicio Hildebrandus Papatu abdicatur. 
Sigeber. in anno 1084.  The Romans receive Henry Emperor into their city: and by their judgement Hildebrand is deprived of the Popedom. Vrspergensis confirmeth the same. 
Vrspergen. in anno 1083.  unde Romani commoti, manus Regidederunt, Hildebrandum vero Papam vnanimeter abdicarunt: whereupon the Romans being moved, (that the Pope would not come in the king's presence to have the matter heard) submitted themselves to the king, and with one consent abandoned Pope Hildebrand. Who lying at the point of death, as Sigebert found written of him, called unto him of the twelve Cardinals whom he loved above the rest, and confessed to God, 
Siger. in anno 1085.  S. Peter, and the whole church, that he had greatly sinned in the Pastoral charge which was committed unto him, and that at the instinct of the devil he had stirred hatred & hart-burning amongst men. Beno the Cardinal testifieth the same, 
In vita & gestis Hildebrand.  though some of your Romish writers stoutly avouch the contrary.  
This was the success of Hildebrande and his new made king; the one upon the loss of his hand and end of his life remembering his oath, and repenting his treason; the other seeking to displace the Prince, was displaced himself, and lost his Popedom, whiles he laboured to set the Prince besides his throne.  
As touching the fact, Frisingensis saith this was the first onset that ever Bishop of Rome gave to deprive the Emperor. I read and overreade, saith he, the gests of the Roman kings and Emperors, 

Otho Prisingens. li. 6. cap. 35.  
Deprivation of Princes never offered by any before Hildebrande Sigeb. in anno 1088.  
This is right the Jesuits cause.   and I never find any of them before this man excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome, or deprived of his kingdom. Sigebert wisely and truly giveth his judgement of this and the like enterprise. To speak with the leave of all good men, this only novelty, I will not say heresy, was not crept into the world (before the days of Hildebrand) that Priests should teach the people they own no subjection to evil kings, and that although they have sworn fidelity unto him, yet they must yield him none, neither may they be counted perjures for holding against the king; but rather he that obeyeth the king is excommunicated, & he that rebelleth against the king is absolved from the blemish of disloyalty & perjury. Gerochus a great champion of Gregory's, is fain to say of him: 
Apud Auent. lib. 5. fol. 563.  The Romans usurp to themselves a divine honour, they will yield no reason of their doings, neither can they abide that any man should say unto them, why do you so. They answer as the Poet writeth: so I will, and command. Let my will stand for reason. Vrspergensis sayeth of the Synod at Mentz, where in the presence of the Roman Legates the Bishops that rebelled (with Hildebrand) against the Emperor were deposed; 
Vrspergen. in anno 1085.  Ibi communi consensu & consilio constituta est pax Dei, There by common consent and counsel the peace of God was established: which concludeth Gregory to be the author of a devilish dissension against the Emperor.  Phi. 
We care for none of these that speak evil of Gregory's doing, so long as we have a greater number of stories to commend him.  Theo. 
And we having the true reports of these that lived in the same age with him, which neither you nor the rest of your Romish faction can disprove, 
The later writers of the Romish faction, to please the Pope, commend Hildebrand to the heavens.  little regard what men that came after; and were more desirous to please the Pope than to write the truth, have published in their stories. You nor all the writers you have shall ever be able to refel the assertions of Sigebert & Frisingensis, that Hildebrand was the first Bishop of Rome which attempted to deprive Princes of their Crowns, and that this novelty or rather heresy was never heard of before. How lawful then it was, which for a thousand years the church of Rome never durst adventure, till Gregory the seventh first presumed to do it, leaning rather to wicked and seditious policy, than to christian and confessed authority, the simple may soon discern, or if they look to the end, they shall see the reward that is consequent to all rebellions.  

Vita Henrici 4. in Fasciculo rerion sciendarum.  A good instruction (sayeth that ancient reporter of Henry's life) was given to the world that no man should rise against his master. The right hand of Rodolph cut off, showed a most just punishment of perjury, in that he feared not to violate his fidelity sworn to the king his Sovereign: and as though other wounds had not been sufficient to bring him to his death, 
That part punished which offended.  that part also was punished, that by the plague the fault might be perceived.  Phi. 
If you stand on success, Henry himself was lifted at last out of his kingdom by his own son.  Theo. 
Was it not wickedness enough to arm the subjects against their Prince, & to set the son to impugn the father, but you must also crack of it? 
What Hildebrand began, the pope that came after would never leave off. Three erect●● against Henry the 4. and all slain.  The way that Hildebrand began, his successors would not leave, as being the only mean to make them Lords of al. And therefore when Rodolf was slain, Hermamnus was speedily erected against Henry: and had his reward as speedily at a woman's hand, which with a mighty stone, as he was coming in sport to try the force of his soldiers, beat out his brains from the top of a castle in earnest. Ecbertus was the third, that ascended to his master's seat: and he not long after was caught in a windmill, and paid his life for his ransom.  


The two sons of Hen. the 4. set up in arms against their father.  
For this whole story see Cuspinian in Henr. 4. Auent in Annalibus: & the life of Henry the 4. in fasciculo rerum sciendarum.   Subjects having so evil success against their Prince, the Pope and his confederates thought to try what the son would do against the father: and first they persuade Conradus, the eldest son of Henry, whom his father left in Italy to repress the force of Mathilda, to join with her against his own father and to withdraw the whole kingdom of Italy from obedience to the Emperor. Which unnatural dealing of Conradus forced the father to disherit him and to make choice of his younger son Henry the fift to succeed him in the Empire; taking an oath of him, lest he should run his brother's course, that during his own life, the son should not meddle with the father's kingdom, or countries but by the father's consent. The elder brother not long after departed this life: which occasioned the Pope and his adherentes to temper with Henry the fift, though by nature and oath bound to the contrary, that he should take the Sceptre in hand, and rather bear himself as king, than suffer a stranger to rise up and put both the father and the son in hazard to have the kingdom from them. This fear joined with a youthly desire to reign, brought the son to take arms against the father, and to meet him in open field, with a perjured and wicked purpose to defeat him of his crown.  
The matter had come to dint of sword but that the chief on both sides abhorring those unnatural wars, 
The Nobles shrinking from the father to the son.  pretended to parley as if they would compose the strife without blood; in which conference of theirs, the father found the Nobles that were with him, incline rather to the son rising than setting, and to faint from the possessor of the Crown, for dread of him that should be successor: 
Henry the 4. aided by his mortal enemies when he was forsaken of his friends.  and for that cause secretly conveyed himself from the camp and fled to the Duke of Bohemia and to the Saxons who before were his mortal enemies and the first attempters of his deposition, but now, seeing that ungrateful and parricidial attempt of his bowels against him, honoured and assisted the father to the uttermost of their power. The Pope's Legates and the rest of that faction fearing the friends, and doubting the valour and former success of Henry the fourth turned themselves to their Romish arts, and persuaded the son to feign a kind of submission and reconciliation to his father, upon this condition if he would but retain peace with the See of Rome. To that the father accorded, referring himself and his cause to the indifferent judgement of his Nobles and Princes, and receiving of his son for the safety of his life and honour, promises, tears, and oaths; all which notwithstanding he was with a fair pretence led to a castle by the way as they traveled, and being received in as an Emperor, he was kept there as a prisoner, 
A right pattern of the Romish institution.  and this offer made him either to lose his head, or to resign his Empire: By these detestable perjuries & practices the son got the father to relinquish the Crown: and this if you think to be good success you may say that judas had as good in betraying his master, as Henry the fift in displacing his father.  Phi. 
The same Gregory the seventh did the like commendable justice upon the king of Pole, 

The defence, cap. 5.  
Chron. hist. Pol. lib. 4.  
Kings of later times excommunicated.  
Cuspin. in Hen. 4.   Bolislaus the 2. as well excommunicating as depriving him for murdering of his Bishop S. Stanislaie at the very altar. Against which sentence though he stood by force and contempt for a time, yet at length he was forsaken and resisted wholly by his subjects, fled, and in fine slew himself.  Theoph. 
The justice done upon Henry the fourth was not very commendable. One of your own friends confesseth the Prince was condemned Absens & inauditus; both in his absence and not so much as heard wha● he could say for himself. The Bishops of Italy & Germany thought it not very commendable when they deposed the Pope, 
Cuspin. ibidem.  Quod Regem nullo exemplo, anathemate praeter omnem causam perculisset: for that he had accursed & deprived the king which was never seen before, & that without all just cause. And surely to restore the Prince to the communion as Gregory did at Canusium, and yet to defeat him of his Crown, and to set up his servant to rebel against him: this had no show of justice. And if you commend it, you have your consciences seared with an hot Iron, and will speak nothing that may displease the Pope, be it never so just or true.  

Bishop Stanislaie murdered by king Boleslaus.  The murdering of Bishop Stanislay by Boleslaus the second, king of Polonia, we mislike as well as you: but the depriving him of his Crown and allowing his subjects to conspire his death, that was to requite sin with sin and to revenge murder with a more heinous and impious murder. It was not lawful for the king to kill a Bishop that admonished him of his vicious life; much less was it lawful for subjects to conspire the death of their Prince. Neither act was good, 
This king's ●ct was evil, 〈◊〉 the Popes was worse. It is a greater sin for a subject to kill his Prince, than for a king to kill a Bishop. Cromerus de rebus Polon. lib. 4. in Boleslao.  but of the twain the Popes was the leuder. For in steed of reducing the king to repentance, which should have been his only purpose, he interdicted the whole Realm from the service of God, which is rather the subverting of innocents, than the punishing of offenders, & used the king's sin as a pretence to incite the subjects to greater sin, and to settle his usurped power over the Princes of Polonia that should succeed; by charging the Bishops to anoint or crown no king after that without his consent. Your own author confesseth no less.  
When these things, saith he, which Boleslaus had done, were reported at Rome, Gregory the seventh then Bishop moved with the heinousness of the fact, interdicted the whole Realm from divine service, accursed Boleslaus to the deep pit of hell, and in solemn manner deprived him of his kingdom, and commanded the bishops that they should anoint & crwone no king after that without his licence. Notwithstanding this deprivation Boleslaus reigned a year and more after that, but hated of all (at home) and contemned abroad; 
Rebellion and murder are the fruits of the Pope's deposing Princes.  in so much that the Nobles of Ruscia, which he had conquered refused their subjection, and certain of his Nobles and states at home conspired his death; which conspiracy being detected, he fearing lest more were of their counsel, fled to (Ladislaus king of) Hungary, who received him very courteously and honourably.  

We defend not the vices of Princes but examine the Pope's power to deprive them of their crowns.  He fled fearing his own subjects, whom he had tyrannously oppressed not long before with shameful cruelty, as the same writer witnesseth; who also bringeth three reports of his death: one that he fell mad and slew himself; an other that in hunting he was cast off his horse and torn of dogs; the third that wandering into a strange Country he became a skullin in a certain monastery, and there in repentance ended his life.  Phi. 
If his end were so strange, his life could not be good.  Theo. 
I commend not his life, if it be true that Cromerus writeth of him; I rather acknowledge the just judgement of God in taking vengeance of his sins.  Phi. 
Why do you not acknowledge the like in his deposition?  Theoph. 
Because the Pope is not God, to whom the punishing of Princes sins doth rightly belong.  Phi. 
Would you that Princes should kill Bishops at the very Altar for doing their duties, and yet go free?  Theo. 
As if God were not both as sincere and severe a judge as the Pope?  Phi. 
Who doubteth of that?  Theo. 
Then shall they not go free, that sin against his law, be they Princes or others.  Phi. 
I speak of the mean time, before that day come wherein he shall judge.  Theo. 
And in the mean time which you speak of, 
God punisheth Princes, though not by the Pope.  God mightily punisheth all sorts and states, though not by the Pope.  Phi. 
He punisheth by diseases and strange kind of deaths, as he seethe cause; but yet good Laws must be made and maintained by men for the repressing of vice amongst men.  Theo. 
Very true: but those laws must be made by Princes and not by Popes. Bishops have not to do with the sword which God hath given unto Princes for the punishment of evil doers.  Phi. 
And what if Princess themselves be the doers of evil, who shall punish them? 
And what if the Pope be a malefactor, who shall punish him?   Theo. 
Every soul must be subjecteth to them, and they to God. They bear the sword over others: not others over them. Besides them or above them no man beareth the sword by God's appointment.  Phi. 
The keys are above the sword.  Theo. 
The keys open and shut the kingdom of God: 
The keys do not touch the crowns of Princes.  they touch not the bodies nor inheritances of private men, much less of Princes. Only the sword is corporally to compel and punish, which is not the Priests but the Prince's charge, as I have often showed.  Phi. 
To let Princes do what they will, 
Tyrants were never yet repressed by Priests. 1. Sam. 22.  without fear of punishment, is the next way to overthrow commonwealths.  Theo. 
What kingdom can you show wherein it hath been otherwise? Saul willed Doeg in his presence to ●lea fourscore and five of the lords Priests, and he smote their city with the edge of the sword, both men, women, children and sucklings. Did Abiathar the high priests son, that fled and escaped, deprive Saul of his kingdom? or did David, for whose cause they were slain, when shortly after he had Saul in his power to do with him as he would, seek the king's life, or suffer his men to take it, that were ready to do it? David when he was king deflowered Bethsabe and caused her husband to be murdered. Did therefore any Priest or Prophet in all his Realm offer to depose him? or did Absalon well to conspire against him? Achab joined with jesabel in putting 
2. Sam. 11.  Naboth to death, and 
3. Reg. 21. & 18  killing the Lords Prophets. Did Elias deprive him? or incite his subjects to forsake him? Herod 
Mat. 14.  beheaded john Baptist, and likewise 
Act. 12.  james, and apprehended Peter with a purpose to send him after, but that he was delivered by an Angel: did Peter therefore take vengeance on Herode, which he might have done with a word as well as on Ananias; or did he leave him to the judgement of God, which shortly after ensued with an horrible plague? The tyrants of all ages and vices of all princes both before the coming of our Saviour and since, have they been punished by Priests as you would have it? or else have they been reserved to God's tribunals as we affirm?  Phi. 
Some have been punished by Priests, though not all.  Theoph. 

Many Princes have been deposed by their own Realms, but not by Priests.  Show but one prince for five thousand years since the first foundation of the earth that was judicially cited, examined & corrected by a priest till Hildebrand began this new precedent. If any princes were during all that time repressed, it was done by their own states & realms, & that for their extreme tyranny; priests always refrained those attempts, and never thought it any part of their vocation to meddle with the changing and altering of kingdoms.  Phi. 
It is a better & readier way to reform princes, to subject them to the tribunal of one godly Bishop as we do, than to leave them in thraldom to popular tumults and mutinies as you do.  Theo. 
We leave them in thraldom to none but only to God, 
Princes were better to refer themselves to their realms, if they were to choose their judges, than to endure the Pope's pride.  and to serve him is no thraldom, but an honourable and princely liberty. Yet if princes were to choose their judges among men, they were far better refer themselves to the general consent of their Nobles & commons at home, than hold their sceptres at the pleasures of disdainful & seditious Popes which seek to dishonour their persons, & impoverish their Realms.  Phi. 
You speak this of spite.  Theo. 
Your own examples will prove it a truth.  
How dealt Adrian the fourth, and Alexander the third with Fredrick the first, 
How Fredrick the first was handled.  a wise, valiant and virtuous prince? Did not Adrian receive a great sum of money to excommunicate the Emperor? & the stomach which the pope took against the prince, grew it not upon these causes, for that the Emperor in his letters put his own name before the Popes, and required homage & fealty of the Bishops for their temporalities, and would not suffer the Cardinals to pray upon the churches of Germany? Did not the Cardinals conspire & bind themselves with an oath that they would never choose any to be Pope, 
By these arts the Pope hath grown great, & by these he yet standeth.  but one that should be an opposite to this Emperor? And when Alexander the third was shuffled in by that faction against Victor, did he not twice refuse to have the matter discussed by council, and stirred up the kings of Sicily & France, and the states of Venice against the Emperor, and caused all the cities & countries of Italy to rebel against him, and having taken his third son prisoner, would he restore him or make peace with the father till in presence of all the people at the door of S. Marks church in Venice the prince had cast his body flat on the ground, & the pope setting his foot on the Emperor's neck, had auanced himself with that part of the Psalm which saith, Thou shalt walk upon the asp & the basilisk, and shalt tread the lion and dragon under thy feet? 
Psalm. 91.   
The parts that were played by the Bishops of Rome with Fredrick the second, Lodovik of Bavaria, king john of this Land, and jews the 12. of that name, king of France (which are your own examples) if I should largely pursue them, 
The tyrannies & injuries of Popes against Princes were infinite.  a whole volume would not suffice them: I will therefore rip up so much only as shall let the reader see with what cunning these princes were wearied & with what pride they were despised, when they traveled for peace.  Phi. 
But say no more than you will prove.  Theo. 
Your own friends shall hear me record that I do not feign.  
The grief that Adrian the fourth conceived against Fredrick the first, & the occasious thereof, though I might report out of Radevicus that th●● lived, yet had I rather take them out of adrian's own words, 

Radeui●us de gestis Frederici, lib. 10.  
Apud Naucler. volume 3. gener. 39 anno 1156. The Pope's letter to the Emperor.   in his epistle to Frederik, which are these, By the word of truth we are taught, that every one which exalteth himself shallbe brought low. Wherefore we marvel not a little at your discretion that you give not S. Peter & the holy Church of Rome that reverence which you ought. For in your letters directed unto us you set 
* 
A foul sin for the prince to set his name before the Popes.  
The Pope would not have the clergy swear fealty to their Prince.  
The pope's gain must not be impaired.  
Navel. ibidem. The mildness of frederic's answer to the Pope's letter.  
Bishops own fidelity to Princes not only in respect of their temporalities but of their duties to gods ordinance.   your name before ours, which is a note of presumption, I will not say, arrogancy. What shall I speak of the fidelity which you promised & confirmed with an oath to S. Peter & to us, in what sort you perform it, when as you require homage & exact fealty of them which be gods, & the sons of the most high every one of them, I mean the Bishops closing their hands within yours (when you receive it) & setting yourself against us, you shut not only the churches but the cities of your kingdom against the Cardinals that came from our side? Repent therefore, repent we advise you, lest whiles you covet the things which you should not, you lose that which you have.  
For the better discerning of the Pope's ambitious & envious spirit, you shall hear with what mildness & lenity the prince made his answer. Whatsoever regality your Popedom hath, you got it by the gift of princes. Whereupon when we writ to the Bishop of Rome, by right & by ancient use we set our name first. Look your records, & if before you did not mark this which we say, there you shall find it. Of them, whom you call gods, I win by adoption; since they hold part of our regalities, why should we not exact both homage, and an oath of fealty, whereas our master & yours, holding nothing of any earthly king, but bestowing all good things on all men paid tribute to Caesar for himself & for Peter, & gave you an example so to do, saying: Learn of me for I am meek and humble in hart. Let therefore your Bishops either restore us our temporalities, or if they find them so profitable (that they will not) let them give to God that which is Gods, and to Cesar that which is Caesar's due. To your Cardinals our churches are shut & our cities not open, because we see them to be no Preachers but spoilers, no makers of peace, but snatchers of money, no reformers of men, but insatiable scrapers of gold. When we shall see them to be such as the church needeth, that is bringing peace, lightning countries, assisting the humble in equity, we ourselves will not fail to appoint for them necessary provision & maintenance. And (to tell you truth) you give us cause to suspect your humility & meekness which is the nurse of (all) virtues, when you quarrel with temporal persons about these matters which make nothing to religion. We can not choose but send you this answer when we see the detestable beast of pride to have crept unto Peter's seat. 
The detestable beast of pride cr●pt long since unto Peter's seat. Antichrist practising for life to make himself strong.   
This reply, though grounded on nothing but manifest reason & truth, did so sting the Pope & his Cardinals that they joined in a general conspiracy with William king of Sicily, & very near all the cities of Italy, to cross the Emperor to the utmost of their powers, and when the Pope died to choose none but one of the same faction that should continually pursue the Prince both with sedition and excommunication till they gate the upper hand of him. johannis Cremonensis a writer of that time saith: 

Abbas urspergen. in anno 1152. & Nauc. genera. 39 anno 1158.  
The Pope contriveth a mighty conspiracy to resist the prince & to drive him clean out of Italy.  
Vrsperg. in anno 1152. Naucler. generat. 39 Cuspinian. in Frederico.  
Adrian choked with a fly.   In this conspiracy the greater part of the Cardinals, William king of Sicily, and almost all the cities of Italy bound themselves with many Barons and other greater men: and a mighty mass of money was given to Pope Adrian that he should excommunicate the Emperor. And farther he saith, he learned of credible men of Milan and Brixia that were parties in this action, that the conspiracy with Pope Adrian was so fastened with oaths that none of them might leave the rest, or seek the emperors favour without the consent of all, and if the Pope departed this life, they should choose a Cardinal of the same confederacy.  
The reward which Adrian received at God's hand as that writer saith was this, that A few days after he had denounced his excommunication against the Emperor at Anagnia, as he walked abroad to refresh himself, & came to a spring to taste of the water a fly by report entered his mouth, and stuck so fast to his throat, that by no help of Physicians it could be removed, till he gave up the ghost.  Phi. 
Nauclerus, you know, doubteth of this story because the Italian writers make no mention of it.  Theo. 
That is no reason to disprove the writer: 
Cuspian. in Friderico 1. Cuspinian. in Frederico 2.  You know what Cuspinian a man of your own side saith of your Italian stories in the lives of both the frederic's. Merula (an Italian) not knowing the things which Emperor Fredrick did, but as following Blondus or Platina, doth foully err many times. And again, 
The Italian stories wholly bend to justify the Pope's doings and to bely the german Princes  The Italians as Blondus & Platina both of one age, complain of the want of stories. They disdained to read the chronicles of the Germans, the which, because they savoured not of the Roman eloquence, they rejected, and missing in many points they affirm very often lies for truth. Some of them offended with the whole Nation of Germany, call all the german Princes (that were Emperors) barbarians. And to flatter their Popes, they charge (the german Princes) with many more vices (than they had.) Want of other writers before them, hatred of the Germans whose Princes often wasted Italy with fire and sword, and a natural desire to magnify the Pope, made the Italians disdain to seek the truth, or to dissemble it when they saw it.  Phi. 
Did not the Germans think you bear affection towards their Princes, 
In these cases I allege no writers but men of their own religion.  and spite the Pope for accursing and impugning their Emperors?  Theo. 
I allege none but Priests, Monks, & abbots that were in the Pope's danger, and not in the Princes: and such as otherwise did honour the Pope, & depend upon his See, save when he offered so open wrong and violence that no Prince could endure it.  
But we wade further than we need. Nauclerus doubteth whether Adrian were choked with a fly: but of the conspiracy, which is the thing that I purposed, neither he, nor you can doubt. It was 
Radevicus de gestis Frideric. 1. lib. 2. cap. 52. cap. 69. cap. 67. cap. 69. & 71.  complained of by the Cardinals that refused their society, it was 
Radevicus de gestis Frideric. 1. lib. 2. cap. 52. cap. 69. cap. 67. cap. 69. & 71.  confessed by the citizens of Milan, it was 
Radevicus de gestis Frideric. 1. lib. 2. cap. 52. cap. 69. cap. 67. cap. 69. & 71.  proved in the Council of Pavia, it was reported by letters both from 
Radevicus de gestis Frideric. 1. lib. 2. cap. 52. cap. 69. cap. 67. cap. 69. & 71.  the Prince & from the * Bishop of Babenberge to Eberhard the Archbishop of Saltzburge; it was verified by the sequel, I mean by the wilful resistances which the confederate cities of Italy doubled & tripled to their utter overthrow, and by inciting the kings of France, England, Spain, and Sicily to join against Fredrick, which thing Alexander the third a Cardinal of the same conspiracy with Adrian, laboured for life to compass.  Phi. 
Can you blame him? Did not Frederik set up Victor an Antipape against him, & chase Alexander from his See?  Theo. 
Fredrick did not set him up: 
This conspiracy was made whiles Adrian lived: before Alexander's election came in question.  but when two were chosen in a tumult, the council of Papia discussing the cause pronounced for Victor against Alexander, & their judgement did the Emperor follow.  Phi. 
He might well follow it, for himself did procure it.  Theo. 
It is not true. The Bishops of Italy, Germany, and other Countries were assembled by him, and the matter committed as in the sight of God to their integrities and consciences. The Prince's words in the council were. 

The council of Papia pronounced Victor to be lawfully chosen.  
Radevicus de de gestis Frideric. 1. lib. 2. c. 64  
Bishops had skill in the canons of the of church, which princes had not.  
Radevic. lib. 2. cap. 67.68.70.   Though I see the power to call counsels is ours by the office & dignity of our empire, especially in so great dangers of the Church (for so Constantine, Theodosius, justinian, and of later memory Charles the great and Otho are known to have done) yet authority to define this weighty and chief matter I leave to your wisdoms and judgements. For God hath made you Priests, and given you power to judge of us. And because in things which pertain to God, it is not for us to judge of you: we exhort you to behave yourselves in this cause, as those that look for none other judge over you but God. This when he had said, he withdrew himself from the council, committing the whole examination of the matter to the church and to the persons Ecclesiastical there assembled, which were infinite. There were fifty Archbishops, & Bishops, & abbots and Priors innumerable. There were also the Ambassadors of divers nations promising whatsoever the Synod decreed, should undoubtedly be received of their Realms. See their proofs and proceedings of this council in the chapters that follow, and show us how you can infringe them.  Phi. 
Alexander had the greater part of the Cardinals.  Theo. 
The greater part of the Cardinals had conspired to choose none, 
The greater part of the cardinals had conspired against the Prince.  but one that was and would be an enemy to the Prince, & to that intent had they taken an oath, Adrian yet living. After his death when they came to choose a successor, the people & the Clergy were as earnest to have none, but one that should keep the city at peace with the Prince. Whereupon the conspirators not daring to utter themselves for fear of some uproar, nine of the Cardinals, the rest seeing and not contradicting, at the importunate clamour of the people and clergy, put the Pope's mantle or cope upon Octavian the Cardinal, and placed him in S. Peter's chair, 
The choice of Victor.  and performed all other solemnities of his inthronization with the great joy of the whole city, the conspirators which were 14 in number beholding all this and not gainsaying it, or any part of it, though they were present.  
Twelve days after Victor was immantled, 
Alexander se● up by the conspirators against Victo.  and possessed of the Popedom, & had received the obediences of the clergy throughout Rome, the conspirators secretly departing the city, & not so much as calling the rest of the Cardinals to their election, by themselves without the presence or allowance of the people, or clergy, set up Rowland the chief man of their faction to be Pope, & named him Alexander. This garboil being brought to the Prince by the complaint of both parts, he by letters & messengers warned both sides to come to the council that should be kept at Papia, and there to hear the judgement of the Bishops for the determining of this strife, which Alexander and his adherentes utterly refused. These things were justly proved before the Bishops assembled at Papia, and sentence pronounced with Victor against Alexander.  


Fredrick did but the duty of a christian Prince, and much less their ancient Emperors did in the like case.  
Victor's election was faulty, but alexander's was worse.  
Alexander's election was utterly void.   What did Fredrick in this case that a Christian Prince might not lawfully do in the like? How could he do less than call both parts to the Synod, and commit the matter to the judgement of the Bishops? Or how could he but favour & and defend that ●ide which was now cleared and confirmed by the council?  Phi. 
Victor's election was faulty from the beginning.  Theo. 
If there were any fault in Victor's election, it was theirs that should have presently protested against his ordering: but in Alexander's there was neither right, nor form of any election. They were joined in a wicked compact, & had thereto bound themselves by oath, which by law was sufficient to forfeit their voices. Again their own silence drowned their interest, when they would not, or durst not speak their minds at the time & place appointed for the choice. Thirdly to their election they called not those who had right to be present, & to choose as well as themselves, & therefore all that they did was utterly void. Fourthly they had neither the consent of the clergy, nor laity, which by order & duty they ought to ask. Lastly they disdained the summons both of the Emperor, & the council, which by the canons they should have obeyed: and therefore might be deprived of the right which they had: much more discharged from that which they never had.  Phi. 
The council was not indifferent.  The. 
No more is any judge to him that offendeth.  Phi. 
The Prince had no power to call the council, much less to summon the Pope.  Theo. 
You speak like yourself. Who called the ancient counsels, & summoned the Popes to be present at them, 
Counsels before and after did as much as this came to.  but Princes? And why might not this council cite & deprive Alexander for his contempt, as well as the counsels of Pisa, Constance, & Basil, did other Popes, that came after, for the like contumacy, specially when as Alexander was yet no Pope, but in strife with an other for the Popedom?  Phi. 
Platina saith, Alexander had 22. Cardinals, & Victor but 3.  Theo. 
So Alexander himself craketh whom Platina followeth, but the contrary part testified that there were nine on the one side & fourteen on the other. Howbeit I stand not on these minutes of elections, 

Apud Rudevic. lib. 2. cap. 51. ca 52.  
The causes of this conspiracy.   I note first the causes that provoked the Pope & his Cardinals to conspire against Fredrick: next the means they used to pursue him and weary him.  
The causes were, the setting of the Prince's name in his letters before the Popes: the requiring of homage of the Bishops: & stopping the Cardinals from spoiling his churches under a colour of visiting them. Of these pretences, and Frederiks' answers let the world judge.  
The means were: 
The means which the Pope used to tire the Emperor. Naucl. gener. 39 & 40. Cuspinian. in Fred. 1.  the Pope did excommunicate the Prince & his fautors, gate Crema, Placentia, Verona, Milan & Brixia to rebel, linked fifteen cities of Italy in a league with the king of Sicily not long before his mortal enemy, of purpose to withstand Fredrick: procured Henry Duke of Saxony to forsake his master in the field: stirred the Princes of France, England, Spainei, and the Venetians what they could, to annoy him. With these policies he began: and with these he continueth even at this present.  
Thus your holy father with wars, rebellions and conspiracies sought to shake this Emperor out of his clothes: 

Fredrick tamed those country's that rebelled against him.  
Vide Naucl. gener. 40. anno 1177.   but God so assisted him, that he razed and destroyed the cities that rebelled, and turned the Duke that betrayed him out of his Dukedom, and electorship, and made the Pope glad to leave his Palace, and fly to Venice in a cook's attire: and had not indulgence of nature won him to accept the peace, which the Pope offered, and his captive son entreated, he was like enough to have taught the Bishop of Rome a new lesson: 
The time for Antichrist to be exalted.  but the time was then for Antichrist to be exalted, and therefore it pleased the wisdom of God to suffer this worthy Prince to be wearied, and content to embrace peace for the safety of his son that was prisoner at Venice. Where, if it be true, that is written of Pope Alexander even by your own fellows, he showed himself in his right colours. 
Naucl. gen. 40. anno 1177.  For willing the Emperor before all the people to lie flat on the ground, he set his foot on the prince's neck and said, it is written, thou shalt, walk upon the asp and Basilisk, & tread the Lion and Dragon under thy feet. And the prince answereth, I do it not to thee, but to Peter whose successor thou art: the pope replied, (it must be done) to me as well as to Peter. 
The Pope is where he would be.  The Pope is now where he would be, not on mean men's shoulders, but on Prince's necks: and that advancement hath he gotten, not by religion or virtue, but by breaking oaths, bearing arms, shedding blood, and such like turkish and devilish stirs. 

Can you tell where S. Peter did wage war upon any private man or Prince.  
Naucl. gen. 39 anno 1158.  
The Pope fighteth with Princes for earthly gains & griefs.  
What quarrels the Pope hath pursued these 500 years.    Phi. 
Would you not he should defend himself?  Theo. 
If he be Peter's successor, he must feed, not fight, teach obedience, not authorize rebellion, pray for his enemies, not pursue them with force and fury. Else he succeed Romulus in murdering, not Peter in feeding.  Phi. 
What if words will not serve, shall the chiefest Pastor of our souls see the keys and the church contemned, and oppressed, and not draw the sword?  Theo. 
That is in effect, if men will not believe your Preaching, may you not take boytels and knock them on their heads? Nay the case goeth not so well with you: You wage wars with earthly states, if they dislike your pride, or avert your gain, you pretend Saint Peter and the Church, when you mean nothing but your temporal commodities and superfluities: it sufficeth you not to be free from Prince's Laws & swords, or to be their equals, you strive with them to be their superiors, & to displace them if they displease you. These be the quarrels which your holy father and his adherentes have professed, & pursued for the space of five hundredth years with all their might and main: for these things have you spilled more Christian blood than ever Turk, or Tyrant did: & at this day you take it in evil gree that you may not still continue that course.  

First clergy men's livings & then their persons must be exempted from the Prince.  With Frederik the first you fell out, for that he durst place his own name before the Popes, which all Emperors ever did: and as you fought with Henry the fourth to get clergy men's livings of his hands, so you tumbled with this Frederik to exempt their persons: lest they should either for commodity or duty lean to the Prince: & when he began but to look to your fingers, that you should not decay his Realm & enrich yourselves, you conceived such immortal hatred against him, that you took an oath to revenge him not only by conspiration, but even by succession.  
With Fredrick the second you dealt much after the same sort, whom you did excommunicate twice, thrice, four times for no cause, without all order of law & justice, 
How Frederik the second was handled.  as if princes had been footbals for pope's to play with, & not powers for christian Bishops, to reverence.  Phi. 
Was not Frederik the 2. excommunicated for very good causes?  Theo. 
They were very good I promise you. Vrspergensis an Abbate then living saith of them, 

Vrsper. in anno 1227.  
Blond. dec. 2. lib. 7.   The pope of very pride the first year of his Popedom began to excommunicate Frederik the Emperor for frivolous & false pretences without all order of judgement.  Phi. 
But Blondus & Platina tell you an other tale. Blondus saith, The first year of his coronation, making light account of his oath he attempted many enormous things against the Pope: who warned him to forbear these 
All that wickedness was the lawful defence of his own right.  wicked, perfidious and rebellious enterprises, but he every day more & more despised his admonition, which made the Pope to terrify him with an excommunication, if he did not relent & make restitution. And when the Emperor set light by the first curse, the second time the Pope added a deprivation from his Empire & crown, & third time when the Emperor stood still out, the Pope very much offended thereat absolved all his subjects from their oaths, 
Platina in Honorio 3.  whereby they were bound to yield him allegiance. And so saith Platina, Honorius the third did excommunicate & deprive Frederik the second, for molesting the Pope's dominion against right & law.  Theo. 
Your Italians perceiving their Popes to have been very waspish & eager against the Emperors that liked them not, 
The Italians cannot defend the Pope but by enforcing heinous crimes against the Emperors though they know none.  & knowing what a shame it would be in the eyes of all posterity for them to have proceeded in such rage without urgent & evident matter, in general words do charge those Emperors with many grievous crimes. But we trust neither the Pope's discretion, nor the reporters construction, unless we see the particular facts that were committed. They may think those things to be heinous, which indeed are frivolous: and if the quarrel were for lands and territories lying in question between the Empire and the See of Rome, the Pope did wickedly in his own cause to abuse the keys for earthly mammon.  Phi. 

The causes of the Pope's egernes against Frederik the ●  Who made you the Pope's judge?  Theo. 
I judge him not, there is one that shall judge both him and his acts: yet I may ask you the causes for which Fredrick was accursed & deprived.  Phi. 
You have heard them out of Blondus and Platina. 
In Henrico 3.   Theo. 
Platina saith, Contra ius fasque ditionem Pontificiam vexabat: he molested the Pope's inheritances against all right: 
Decad. 2. lib. 7.  that Blondus calleth wickedness, rebellion, and perjury: These be high words, but I see no deeds. And if we credit them which wrote that very present, when these things were done, the Pope did the Emperor open wrong in receiving and succouring his rebels against him. Vrspergensis saith, the first year after Fredrick was crowned Emperor, 
Vrspergens. in anno 1221.  he began to war upon two Earls of Tuscan, Matthew and Thomas, which had surprised certain forts, and pieces of his territory within Apulia: and clean put them from all they had; who flying to Rome sought help at the Pope's hand; whereof the Emperor often complained that the See apostolic fostered his public adversaries and enemies. This was the falling out between the Prince and the Pope which your Italian Stories do mention. 
The Pope did the Prince wrong though the Italians say nay.  Platina saith, it was the Pope's right: Vrspergensis two hundredth years before him, and a writer in the midst of these actions, saith it was the Prince's right: and that he did but recover his own out of their hands: for the which Blondus chargeth him with rebellion and perjury. Cuspinian therefore a man of your Religion very truly noteth him & other Italian writers in this case for mere flatterers. Having repeated the same fact that Vrspergensis before did testify, 

Cuspinian. in Frederico 2.  
Cuspinians admonition of the Italian stories.   Thence, saith he, sprang the first occasion of enmity between (the Prince and the Pope). Although the Italian writers do say that Fredrick the Emperor after the death of his mother Constantia, which kept him in tune, and would not suffer to grow to these passions, did the worst he could against Honorius the third, Gregory the ninth, and Innocentius the fourth, & handled Rome, which had nourced him up, 
It was no small point of Antichrists policy to get some that should make all manner of lies for him & his See.  as if she had been his stepmother. But those flatterers of the Bishop of Rome will have all things lawful for the Pope, investing him with both sword, and making all Emperors but his servants. This was frederic's wicked rebellion against Honorius, that Blondus expresseth in so great words to win his own by force of arms out of their hands that invaded him, and to requite them with the like; and such quarrels can your holy father pick to Princes, when he is disposed to spit his venom against Princes.  
Gregory the ninth, 
Gregory's fury against this Emperor.  upon less cause showed more fury. He did excommunicate Fredrick the second, for that he stayed his expedition against the Turk till he had recovered his health, and when the Prince sent his Ambassadors to make faith thereof, he would not so much as hear them, or see them. And after in the absence of the Prince whiles he was fight against the Turk, 
Note the piety of Popes.  the Pope invaded his Land, and caused the soldiers that should have aided him against the Turk, to be spoiled and stopped of their journey, & a fame to be spread that the Emperor was dead, & the almains that returned from jerusalem to be slain, lest they should notify the Prince's life and welfare.  Phi. 
These be horrible lies, 
So had you need to say; for if you grant them to be ●ru●, the pope could be little less than a devil incarnate.  devised by such as would have the Pope in hatred with all men.  Theo. 
They be true tales, and truer than those which some of your side have coigned to claw the Pope with. Your own fellows confess as much as I say.  Phi. 
Germans perhaps in favour of their Emperors.  Th. 
If you refuse the Germans of your own religion as well-willers to their Princes, how shall we receive your Italians that were more than partial to their Popes? Yet this advantage we have over you: the elder and sincerer Stories even of your Romish profession and devotion make with us in these matters.  

Naucler. gener. 41 anno 1229. The Italians would feign pretend other causes to save the Pope's honesty: th●se be so shameful, that they blush to hear them.  Nauclerus discussing the causes of frederic's excommunication, & repeating what Antoninus a Florentin writeth in the soothing of Gregory's fact, addeth But surely by the epistle of Gregory, which he wrote to the king of France with this beginning, Out of the Sea is the beast ascended, it is convinced that Gregory at this time did not excommunicate Fredrick for these causes (which Antoninus pretendeth) but for that Frederik stayed longer with his soldiers from succouring the holy land than the term which he had vowed by oath, and was enjoined by the Pope under the pain of his curse. To the which the Emperor answered that he was unjustly excommunicated for so much as he entered the journey within the term, & besides the death of the Landgrave (one of the chiefest that should aid him) a dangerous sickness constrained him to take land again, & so by his evident infirmity ought to be excused.  Phi. 
The Emperor feigned himself sick, & that the Pope understood by the letters of Bishops that were in his train. 
Naucler. Ibidem. The Pope would not admit the Prince's ambassadors to prove their master's sickness. This was no pride.   Theo. 
That was the Pope's reply to salve his doings: but why did he not vouchsafe to hear or see the Archbishop of Brundisium & others whom the Prince sent to make faith of his sickness? why did he not expect the Prince's purgation by oath or otherwise that his excuse was not feigned? What servant was ever so disdained by his master if he were honest, but his reasonable defence was heard? And our holy father forsooth will not expect, no not admit the Emperor of Christendom to make faith of his corporal infirmity.  Phi. 
We tell you he was not ●●cke.  Theo. 
We tell you that was hard for you to know, & harder to prove. You should have called his messengers to their oaths or have sent some to feel his pulse if you had suspected him, for a moicher. In the mean time the world seethe the frantic pride of that wicked Pope, 
Vrstergen. in anno 1227.  who not only denied audience to the Archbishop & other the kings messengers, & would not so much as admit them to his sight, but condemned & accursed the sick Emperor for not passing the seas to sight against the Turk.  
And here see, the right vain of your Romish justice. Your holy father did hinder the prince secretly what he could by rebellions & uproars from going against the Turk: 

The Pope did hinder the Prince from going, & yet excommunicated him for not going.  
Naucler. gener. ●1. anno 1226.   & yet did excommunicate him for not going.  Phi. 
Did the pope hinder him?  Theo. 
Look your own stories. The year before, which was 1226. The Lombard's, saith Nauclerus (as it was thought) at the suggestion of Honoriu● the Pope entered a league amongst themselves, & with the cities n●ere adjoining against Fredrick the 2. which continued many years, by the name of the Lombard's league, a very great annoyance to the Roman empire, and a manifest impediment of the journey to jerusalem, because the expedition which Fredrick had promised to make into Syria, was kept off a long time by this occasion.  Phi. 
This was but a thought.  Theo. 
The league was apparent, the instigation was secret. This confederacy if the Pope had not favoured, he should have assisted the Emperor with his keys & cursings, 

The Pope's keys were ever ready against the Prince, but never against those that molested the Prince.  
Vrspergen. in anno 1228.   which were ever ready against Princes, but never against those that troubled them; yet if you think the Pope was no dealer in this conspiracy, read what Vrspergensis writeth of them the next year after his sickness when the Prince was taking his voyage to jerusalem. In the year of our Lord, 1228. The Emperor minding to accomplish his vow, and appease the Pope, sailed to the Land of jury, and that year before his going he had indicted a general meeting of his Princes at Ravenna, from the which he was hindered by the messengers & Legates of the Pope. For they of Verona & Milan suffered none to pass through their coasts, but spoilt the very soldiers that were to go against the Turk, & that, as they affirmed, by the authority of the Pope, which alas, is a shameful thing to speak of.  
After Frederiks' departure, as if the former wrongs had not been spiteful enough, the Pope taking occasion of the emperors absence, 

Vrsper. ●odem anno  
The Pope invadeth the emperors dominions whiles he was fight against the Turk.  
What was this but to betray the christians to the Turke●  
Vrspergen. in anno 1229.  
The Pope is angry that the prince returneth with peace and victory.   addressed a main army into Apulia, and took the emperors countries from him who was then in the service of Christ (a most horrible thing to speak) & subdued them to his own use, & hindered the soldiers that were going against the Turk, 
Nau●. l. general. 41. anno 1228. The pope stirreth the prince's soldiers to rebel against him when he was encamped against the Turk.  the most he could, from passing the Seas, as well in Apulia as Lombardy. Who rightly considering these attempts, will not lament them, & detest them as the foresignes & prognostications of the ruin of the church? And when the composition was made between the Emperor & the Suldane, that Jerusalem with certain places near bordering should be restored to the christians, & truce remain for ten years: & the Emperor by letters advertised the Pope & the rest of christendom of this joyful news, The Pope cast away the letters & would not receive them, & with his fautors, as men affirmed, made a rumour to be spread in Apulia that the emperor was dead. Whereupon the cities, that yet stood for the emperor, inclined to render themselves into the pope's hands, & to kill the almains that returned from the holy land or were commorant in Apulia; a most barbarous and wicked purpose.  
And lest there should want any thing to the uttermost of all wickedness, when Frederik (after his arriving in the holy land) sent messengers to Rome to require absolution & reconciliation, because he had now performed his promise, the Pope repelled his petition, & enjoined the soldiers in Asia to withdraw their help from Frederik, as from a public enemy. It was not enough to fill the Prince's hands with civil wars when he should prepare against the Turk to stop and spoil his soldiers that should accompany him, to invade his land, & solicit his towns in his absence, your holy father must set the Christians, when they should fight against the Turk, together by the ears, & will them not only to forsake, but also to impugn their Emperor. What could the devil himself have done more, if he had been couched in the Pope's chair, than Gregory did?  Phi. 
These things Gregory himself denied, & the Italians that since have written, 
Though this Prince suffered all these wrongs at the Pope's hands, yet the Italians rail mightily on him and magnify the Pope in all his doings.  reject them as false.  Theo. 
So had they need. For if they should confess them, they must yield the Pope in so doing to be rather the foreman of Satan, than the vicar of Christ. And therefore your Italian Stories presuming all that the Pope said in defence of himself to be true, and all that he claimed from the Empire to be his, rail on Fredrick in great choler, as on a wicked, and faithless Prince, and acquit the Pope as doing his duty in all these counterplots: But Italian wits are too well known to be trusted when they are offended, and in Blondus a man may soon perceive an intemperate heat against those Princes that withstood the Pope.  Phi. 
You dislike our stories, and we dislike yours.  Theo. 
May you dislike your own, and such as then lived and honoured the See of Rome, having no just exception against them but only that they could not apparel the Pope's pride with some smooth devices, as the Italians do?  Phi. 

Blondus in favour of the Pope dealeth very spitefully with Frederik the second.  Not long since you praised Blondus: have you now cast him out of conceit?  Theo. 
I did commend Blondus for his diligence where affection did not interpeale him: But in this case, drawing all things to his appetite, the more diligent the more dangerous. He not only taketh every word that Gregory spoke for a Gospel, but addeth of his own head such things as Gregory never objected to Fredrick; & that with no small spite. For where Frederik complained to the Princes of Almanie, how injuriously and deceitfully the Pope had dealt with him, amongst other things, whiles he was in the service of Christ against the Turk, 
Naucl. gene. 41. anno 1229.  how the Pope had surprised a part of his kingdom with arms: Gegory in his letters replied, that because Raynold Frederiks captain invaded the kingdom of Sicily, the special patrimony of the church, lest the See apostolic should thereby be impugned, his Legates entered Frederiks' kingdom, & found many ready to submit themselves. This is all that Gregory pretended who would not spare to speak any thing, that with any colour he might, in his own excuse and against Fredrick.  
Blondus finding this to be but a simple cause for the Pope to invade the Emperor's dominion in his absence, 
Blondus helpeth Pope Gregory's tale.  & in that service, first for so much as the right of Sicily was in strife between the Empire & the church of Rome, & secondly for that if Sicily were held in fee of the church of Rome, yet Fredrick was right heir unto it by the mother side; & in full possession of that kingdom before he was made Emperor: & therefore well Raynold his captain might put over soldiers into Sicily to man the forts for all occasions, & to contain them in their duties whatsoever should hap to his master in that voyage against the Turk: But other invasion, prejudicial to the church of Rome the prince's captain neither needed, nor could make any; Bondus, I say, perceiving that Gregory's pretence would seem but a quarrel sought of purpose to make a rebellion against the Emperor whiles he was from home, 
●londus Decad. 2. lib. 7.  helpeth the matter with certain additions which are both odious and slanderous.  

Blondus' false surmise of Fredrick.  Frederik, saith he, ready to take ship & sail from Italy, was so far from ask the Pope's absolution & benediction, that making one Rainold the governor of the kingdom of Sicily, in plain words willed him to oppress the Pope and Clergy by all means. Blondus might have done well to tell us who stood by and heard these words; which Gregory would never have omitted if he had known them. And if the Pope that sifted his words and deeds with all diligence knew no such thing, how should Blondus so many years after come by the knowledge of them?  
The other objection, that he despised the Pope's absolution, is as foolish. For as soon as he was landed on the other side, and began to march towards the Turk, Platina confesseth that he 

What will not Italian wits do when they be displeased?  
Platina in Gregorio 9   was very earnest both by letters and messengers to be absolved by the Pope (from his excommunication) and could not obtain it. To have dealt therefore with the Pope before his going to be absolved, had been in vain, the Pope doubting that he would not go, and refusing, as yourselves confess, to absolve him when he was there arrived and encamped against the Turk.  Phi. 
The Pope would not absolve him, because he went about to make peace with the Turk. 
Fredrick recovered the kingdom of jerusalem from the Turk.   The. 
The Pope would ever have some cause to molest him; otherwise I see no reason to mislike the peace. For whether the Turk stood in fear of him, or was to be distracted & employed about other wars, I know not; the Emperor had not been there a year, but the Turk was glad to yield him the kingdom of jerusalem, saving the Temple & a few Castles; & to hold peace with him and Christendom for ten years. Which conclusion as it was honourable in itself, 
The Pope grieved with the Prince's return, because his presence would hinder the Pope's practices.  so was it acceptable to all Christian states, save only to the Pope; marry he of mere malice against Fredrick when the letters were brought, that should advertise him of the emperors good success, threw them away, and showed himself much aggrieved with the matter, as one that did abode, the Prince's speedy return would disappoint him of his hope. And he miss not his conjecture. For within short space the Emperor recovered his towns that were lost, and stayed those that were shrinking from him to the Popes no small regreet.  Phi. 
He was offended with Frederick for that the Temple was left in the Turks hands. 

The Prince had been well occupied to stand fight for Christ's sepulchre, whiles the Pope spoilt him in the mean time of his kingdom at home.  
The holy land did the Pope good service.    Theo. 
The Prince perceiving the Pope to enforce his countries at home & to irritate his soldiers against him, what else should he stay for, when he was once revested with the kingdom of jerusalem?  Phi. 
Our lords sepulchre and the Temple were the chiefest things that the Pope regarded.  Theo. 
And good cause why. They gate him more money, and rid him of more enemies than any places in the world besides.  Phi. 
Which way trow?  Theo. 
The Pope no sooner lacked money but he must have a collection through Christendom for the succourse of the holy land as you call it, and if he fell out with any Prince or Emperor, or saw him likely to stand in his way that he could not rise so high as he would, he would never cease, what with excommunications to fear him, what with indulgences to allure him, till he had gotten his consent either to bestow his own person on the service, or at least to employ his treasures and forces to recover the land of jury from the hands of Saracens; and in their absence he ruled the roast as pleased him, and grew great by their decays.  Phi. 
Would you not have the Turk resisted?  Theo. 
Your holy father never took the way to have that done. He suffered the Turk to devour the Greek Empire, and set the Princes of the West, not to help them, but to fight for the place where Christ was crucified by the jews, 
The Pope rather increased than resisted the Turks power.  whiles the Turk in the mean time overthrew many thousand Christian Churches, and Cities, else where & and nearer home. And the supplies of men and money were so straggling and interrupted with dissensions and discords at home, that the Turk reconquered more in three years, than the Christians wan in threescore years before.  Phi. 
Yet the Pope's good will is to be commended: the fault was in them that would not agree. 

The Pope himself spoilt the west Empire & betrayed the East to the Turk.  
Italy shaken into shivers by the Pope. And so likewise Germany.    Theo. 
And who was the cause of that, but only the Pope?  Phi. 
You speak of spite.  Theo. 
Who filled the emperors hands with rebellions and dissensions more than the Bishop of Rome did? Who brought the Empire to a bare title, and the Emperor to be scant able to defend his own, but only the Pope? Who cut Italy into so many several Marquesdomes and Dukedoms as we now see, but your holy father, seeking to exclude the german Prince clean out of Italy, and to hedge up his way to Rome with many particular states, and regiments interiected, and all linked in one league to repel him from passing or entering their Countries?  
Neither was it enough to straighten him abroad, unless he did also weaken him at home, for fear lest some valiant Prince occasioned by so populous and stout a nation as the Germans are, should attempt with force of arms to recover Italy. And therefore you were never quiet till Germany was shaken into as many shivers as Italy, and the Emperor able to command none of them, but by their common consent, and according to their own liking. Which is the state of the Empire in our days. 

The Emperor dieted lest he should get strength to wrestle with the Pope.  
The holy land used as a continual issue to weaken christian Princes left they should stir against the Pope at home.  
The Pope would never a●sist the Grecians against the Turk.   This was not the way to make the Emperor strong against the Turk, for the regetting of jerusalem out of his hands, but to diet the Emperor, and to take him so low, that he should not be able to wraffle with the Bishop of Rome, without a present foil and instant danger of losing all. And thus weak though he were, yet to make him weaker the holy land was ever urged by the Pope as a perpetual Lottarie, to make him, and other Christian Princes spend their people and wealth with so small success, and mighty loss, that no one thing did waste and weaken Christendom more than this.  Philand. 
Is this the thanks you give the Pope for staying the Turk from invading Europe? Were it but for that respect, you should think better of him than you do.  Theo. 
To keep the Turk from subduing Christendom is a good and godly enterprise: but from that the Pope was farthest off. He would never assist the Christians of Grecia, continually fight with the Turk six hundred and fifty years after the division of the Empire under Charles the great, before their Empire was overthrown; but rather held the Princes of Christendom from succouring them, unless they would submit themselves to the See of Rome, which they would never do; though some of their Princes do now and then in hope of aid inclined to a kind of concord. And suffering the Turk still to prevail against them, 
The Grecians were delivered as a pray to the Turk by the Pope and his adherents.  and at length to swallow them up, to the great shame of the Christian princes that next adjoined, but most of himself, who was well willing because they were not his obedients, to leave them and theirs as a pray for the Turk, he would needs go fish for for Christ's sepulchre, as if that had been the next way to safegared Christendom from the Turk; to keep the place where Christ was buried; and to let him in the mean while conquer half Christendom.  
And that made your holy father storm so much at frederic's peace concluded with the Turk, wherein the Sepulchre was left out that he would not absolve him after his return but upon the payment of six score thousand ounces of gold. Which after three pounds an ounce, as it is valued in our days, is 
The price of one dinner at the Pope's table, and yet Blondus thinketh it was to good cheap.  three hundred and three score thousand pounds. And though the Prince for all this money had but one dinner at the Pope's table, yet Blondus is so far out of charity with Fredrick, that he saith the Pope was easier (in receiving so small a recompense) than he ought or was fit he should. 
Blondu● decad. 2. lib. 7.   Phi. 
That money was paid for the damages done to the Church by the Prince's soldiers in their late wars, 

The Prince's deputy did but defend his masters right & inheritance while he was in his voyage against the Turk.  
The Pope after the receipt of so much money pursued the Emperor worse than before.   not for his dinner as you gibe.  Theo. 
Blondus and Platina do presuppose that Fredrick by his Agents in his absence did spoil and sack S. Peter's Patrimony: but Gregory that received the money, saith the Prince's deputy invaded Sicily and no more, which was frederic's right and inheritance, though the Pope claimed thence a yearly custom. And therefore since frederic's captain did the Pope no wrong to invade Sicily, being his master's dominion, when the cities perhaps upon the Pope's censures began to slide from Frederick: no reason the Prince should perform the losses and damages of the war, which began by the Pope's egernes: and consequently no cause for the Pope to exact so much money of the prince, but either for his dinner which was too dear; or for his keys which should not be sold, or for his favour which dured not long. For within short space after they fell at worse variance than before, and the same Pope the second time accursed and deposed Fredrick, and the matter grew to such heat that your holy father crossigned soldiers against the Emperor, as if he had been a Turk or a Saracene.  Philand. 
Did not Fredrick rather play the Turk with such as fought against him, 
They came into the field against him as if he had been a Turk● why should not he recompense them as rebels?  when he cut their heads in four parts, and laid them crosswise on their shoulders, and with hot Irons burnt a cross in their foreheads whose lives he spared, and caused the Clergy men's crowns to be cut square to the very skulls? What Turk or Saracene ever showed like cruelty?  The. 
All executions not in war only, but in peace also seem cruel, if you look to the punishments, and not to the offences.  Phi. 
What was their offence?  Theo. 
They rebelled against him for the Pope's pleasure, whom by God's Law they should have honoured and obeyed, as their Sovereign Lord and lawful Prince: and not therewith content, they take up the cross against him in their badges and banners, as if it had been against a Turk or an Infidel. If subjects so far forget their duties, as to use their Princes like Infidels, because the Pope disfavoureth them: why should not princes forget their clemency, & reward rebels and enemies according to their deserts? It was therefore more enormous for the Pope to proclaim the cross against a Christian Prince, (though his adversary for some private respects) as he doth against the Turk; than for the Prince to inflict some such punishment as should make them repent their follies.  Phi. 


The cross first used against infidels for Christ's glory, the Pope turneth against Christian Princes to revenge his private enmity.  
The cause of the second quarrel between the Pope & this Emperor.   Fredrick impugning the Pope with all his might, why should not the Pope such himself the best way he could?  Theo. 
And the Pope bringing rebels into the field against the Prince as it had been against an Infidel, why should not the Prince teach them to beware how they used the cross against Christian Magistrates, which was devised against Turks and Saracenes?  Phi. 
The Prince himself was in all the fault.  Theo. 
Because he would not suffer the Pope to ride on his neck, as he had done on his grandfathers, and the rebellious Cities of Lombardie to shut him clean out of Italy. For what other cause had Gregory the ninth again to excommunicate and depose Fredrick after he had showed himself so desirous of peace, that he paid a huge heap of gold to content the Pope's ambitious spirit? What one injury done to the Church of Rome can your Italian Sories justly charge him with after his first absolution? If you think your holy father may turn and wind Princes like dishcloutes, and curse them, and depose them for what causes he list, 
The pope first armed the subjects against their Prince & then deposed him for seeking to subdue them with force of arms that rebelled against him.  than Fredrick was in some fault, for that he would not grant peace to the Cities of Italy which rebelled against him at the Pope's motion: but if that be mad divinity, as in deed it is; the Pope himself was not well advised, first to set the subjects up in rebellion against their Prince, and next to deprive the Prince for offering to repress them that resisted him. Show us therefore what offence it was against the Pope's holiness for the prince to compel his subjects to obedience by force of arms: or else we must conclude your holy father did the prince open & wicked wrong to thunder his censures against him, for seeking his own by those means, which God hath allowed unto magistrates.  Phi. 
The Emperor hired some to rebel in Rome against the Pope.  Theo. 
Your Italian writers would feign find holes in Frederiks' coat if they could tell how; but their tales hang not together. Platina runneth one way, Blondus an other, and Antoninus a third. Platina saith that Peter Fregepanes taking part with the Emperor, 
Platina in Gregor. 9  kept the Pope out of Rome, and made him decline to Viterbium, as he was going with an army against the Emperor, whom he understood to be within Italy; and to oppugn the confederate Cities. So that by Platinaes' confession the Pope was in arms against the Emperor afore the fautors of Fredrick offered him any violence.  
Blondus a deadly persuer of Fredrick with his pen reporteth this resistance made by Peter Fregepanes, 
Blondus decad. 25. lib. 7.  before the Emperor entered Italy: addeth, as his manner is of mere spite, that the Prince had hired him with money so to do.  
Antoninus as Nauclerus allegeth him, writeth that Fredrick hearing the cities of Lombardie, Milan, Bononia, and many others of Romandiola 

Naucl. generat. 42. anno 1238.  
The original of this second war between the Prince & the Pope.  
The Pope's legates were in the field against Fredrick, when the Prince came to recover his own.   to be fallen from him, and turned to the devotion of the Church, went against them with a great army. And the Citizens of Milan with all their strength, and the Pope's Legates and the whole confederacy of Lombardie, which did cleave to the Church, fought a field with the Emperor in a place called New court, and the Millanoes with their adherents, after a sore conflict were overthrown, many of them being slain, & many taken prisoners with their Caroche, where the Ruler of Milan being the son of the Duke of Venice and sundry other Noble men of Lombardie were taken and sent into Apulia; the Prince causing the Duke's son to be hanged on a tower by the Seas side, & the rest to be executed some one way, some an other. This Florentine confesseth the Pope's Legates were in the battle that was fought with Fredrick, at his first entrance into Italy: and that the very original of the war, was the defection of the lombards from the Empire to join with the Pope, or as he speaketh, 
Gregory nourished the conspiracy which Adrian made to keep the Emperor out of Italy.  with the Church: which in deed was the only strife between the Pope and the Prince, whatsoever Blondus & others in hatred of Fredrick do surmise. View now this quarrel, & tell us whether Fredrick did more than a Christian Prince might do: or whether the Pope rather did not wickedly nourish the conspiracy that the lombards made with Adrian the fourth against Fredrick the first, to drive the Emperor clean out of Italy: which was the point that the Pope pushed at all this while.  Phi. 
The Pope required nothing at his hands, 

The Pope's peace was this, that the Emperor should lose all his right in Italy.  
Naucler. gener. 40. anno 1183. The Prince perceiving the Pope's purpose, would make no such peace.  
How needful it was for the Prince not to give over his right in Italy.   but the preservation of that league, which his grandfather made at Constans, and his father during his life had kept inviolable.  Theo. 
That peace included none but Fredrick the first, and Henry his son: it extended not to their heirs and aftercomers, as appeareth by the oath of fidelity which the confederate cities took to Fredrick then Emperor, and king Henry his son, & no farther; and therefore that peace being expired by the death of his father, the Prince was at liberty to do as he saw cause.  Phi. 
But the Pope sought the continuance of that peace.  Theo. 
And the Prince perceiving the Popes fetch in time to exclude the Emperor clean out of Italy by the renewing of that peace, would not assent to it, but came with a mind resolved to bring the lombards to their former subjection. What wrong was this in Fredrick?  Phi. 
It was hard dealing.  Theo. 
None at all. And considering the Pope's drift, to be free from the Emperor's force, that he might with more safety quarrel with him when he listed, and deprive him at his pleasure without danger: it was necessary for the Prince to settle his state & keep his right in Italy: it should otherwise not be possible for him, and the Princes that succeeded him to repress the Pope's insolency which began to increase apace. This was the true cause why Gregory the 9 set himself against Fredrick the second after his first absolution, which cost so many thousands; what soever the Italian writers do imagine in hatred of Fredrick whom they misliked as well for pursuing the Pope, 
The Italians hate the german Emperors.  as for spoiling and wasting their native Country.  Phi. 
Did he not well deserve their hatred, that ranged over all Italy with incredible cruelty? sacked their cities, filled every town, village & family with mortal discord and dissension, banished and murdered Bishops, imprisoned the Cardinals & Prelates as they were coming to the Council, & so pursued & enclosed the Pope that he died for very grief of heart as Platina writeth? 
Platina in Gregorio 9   Theo. 
Will you kindle a fire and then look it should not burn? What other fruits of war could you expect but these or worse? 
What pranks were played with Frederick before he ●ought revenge.  You made leagues to bereave him of his right; you caused his subjects to meet him in the field, you accursed his person, and deprived him of his Empire, you came out in arms against him, as you would against a Turk or an Infidel: you did what you could to requite him & his with like rage and violence, & when you could not be even with him, you thought it best to complain of his cruelty. But you lose your labour: For wars are judged by their causes, 
The Prince's cause being good, his revenge was both lawful and needful.  and not by their consequents. If frederic's cause were good, as the pursuit of his right & demand of obedience, within the Territories of his Empire could not be evil, them your rebellions, confederations, excommunications, deprivations & such like actions to resist him, defraud him, or oppress him, were all wrongful & wicked: and his revenge of your conspiracies, & treacheries (though sharp and severe) was lawful, & as the cause stood, needful.  Phi. 
No Prince ever dealt so badly with the Church of Rome as Fredrick did.  Theo. 
No Prince was ever provoked with half the injuries with the which he was. He was four several times solemnly deposed by the bishops of Rome, once by Honorius, twice by Gregory, & lastly by Innocentius the 4. his 

This Prince of all others most wickedly abused by Popes.  
Naucler. gener. 42. anno 1242.   good friend, whiles he was a Cardinal, but his capital enemy when he came to be Pope.  Phi. 
It skilleth not how often it was done, so long as it was done for causes urgent & important.  Theo. 
If the Pope had any such power as he hath not, the causes must be just and true, which these were not.  Phi. 
Yes that they were. And though the rest did not so plainly express them, which maketh you to carp at them, yet Innocentius the 4. layeth his down in writing which are extant to this day. 
Sexti Decretal. lib. 2. de senten. & reiudicat. ¶ add Apostolice § & ut ad.   Theo. 
You say truth. The censure of Innocentius against Fredrick the second is extant in your Decretals: and four causes of his deposition there remembered.  Phi. 
And those no less than perjury, sacrilege, heresy, injury, and oppression of the Church of Rome.  The. 
If it be enough for you to object what you list, you may soon condemn whom you please.  


Frederick charged with perjury.  
Sext. Decret. li. 2. ut supra.   We hear your holy father in his magnificence charge the Emperor with these four things, but I win it would trouble him, or you to prove them. He committed perjury, the Pope saith in his judicial sentence, by rashly breaking the peace that was made between the Church and the Empire. If the truth were well tried, 
The Pope chargeth the Prince with perjury for repressing that rebellion which the Pope favoured. With Sacrilege.  this perjury lighteth on the Pope, and not on the Prince. For How could the Pope's Legates be in the field against the Prince to assist his rebels, and not break the peace that was made between the Church and the Empire? Is the Pope's power so infinite that he can make right in the Prince to be perjury, and war in himself to be peace?  
The taking and detaining of Cardinals and Prelates was the sacrilege which in this place is objected to the Prince; but when you prove that Prelates and Cardinals be no subjects, and that they may lawfully take arms against Princes, and yet no Prince must lay hands on them, than you may chance to have an action of wrongful detynue against the Emperor, but not of sacrilege. It is a point of your popish pride, 
The Pope maketh it Sacrilege for a Prince to imprison a rebellious priest.  to make it sacrilege for a lawful magistrate to restrain your parish Priests of Rome from their seditious intens & practices. What are your Cardinals by God's Law more than other Clergy men? or why may not the Prince both repress them, and punish them, if they disturb his state?  Phi. 
They were not his subjects.  Theo. 
Then were they his enemies, & since they came armed, 
Naucler. gener. 42. anno 1240.  and presumed with their ships to encounter his, why should he not seize them as his prisoners?  Phi. 
They came to keep a Council, being thereto called by the Pope's authority.  Theo. 
To call Counsels was the emperors right, and not the Popes: and this conventicle was called to oppress the Emperor. Why therefore might he not prevent it, and disperse it? especially when strangers offered to pass his dominion by plain force without his leave.  
Heresy was the third crime, 
With heresy.  for which the Pope suspected him. Wherein if a mortal enemy may be both accursed and judge, and proceed upon no better ground than suspicion, 

The Pope proceedeth against the Emperor upon suspicion. With injury. Frederik offered no wrong in defending his own.  
Sexti Decret. li. 2. ut supra.   you may quickly condemn any man of heresy. Princes have warm offices, if they shall lose their Crowns as soon as the Pope listeth to suspect them of heresy.  
The fourth cause is more foolish than any of the former. The prince forsooth forced his subjects in Sicily to aguise him, and obey him as their lawful prince, notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome had deposed him, and the persons that would not, he banished and diversly punished. This in deed was not for your profit, but this was nothing against his duty.  Ph. 
He forced them to impugn the Church of Rome, whose vassals they were.  Theo. 
The Church of Rome had a yearly pension out of Sicily which is here specified, more the Pope could not claim, and that pension was first yielded by those that usurped the kingdom of Sicily against the Empire. For Roger of Normanie, when Lotharius the Emperor had chased him 
* Naucler. gener. 38. anno 1137.  out of Apulia, & Campania, & taken those countries from him, (& 
Naucler. gener. 38. anno 1138.  intended the like for Calabria & Sicily, but that he was called away by sudden occasions, & died before he could return) grew to a secret compact with the bishop of Rome, to hold the kingdom of Sicily (which the Emperor claimed,) as from the Church of Rome by a yearly recognizance. After the death of Lotharius, Conradus the next Emperor was so troubled first with rebellion at home, & then with an expedition into Syria, 
The King of Sicily conspireth against the Emperor to keep him from recovering his right in Sicily.  that he had no leisure to think of Sicily. Against Fredrick the first, who succeeded Conrade in the Empire, did William of Sicily nephew to this Roger, (for his son reigned not long) conspire with the cities of Lombardie and the Bishop of Rome, to keep the german Emperor aloof from Italy, and so long they strived (having the Pope's aid) with excommunications, and rebellions, that Fredrick began to hearken to a peace, and William of Sicily having no children married his sister to the emperors son called afterward Henry the sixth, and father to this Fredrick, that we speak of, 
Naucler. gener. 40. anno 1186.  as willing the kingdom should return to the emperors line: who otherwise laid a challenge to it. When William of Sicily was dead, Henry the sixth by main force of arms subdued Sicily, 
Naucler. gener. 40. anno 1193. & 1194.  and was received into Falernum the chief town of Sicily as a conqueror.  
So that Fredrick the second had a double right to the kingdom of Sicily, either as heir to his uncle, 

Frederick the second had a double right to Sicily.  
Vide Naucler. anno 1138. & 1210.  
The Pope had only a pension out of Sicily.   in which case the Pope's pension was not extinguished; or else as Emperor, by reason his Father did recover it by conquest, & reunite it to the Empire. Either of these titles is sufficient to defend his doings in Sicily. As Emperor he might claim it afore the Pope, & from the Pope, for so did Conrade the third, and Otho the fourth. As king of Sicily, he was to pay but a pension, not to be the Pope's Uasal; and if the Pope should offer him any wrong, he might lawfully repel force by force, and punish the people of the land that would not obey him as their king, & assist him to hold his own.  
The Pope's allegation therefore against Fredrick for compelling the subjects of Sicily to continue their obedience, notwithstanding the Popes interdict, is very frivolous. Fredrick herein did no more than any Prince might, and would do in the like state. 
The soundness of the Pope's censure against the Prince.  And grant he had somewhat abused the kingdom of Sicily, which he did not, is that a cause to remove him from the Empire?  Phi. 
The other three be the principal causes.  Theo. 
Two of them, namely heresy and perjury, be stark false: the third was arrogance in the Pope to make it sacrilege to touch a Cardinal: not wickedness in the Prince to take them as enemies, that laboured to defeat him of his Crown.  Phi. 
You would take the Prince's part, we see, were his cause never so evil.  Theo. 
You do take the Pope's part, we see, though the sentence he gave be neither agreeable to God's Law, nor man's Law, nor his own Canons.  Phi. 
How prove you that?  Theo. 
Nay it is high time for you to come forth with your proofs, or else wise men will discern in Innocentius the image of Antichrist, proudly judging in his Consistory without regard of God, or man. 
What justice Princes may look for in the Pope's consistory.  A professed adversary to sit judge alone in his own quarrel, and for causes apparently false, or frivolous, to proceed to the deprivation of a Prince, yea the greatest Prince in Christendom, and in right his Sovereign Lord and master; neither admitting his proxy, nor hearing what exceptions he could take to his accusers, but appointing him to come in Person out of his own Realm into an other prince's Dominion, and to pronounce him guilty of all that was objected, being neither present, nor heard, for that he refused to put his life into his enemy's hands; If this be justice, the wild Irish, and Savage Indians that know not what belongeth to civil society, or human reason, may be judges as well as the Pope.  Phi. 
If the crimes were notorious, and the Prince refused judgement, why should not the Pope proceed against him in his wilful absence?  Theo. 
The prince sent to show the reason of his absence, & his atturnees to deal for him, as far as should be needful, but that the Pope would not expect their coming, no not the space of three days, at the 
The Pope, a very pat●ent & discreet judge. Na●xl●●. gener. 42. anno 1246.  petition of most of the Nobles, & Prelates that were in his council. The crunes pretended to be notorious were conceived in great words, as perjury, sacrilege, heresy, & tyranny: but the facts committed by Fredrick, as breaking peace with the Pope that took part in the field with his rebels against him, detaining the Cardinals that went to work his deposition, and fought with his fleet constraining his subjects in Sicily to acknowledge him for their king, were temporal & private quarrels directly concerning the Pope's attempts against the Prince, and the Princes right to defend himself, which your holy father of his accustomed presumption, 
Would it not do Princes good to have such a jolly judge?  called perjury, sacrilege, & tyranny, & being the adverse part, gave judgement in his own cause as liked best his own displeased & grieved stomach. Now how this could stand with the prescription of divine, or moderation of human laws we would gladly learn.  Phi. 
Your refuge will be to impugn the Pope's power which was then confessed; though the hastiness of his censure were somewhat misliked.  The. 
By whom was it confessed?  Phi. 
By all men, even by Fredrick himself.  Theo. 
You must make truer reports, before you give true judgements.  
Fredrick in his epistle to the king of France, showing this sentence by all laws to be void, 

Naucler. gener. 42. anno 1242. The Pope's power to depose Princes utterly denied in those days.  
What a fire the pope's proceeding saddled in Italy. Naucler. gener. 42. anno 1240.   allegeth that though the Bishop of Rome had full power in spiritual things, so as he might bind or lose sinners whatsoever, yet it is nowhere read, that the Pope by the warrant of gods or man's law, may remove the Empire when he list, or judge temporally of kings & princes to deprive them of their crowns.  
The cities & people of Italy by that open & eager faction of Guelves & Gibelines, which dured even to our age, showed how many there were that took with the Prince against the Pope, notwithstanding the Pope's excommunications & deprivations, which you would so feign uphold at this day. This faction (of Guelves aiding the Pope against the prince, and Gibelines standing with the prince against the Pope) grew so general, saith Nauclerus, that no city, no town, no people remained free from that infection● City hath waged war with City, province with province. One half of the people with the other, from that time to this our age for no cause else but for this faction; some helping their prince against the Pope, 
Blondus decad. 2. lib. 7.  & some the Pope against their prince. For 200. years & upward, saith Blondus, even to these our times they pursued each other with such rage under these unlucky names, that the Italians wrought greater mischief among themselves, than before they suffered at the hands of barbarous nations. 
Horrible tumults ensued this deposition of Fredrick.  Town against town, Country against Country, the people of each place divided among themselves, fought together for no cause but for this dissension; and their victories had no end nor mean but bloodshed and utter subversion: neither only neighbours and cohabitants, but those that dwelled five hundredth miles asunder, even the poorer sort and beggars, as well as rich and mighty men, when they met each other, committed all cruelty one side on the other. This flame your holy father kindled in his own Country with his rash proceeding against the Emperor, so wide it scattered, so long it endured, so fiercely it raged, amongst your own Devotionists, and yet you would make the world believe the Pope's power to deprive princes was never doubted of but in these our days, and by men of our side.  

Germany rejecteth the Pope's proceed against Friderike.  What Germany thought of this tragical intemperance of the Bishop of Rome, I speak for the most part of them, their manifest neglect of the Pope's factors & bulls, & plain speech in their Synods and assemblies will testify. Which aventinus, a man of the same religion that you are, thus reporteth. Albertus (the Pope's agent in Germany) sent the Pope's bulls to all the german Bishops; 
Auent. annal. boior. lib. 7. fol. 675.  for the publishing of frederic's excommunication, not one of them obeyeth him. He commanded the abbots to accurse the Bishops: they regarded him not. He chargeth the Clergy to choose them new Bishops, and the Monks to elect other Abbates, if they continued in this contempt. Every one began to marvel at the strangeness of this example never offered, much less urged before his time▪ In no one place was this message quietly heard. All men stormed, disdained and raged: detesting the rashness of the Pope's Nuntio, whose life and manners they were well acquainted with. 
What germanie thought of the Pope's enterprise.  Germany was full of tumults, men saying plainly that the Bishop of Rome commenced a most shameful enterprise against right and equity.  
Even so when Raverius an other of the Pope's Agents delivered Sigefride Bishop of Rentzburge a bull from Rome against the Prince, All men derided the impudency of the man, 
Auent. lib. 7. fol. 674.  & demanded what that light and superstitious Frenchman, 
What entertainment the Pope's nuncioes had in Germany.  or what the Bishop of Rome himself had to do in Germany without the consent of the german Bishops his colleagues. They were offended and displeased to see such tumults raised, and discord sowed, they proclaimed with open mouth that the liberty of Christians was oppressed, and the flock redeemed with the blood of Christ, brought into bondage by false Pastors. 
Auent. lib. 7. fol. 677.  And when Albert would not cease, The Bishops of Germany not only made light of his mandates, but accursed him in every Church, & Abbay, as an enemy of Christian concord, and a most pestilent arch-heretic: 
The Pope's agent accursed in every Church as a pestilent arch-heretic.  decreeing him to be worse than any Turk, jew, Saracene or Tartarus: & openly blaming the Bishop of Rome for attempting those things among Christians, contrary to right and reason, contrary to the Law of Nations, and Doctrine of Christ, which were not used among the most cruel Tartars.  
In the midst of these stirs, the Nobles & Prelates of Germany meeting to consult for the state of their common wealth, Eberhardus the Archbishop of Saltzburge a grave and worthy father; one that sat primate of that place forty six years, and had experience of ten Bishops of Rome, under Fredrick the first, Henry the sixth, and now this Fredrick: having long tried, and well marked the drifts and cunning of the Romish Prelates, in the ears of the whole assembly displayed your holy father's arms with these words.  
Our Lord and Saviour Christ, 
Auent. annal. lib. 7. fol. 683.  did earnestly warn (us) that we should take heed of false Christ, and false Prophets, which covered with sheeps clothing, that is with the names of Christians and titles of Bishops, would tyrannize over us and illude us: and they as he taught, must be discerned by their works, to wit, their avarice, luxury, contention, hatred, emulation, wars, discords, and ambitious desire to reign. To whom did our heavenly king by these words more plainly point than to the Scribes & Pharisees of Babylon? Under the title of chief Bishop, 

The Pope lively described in his colours.  
The Romish warfare.   if we be not blind, we see a most cruel wolf in a shepherds cloak. The Bishops of Rome have their ways, and weapons for all sorts of Christian men. By presuming, circumventing, kindling war upon war, they are become great, and now thy kill and slay the sheep, they dispel peace & concord from the face of the earth, they raise civil wars, and domestical seditions from the pit of hell: every day more and more they consume the strength of all men, 
Ibidem, fol. 684.  that they may ride on the necks of all men. Christ forbiddeth us to hate our enemies, chargeth us to love them, and deserve well at their hands: to keep saith with them and do good for their evil. But the Prelates of Rome command us, and that under a jolly countenance of piety, to violate that which is holy, to abuse the sacred name of god to beguile men with, to be ungrateful to those that have dealt well with us, and to requite good turns with evil: yea to fight, strive, deceive, betray and cousin: they will have us set nought by the majesty and providence of GOD, withstand nature, and resist the supreme power that is ordained of GOD. Hildebrand was the first that eight score and ten years ago, 
Hildebrand the first layer of this plot.  laid the foundation of Antichrists kingdom under colour of religion. This wicked war (with Princes) he first began, which his successors have pursued to this day. Believe me that have looked in to their doings, 
Ibidem.  (almost these fifty years) they will not cease till bringing the Emperor on his knees, and dissolving the honour of the Roman Empire, and also oppressing the true Pastors which feed, and dogs that are able to bark, they quench all, or kill all after this manner which you now behold. The highest God took the shape of a servant that he might minister to his Disciples, 
What the Pope seeketh for, by warring with Princes.  and wash their feet: but those Bishops of Babylon will reign all alone, they can abide no equal, they will not give over, till they have trodden all under their feet, and sit in the temple of GOD advancing themselves above all that is worshipped: their thirst for riches and honour can not be satisfied. He that is the servant of servants, affecteth to be the Lord of Lords, 
The servant of servants affecteth to be Lord of Lords.  as if he were a God. The Sacred Synods and Counsels of his brethren, nay of his Sovereign Lords he despiseth. He feareth lest he shall be forced to give account of those things which he daily doth against all law and order. He speaketh proud things as if he were some God, he layeth new plots to establish himself a kingdom, he changeth and maketh what laws he list, 
The right portraiture of the Pope.  he sacketh, spoileth, deceiveth, killeth, being that son of perdition, which they call Antichrist, in whose forehead is written, a name of blasphemy, I AM A GOD, I CAN NOT ERR, in the temple of God he sitteth and reigneth far and wide.  

He was elected 1200.  I think you understand him, he speaketh so plain.  Phi. 
He speaketh so odiously that I little regard him.  Theo. 
Yet an archbishop and in great credit with Frederick the first, above 380. years ago.  Phi. 
We care neither for Frederick, nor his schismatical Archbishop.  The. 
Less care we for the wicked and pharisaical attempts of your Romish Antichrist: whose immoderate ambition, 
The Bishops of their own religion have detested the Pope's pride in deposing Princes.  and intolerable presumption the Kings & Bishops of your own religion have always detested and resisted; and that with vehement and sharp speech, as you see by this example.  Phi. 
What strange thing is it to see some withstand him?  Theo. 
Less marvel is it to see some obey him. The name of the Church, the power of the keys, the dumbnes of Bishops, & discord of Princes made many men yield, that otherwise would not.  Phi. 
The Princes of Germany choose an other in his place as soon as the Pope by his letters willed them.  Theo. 
The one half of the electors were Bishops, that neither durst nor would abide the Pope's fury: in the other half it was easy to find one that would be seduced, displeased, or some way corrupted to go to the choice of a new, 
Naucler. gener. 42. anno 1247.  but that the elect of theirs was slain the same year in the siege of ulme, & William of Holland that was choose next after him had as short a dispatch by those that took part with Frederick. 
The new elect against Frederick had small joy of their promotion.  And had you not been more active with your poisons, than lucklie with your elections: Frederick had sped them faster than you had named them.  Phi. 
His own bastard stisled him.  Theo. 
But his Antagonists first drenched him; & so Cuspinian saith, The Pope's hatred against the Prince ceased not, 
Cuspinian. in Frideric. 2.  whom he night and day devised how to destroy: & after the conspiracy of Theobaldus, Franciscus, Gulielmus of San Severine, and Pandulphus was detected, who confessed they were set on by the Pope, as Peter de Vines witnesseth in his second book & tenth, & thirtieth epistle: Yet at last the prince could not be so watchful, but when he returned to Apulia, he was poisoned. And lying very sick of the potion which he took, and beginning at length to recover, he was stifled of manfred his base son with a pillow as he lay in his bed. Thus you made away that worthy Emperor Fredrick the second: and these be the weapons of your Romish warfare against Princes, 
The Pope's weapons against Princes.  excommunications, rebellions, poisons.  Phi. 
You rai●e without all reason.  Theo. 
I speak no more than truth. Your own examples shall justify the same. Omit Henry the seventh, called Henry of Lucenburg, whom a Dominican friar 
Naucler. gener. 44. anno 1313.  poisoned in the chalice: Lodovic of Bavaria and king john of this land, 
Lodovic deposed without all cause.  were they not thus pursued and thus dispatched?  
Begin with Lodovic the fourth. What cause had john the 22. to curse and ban him, and to condemn him for an heretic?  Phi. 
Platina telleth you, 
Platina in Clement 5.  he called himself Emperor without the authority of the See of Rome, and aided the deputies of Italy to get the city of Milan, and to be Lords over it.  Theo. 
Two shameful sins I assure you. He had 
Be not these weighty causes to depose a Prince?  four voices, when he was first chosen in contention with Fredrick of Austria. aventinus saith he had five: after in the field he took the other elect prisoner, and so ended the strife: 
Naucler. gener. 44. anno 1314. Auent. lib. 7. fol. 748.  why then should he not take himself to be lawful Emperor?  Phi. 
The fourth voice which did the deed was cunningly stolen. For where the marquess of Brandenburge then absent wrote his letters for Fredrick, 
Lodovickes election.  his name was razed out and Lodovikes conveyed in.  Theo. 
Sir, by your leave, that is a legend. The marquess of Brandenburge sent his substitute with a general commission to choose as he saw cause, 
Naucler. Ibid.  though as some said, his meaning were that Fredrick should have his voice: and that instruction he had given privately to the party that was sent: who deceived his expectation, and named Lodovic.  
The second objection is more absurd. 
The Pope deposed the prince because he would not look on, whiles the Pope's faction did ransack the Empire.  For Lodovic aided those that stood for the safety of the Empire against the Pope's incourses & practices. And that, since he was chosen Emperor, in honour and equity he was bound to do.  Phi. 
He aided them against the Church.  Theo. 
The Church of Christ hath nought to do with the warlike & wilful tumults of Popes.  Phi. 
He made a new Pope against john the 22. and set him up as an Idol in Peter's chair.  Theo. 
The Pope before that had done the worst he could against Lodovic; openly excommunicating him and all his favourers, 
Naucler. gener. 45. anno 1324.  and appointing him three months to renounce the election to the Empire that was made of him, and come personally to excuse himself of his fact in giving aid to heretics, schismatics, and such as were rebels against 
The Pope calleth his furious faction the Church.  the Church He also deprived all Clergy men, that yielded the Prince any counsel, help or favour. And when Lodovic appeared not, the Pope accursed him, and condemned him of heresy. These be the sober and grave proceed of your holy father, which he and his flatterers called the defence and exaltation of the church. But the sounder and sincerer of his own Canonists and schoolmen abhorred, as the confusion and desolation of all Godliness.  
Hermannus, than living, saith, 
Naucler. gener. 45. anno 1324.  These proceed (against Lodovic) were curiously observed by some, but very many reputed them little worth, because as men said they were examined by the Doctors of both Laws & pronounced by them to be utterly void. 
Pope john's doings misliked both of lawyers and divines.  Yea many famous divines well commended for their learning and life concluded the Pope to be an heretic for certain errors, which he coldly recanted at the hour of his death, and Benedictus his successor, is reported to have publicly condemned those erroneous opinions.  Phi. 
Nothing is so well done that all men like it.  Theo. 
It must needs be evil that so many of your own side mislike; yea which the Pope that came next, most of all others misliked. For when the kings of France and Apulia by their Legates defaced the person of Lodovic and rehearsed what things he did against the Church, 
Naucler. gener. 45. anno 1335.  the Pope replied, nay we did against him. He would have come to the feet of my predecessor, if he might have been received to favour: 
And by his own successor.  and that he did, he did it provoked.  
The Prelates and Princes of Germany being assembled at Franckforde, with their common consent rejected all the Pope's judicial process against this Emperor as wholly void, 
Naucler. gener. 45. anno 1338.  and of no validity; the Prince declaring so much by his Imperial decree. By the counsel and consent of all the prelates & princes of Alemannie assembled at our town of Francford we denounce & determine these processes (of Pope john against us) to be none in Law, 
All the prelates and Princes of Germany took with Lodovic against the Pope.  and of no strength or force. And we straightly charge and command all and every within the limits of our Empire, of what condition & state soever, that no singular person, nor society presume to observe the said sentences of excommunication and interdiction.  
Where also you may see the protestations and allegations of that Prince against the doings of Pope john, taken out of the grounds of your own Canons and the very same that are defended of us at this day as warrantable by the sacred Scriptures and ancient order of Christ's Church: 

Naucler. gener. 45. anno 1338.  
These principles were defended by the Emperor & all his adherents.   namely these, The Prince hath his (sword or) dominion not from the Pope, but only from God. The sacred Canons, and the Church of Christ prohibit and do not grant to the Pope the right of the Empire, and power in temporal things. The sentence is ipso iure none, which is erroneous: as when it commandeth the subject not to obey his superior, or prescribeth any thing against God, or the Scripture. But it is manifest that Pope john hath commanded that our subjects shall not obey us, to whom all that are in our Empire ought to yield allegiance and reverence by the Laws of God and man.  

Auent. lib. 7. fol. 761.  This he did upon conference had with the best learned that were in his age. When it was known in Germany, what Pope john had decreed, Ludovic, saith Aventine, consulted the best Lawyers and skilfullest divines that were in Italy, Germany or France: especially the doctors of both laws, and divines of Bononia and Paris. They all wrote back that the acts and decrees of pope john against the Emperor, 
Pope john's proceed repugnant to the Laws of God.  were repugnant to Christian simplicity, and the heavenly Scriptures. The men of note and such as wrote against the Pope for this inordinate presumption were Marsilius Patavinus, johannes Gandaws, Andreas Laudensis, Vlricus Haugenor, Luitpoldus de Babenburg, Dantes Alligerius, Occam, Bergomensis, Michael Caesenas.  Phi. 
What, Reckon you these? The most of them were condemned by the Church of Rome for heretics.  Theo. 
They were condemned by the Pope for speaking truth. Marsilius' book is extant entitled, 
Defensor pacis Marsil. Patin.  The defender of peace: What error can you charge him with, 
The Pope maketh it heresy to speak against his pride.  but this that he wrote against the insufferable pride and ambition of the Pope? Daunts error, for the which he was condemned, your friends affirm to be this, for that in his book of the Monarchy, he said: The Roman Empire had no dependence of the Pope (in temporal things) but only of God. 
Naucler. gener. 45. anno 1338. Naucler. Ibid.  Occam the Minorite pursued that argument so far, that he brought the Pope's power and his Prelates touching their temporal dominion, to nothing. 
Heresy to deny the Pope's temporal dominion.  These were their errors for the which the Church of Rome otherwise called the Pope and his Cardinals, condemned these learned and innocent men. With as good reason you might have condemned christ and his Apostles, for the same causes. S. Paul avoucheth the one: There is no power but of God: and Christ himself commanded the other, 
Rom. 13. Luke. ●2.  Kings of nations bear (temporal) rule. You shall not do so.  Phi. 
They held other errors.  Theo. 
Even such an other. 
And so was it to speak against his wasteful and excessive wealth.  For this was against the state and pride of Prelates: and that touched their coffers and treasures; which indeed were their Gods. The Poor franciscans began to dispute that it was a sign of more perfection, and a nearer resemblance to the life which Christ and his Apostles led on earth for clergy men to renounce the world, and possess nothing of their own, rather than to nestle themselves i● the sweetest and richest seats of christendom, and t● heap up mammon and wealth, in such abundance, that they were able not only to beard Princes in their Palaces, but also shoulder them in the field. 
Caus. 12. quae●t. 1. ¶ dilectissi●●. Sexti Decretal. lib. 5. de verb. significat. cap. 3.  The ground of their opinion they took from your canon Law, and your holy father himself in erecting the Rule of friar Francis could confess as much: marry when the Emperor in hatred of the Pope's hauftines and greediness cast some favour to the franciscans: the Pope to match the Prince, gave forth an edict, and made it heresy to say that Christ & his Apostles possessed nothing in this world: which because the friars impugned in their schools and sermons, the Pope condemned them and all their aiders and abetters, whereof Lodovic was one, for heretics.  
This is that other heresy for the which Micheal Cesenas, Occam and other franciscans, and Lodovic the Emperor, as a Patron of theirs were impeached: which Platina thinketh was scant advisedly done by the Pope and his counsellors. 
Platina in joan. 23.  Pope john, saith he, set forth a Decree, wherein he declared them to be rebels (to the Church of Rome) & heretics, which affirmed that Christ and his Disciples had nothing of their own. 
Platina liketh not pope john's decretal against the franciscans.  This decree doth scant accord with the sacred Scripture, which testifieth in many places that Christ and his Disciples had nothing of their own. Thus your holy father to spite the prince, and to revenge such as opened their mouths at his sumpteousnes and furiousness, made it heresy to commend humility and poverty.  Philand. 
That Christ and his Disciples did possess nothing neither in private nor in common, this was their error; and not as you report it.  Theo. 
In deed it is worth the noting, 
What the franciscans meant by their assertion.  how finely your Holy Father did cirumvent them. For where they meant that Christ and his Apostles left the world to follow their vocation, and would after possess nothing superfluous neither in private, nor common, but held themselves satisfied with apparel, and food, such as the goodness of GOD by the alms of other, or by their own industry, not slacking their function, did provide for them: the Bishope of Rome having already gotten a good part of the Empire into his hands, and daily devising new quarrels to get more: and besides oppressing all Christian Realms with intolerable taxes and payments for the maintaining of his wars, 
Why the Pope could not digest their doctrine  and furnishing of his other expenses, which were both needless and excessive: and knowing by this urging of christs and his Apostles poverty, which the friars began every where to publish, how unlike he should appear to S. Peter, whose successor he would seem to be: perverted the words and sense of the poor friars; as if they had taught that the diet and raiment, which Christ and his Apostles used, had not been their own, 
The Pope perverted the meaning of the wretched Friars.  but wrongfully taken and unjustly withheld from others that were the right owners; and with this shift made it heresy and blasphemy to say that Christ had nothing of his own: where the friars were never so mad to defend that Christ and his Apostles had no right nor propriety to the clothes which they ware, and meats which they used, but they rather detested the monstruous wealth and riot of monks and Bishops which pretending to forsake the world and follow Christ, heaped greater riches and wallowed in oftener pleasures than any secular persons: which soar when the wretched friars began to touch, 
The Pope would no peace with lodovic but on such conditions as no Swineherd would accept.  they were condemned and burned for heretics.  
These were the principal griefs against Lodovic, which the Pope and the Cardinals could never digest, I mean his resisting their pride, and misliking their wealth for these causes, when he offered reconciliation and satisfaction, that the Christian world might have rest from those domestical wars and miseries, the Pope would receive none, but on these conditions: that the Prince should confess himself guilty of all those errors and heresies that were laid to his charge: that he should resign the Empire, and not resume it without the Pope's leave: 
Naucler. gener. 45. anno 1343.  that he should put himself, his Children and his goods into the Pope's hands, 
Where he should be sure to be well used.  to be done withal as should please the Pope. Such was the mildness of this Romish Saint, that his hart could not be satisfied but with the utter destruction of the Emperor and his children: which when the Princes and Bishops of Germany perceived, they signified their general determination to lodovic in these words: 
Naucler. gener. 45. anno 1344.  Most gracious Lord and Emperor, the Prince's electors and other the faithful of your Empire, perusing the articles of your submission, which the Pope requireth and resteth on, 
The Germans would suffer no such submission.  with one consent have decreed them to be conceived to the subversion and overthrow of the Empire, so that neither you, nor they by reason of the oath you have taken to the Empeire, can yield to them: and they intent to send orators to the Pope, and to the College of Cardinals to request them to cease from this course. If they refuse, your Princes are resolved to meet at Rens upon Rhine, there to deliberate with you for the farther resisting of these practices.  Phi. 
If these electors were so earnest for Lodovik, how happened they choose Charles the fourth against him?  Theo. 
The Pope won the Duke of Saxony with money as 
A pact made by the Pope to choose an other Emperor.  Conrade of Maidenburge craketh: and so with a new Archbishop of Cullen whom the Pope intruded, the former incumbent yet living, Charles son to the king of Bohemia, and nephew to the Archbishop of trevers, was chosen; who were easily induced to consent to the election of one so near them in blood: but neither would the Princes of Germany receive him, nor durst he meddle with the Empire so long as Lodovic lived. 
Auent. lib. 7. fol. 785.  For when Ludovik called the Nobles together upon the choice of Charles, & asked them whether of the twain they would have to bear rule over them, The whole assembly without any stay cried out that Lodovic was their Sovereign, 
The germans swear afresh to Lodovic after the pope had deposed him.  and their Emperor appointed by God, and that they would continue in his obedience. And there detesting the perfidiousness of those few (that made this new choice) & defieng Charles in the worst words they could give, with great zeal: they renewed their oath to Lodovic and promised him their help to revenge that wickedness.  
And so Charles hated of all (the Germans) for the breach of his oath (to Lodovic) and no where received as Emperor, 
Auent. lib 7. fol 787. Naucler. gener. 45. an. 1346.  was conveyed into Bohemia. Neither durst he come out of his hole, or take the government upon him so long as Ludovike lived. Nauclerus likewise confesseth that, Ludovic gathering the imperial cities together at Spires found them very earnest on his side, so that none of the cities of Rhine, Suevia, or Franconia any whit esteemed the new election of Charles, or the Pope's process.  
In this state they stood, 
Frederick drenched.  defending their Prince and neglecting the Pope till the death of Ludovic, who being well in health and very pleasant at a feast where he met the Duchess of Austria, 
Naucler. gener. 45. an. 1347.  as soon as he drank of the cup which the Duchess reached him, presently felt himself sick: & as Cuspinian sayeth 
Cuspinian in Friderico. 2.  feeling a griping at his hart, suspected himself to be poisoned: and getting on his horse to ride abroad, 
Naucler. anno 1347.  was strooken with a palsy, and fell from his horse and gave up the Ghost.  
After his death, the Bishop of Mentz, the marquess of Brandenburge, 
Naucler. anno 1348  the Palatine of Rhine, with the Duke of Saxony that newly succeeded, concluding the choice of Charles to be void, sent a solemn message to Edward the third, king of England, inviting him to take the Empire. But he with thanks refused it.  
Not long after they choose Gunter: 
Naucler. anno 1350.  who the same year was poisoned with a potion, his Physician also dying within three days, whom the king commanded to drink before him.  Phi. 
This was not the Pope's doing. 
An other elect poisoned.   Theo. 
Whose doing it was we know not, but thus they were made away that withstood the Pope.  
And so was king john of his Land: upon whom your holy father, and his religious adherents showed the fullness of your Romish devices. You forced a disordered election upon him, and when he would not like it, you deprived him of his crown and offered the same to the king of France and to his heirs for ever with full remission of his and all their sins that would take weapon in hand to drive king john from his Realm. 
King john's cause.  And after you had assembled a mighty force against him, you counseled him rather to resign his crown into y Pope's hands, and to take it again of him in farm, than with fire and sword to be chased out of his land, and lose both his kingdom and his life. And by this cunning when you had gotten the kings grant to subject himself and his crown to the church of Rome, you restrained him, & cursed the French kings son & soldiers (whom yourselves had incited to this pray) for not leaving off, when you willed them: and losing all their labour and charges, when you were once seized of that you sought for. In the end when you saw him so much in the Pope's favour, that he prevailed against his Barons and Bishops as he would himself, you sent him packing with poison, which a Monk tempered for him in the Abbeie of Swinesteade not far from Lincoln.  Phi. 
That he was poisoned is not true; as also that Stephen Langhtons' election to the See of Canterbury was disordered: and as for the rest, I see no cause why you should mislike. 

Fructus temporum, lib. 7. Gualterus, Hemingfordus, Gisburnens.  
The monks turn this poison to a surfeit.  
Polydor. lib. 15. Anglicae history in johann.    Theo. 
That he was poisoned is witnessed by Caxton, Hemingfoord and others: Matthew Paris and Matthew of Westminster in favour of the Monk that did it, themselves being Monks, say he surfited with eating Peaches and drinking sweet wine: which also the rest affirm: but those they avouch were poisoned. Polydor bringeth both reports as finding them both written. There are, saith he, which writ that a Monk (of Swinestead) provoked with certain words (which king john spoke) tempered poison with wine and drank thereof himself before the king to get him to do the like, and so they both departed this life almost at one instant.  
Of Stephen Langhtons' election to the See of Canterbury, we need no better witness than the Monk of S. Albon that was then alive, 
Stephen Langhtons' election.  & had no fancy to king john, as may ●e seen by his writings.  Phi. 
Will you stand to his opinion in this cause?  Theo. 
Historiographers use to declare what was done, not to decide what was well or evil done. I take the fact as he reporteth it: let the reader be judge of the cause.  
Some of the Monks of Canterbury choose their Subprior to be Archbishop, in the night without any solemn form, 
Matth. Paris. anno 1207.  without the kings consent, and without the greater part of the convent; the rest choose the Bishop of Norwich, in the day time, the king being there and consenting to their election which was celebrated before sufficient witnesses. Both parts presenting their elects to the Bishop of Rome, after long discussing, the Pope pronounced either election to be void, 

The Pope disannulled both, because he would place a Cardinal of his own.  
Matth. Paris. anno 1207.   and disabled both the contendours to be chosen to that See. And knowing what good an Archbishop might do him in furthering his collections & exactions in this Land, he commanded the Monks there present upon pain of excommunication to make choice of Stephen Langhton before they departed the place. And when the Monks answered they could not celebrate an election that would be canonical without the king's consent, & the rest of their covent, the Pope catching the word out of their mouths, said, know ye that in elections made here with us the assent of Princes is not wont to be expected. Wherefore in virtue of your obedience, & under the danger of our curse, 
The monks forced for fear to choose Stephen Langhton at Rome.  we command you to choose him, whom we appoint you to be the father & pastor of your souls. So the Monks for fear of excommunication, though against their wills & not without grudging gave their voices, and choose Stephen Langhton to be Primate of England.  
Let go the wrong, which the Bishop of Norwich received, in that the Pope of his mere pleasure did frustrate his election to gratify one of his own. What Law permitteth the Pope to force men in their elections to choose whom he list to prescribe? 
The goodness of this election must hang on the Pope's infinite power otherwise it had neither law nor conscience.  How could that election be good which was plainly wrested from a few Monks beyond the Seas with threats & excommunications, the rest that were at home, being neither called, nor bound to go out of the Land for the choice of their Archbishop? Why should not the king refuse that violent and shameful packing of the Pope to plant his Cardinals in this Realm? Or what should the king look to have of him that was devoted to the court of Rome, & obtruded on him in this violent manner, but a deadly enemy to his state, as it after fell out, and a continual practiser against his person?  Phi. 
That is your suspicion. 
This prelate became after a pestilent enemy to king john.   The. 
It proved too true for the king's avail. For this prelate not only incensed the Pope against the king that he might be received to his See, but after the king was reconciled, and himself quietly possessed of his church, he 
* Matth. Paris in anno 1215. saith, coniurati Steph. Archiep. capital. consent. habuerunt.  set all the Barons of this realm in an open rebellion against the king, that never ceased till the king was poisoned.  Phi. 
You charge him untruly.  Theo. 
His own acts will not bely him.  
The next year after his untoward election, the Pope interdicted the whole Land, for that the king would not admit Steven Langhton into his Realm, (no point of godly discipline to chaftise the king, but a trick of your Romish policy to get the subjects to murmur at the Magistrate) And four years after when the Pope stayed somewhat long as they thought in contriving his matters against king john: your Canterbury Cardinal with the Bishops of London and Fly went to Rome, & complained to the pope of the manifold rebellions & enormities, 

Matt. Paris anno 1212.  
The Bishops of England incense the Pope against their king.   which king john had continued from the time of the interdict to that present day, increasing his cruelty & tyranny (so these ambitious hirelings termed their sovereigns' doings) against God & his holy church without intermission. Whereupon they made supplication to the pope, that he would vouchsafe of his godly compassion to help the church of England in this extremity. So nice your clergy was that when they were but a little defalked of their abundances & superfluities, they could no longer abide it, but desired to have the king deposed.  Phi. 
The king seized on all their goods, caused them to redeem their immunities & liberties, & raised a grievous persecution against the whole clergy through out England.  Theo. 
We doubt not, but your Monks in this freight will make great flames of small sparks. The king of England did, as any prince in this like case would. The clergy of this realm, was at that time a richer and wealthier state than the laity, discharged from all burdens and taxes to the crown by the favour of the Princes his progenitors. If therefore when the Pope began to quarrel with the king about the chiefest church in his Realm, and offered him so open wrong, the clergy were ready with their wealth and strength to assist the Pope against the king, why should not the king both seize their goods into his hands, & make them redeem their privileges which they were well able to do, for the maintenance of his crown and kingdom against a wicked and injurious oppressor?  
And sure for aught that I see the king did but justice. For where the clergy refused to do their duties, 
Why should the clergy have their livings, if they would not discharge their duties?  and would not so much as say him or his people any divine service, why should the Prince suffer them to enjoy those livings that were provided for such as would?  Phi. 
The fault was not theirs; they were restrained by the Popes interdict.  Theo. 
Were the fault in them or the Pope, this is evident, the clergy might better lack their livings, than the Realm divine service.  Phi. 
Was it not tyranny to famish so many thousand Monks & Priests as were in this Land? 

Matt. Paris in anno 1208.  
The king allowed his clergy food and raiment, so that he barred them only of their abundance. Interdicting of whole realms wrap p innocents as well as nocents.    Theo. 
The king allowed them victum & vestitum parce ex rebus proprijs: meat, drink and raiment out of their livings, though sparefully, in respect of their former and usual excess, the rest he kept in his hands, till they discharged that function, for which they were endowed with so liberal recompense.  P●i. 
You can not blame them.  Theo. 
He that performeth a wicked interdict is to be blamed as well as he that commandeth it.  Phi. 
This was not wicked.  Theo. 
There could be no wickeder.  
The prohibition of public prayer, and restrainct of the word and Sacraments throughout the Realm is rather a dishonour to God, and an injury to the faith, than a seemly sentence for a christian Bishop. You can neither show us warrant for it in the Scriptures, nor example of it in the church of God for a thousand years. They did excommunicate persons not places: they thrust not the innocent into the same extremity with the nocent as you do: much less did they prohibit God to be served in the church, his Sacraments to be ministered, his word to be preached: which the Turks do not offer where they conquer: 
Interdicting God to be publicly served, is the high way to increase the kingdom of Satan.  and Satan himself can wish no better increase of his kingdom than this horrible desolation of all those means that God hath appointed to save the souls of men.  Phi. 
Then let them be obedient to their Bishops.  Theo. 
You can not say the people were disobedient, but only the king: why then should they be restrained from serving God, and stand in danger of everlasting destruction which transgressed not?  Phi. 
Let them be earnest with their king to yield.  Theo. 
And what if he will not, though they be never so earnest?  Phi. 
Let them be ready to compel him, 
The right meaning of their Romish interdicts.  when they be required so to do by their Bishops.  Theo. 
You hit the nail right on the head. Your general debarring of divine service throughout a Realm, was nothing else but an Antichristian Policy to set the people in a discontent, and to make them the readier to rebel against their Princes, for whose sakes they be thus put in the high way to perish. And therefore the clergy men that did execute, and fulfil such an interdict were partakers of the same wickedness with the pronouncers: 
The executors of such interdicts as bad as the pronouncers.  and by no reason can it be counted cruelty in the king to take from them their ecclesiastical promotions; so long as they wickedly ceased from their ecclesiastical functions, by this or any other like interdict.  
This was all the persecution and rebellion that king john might justly be charged with; and yet the Pope by the counsel of his cardinals and Bishops, 

Matth. Paris. anno 1212.  
By this bait the Pope drew many ambitious princes to serve his turn.  
Not so much as the Pope's pride & fury, but it must be shrewded with the name of the Catholic Church.  
Matth. 3.   sententially defined that he should be deposed from his throne, and an other placed by the Pope's procurement that should be worthier. And for the execution of this sentence, the Pope wrote to Philip the most mighty king of France, that in the remission of all his sins, he should undertake this matter, and after the expulsion of king john, he and his heirs for ever should be rightful ● owner's of the kingdom of England. He wrote likewise to all the Nobles, Captains, & soldiers of diverse Nations, that they should crossigne themselves to the deposing of the king of England, and following the king of France their leader in this voyage, revenge the injury of the universal church. Thus your holy father set kings together by the ears for the remission of their sins; and turned the warfare that was provided against the Turk, ●o pursue his private quarrels with christian Princes, & like the Prince of darkness giveth kingdoms, that be none of his, to them and their heirs forever.  
And your blessed Bishops of Canterbury, London, and Elie, that first made suit at Rome to have this impiety decreed against their Prince in their own persons, 
Romish devotion the very mother of devilish rebellion  to show their christian and obedient dispositions, plied the king of France & other Potentates to hasten them with all hostility towards this land; and would needs be both the messengers and ringleaders in that action.  
The next year Stephen of Canterbury, William of London and Elias of Elie, 
Matth. Paris. anno 1213.  returned from the court of Rome, & gathering a Council on the other side of the Sea, solemnly published the judgement that was given against the king of England in the presence of the French king, and his Bishops, and his clergy, 
Were nor these good subjects?  and commonalty. That done, they enjoined the king of France and all the rest on the behalf of the Pope, for the remission of their sins, that they all joining together should invade the Realm of England in hostile manner, and thrust king john from his throne, and substitute a worthier by the apostolic authority. It was not enough for them unnaturally to procure this pestilent invasion against their prince: but they themselves must assist it with all their might, and be the chief doers in it; least ages after them should be ignorant how zealous they were for their * backs and bellies against their lawful and sovereign Magistrate.  Phi. 
Being deposed, he was no Magistrate.  Theo. 
When you * prove the Pope may depose Princes, then pronounce king john no Magistrate: till you so do, give us leave to tell you, that this was a cursed presumption in the Pope, and a more cursed rebellion in the Bishops.  Phi. 
The Realm of France you see, took the offer, and thereby confessed the Pope might dispose Princes.  Theo. 
A kingdom will make men do much. 
The King of France would fain have had the Crown of England, & in that respect took the Pope's offer. fol. 95.  The king of France was led thereto not with religion, but with ambition to get the crown of England for Lodovic his son. Where you see the desire which Princes had to enlarge their dominions made them regard the Pope's censures against their neighbours, which otherwise in themselves they did mightily despise, as appeareth by that which fell out not long after between Philip the Fair and Boniface the eight. Where the king of France resolutely withstood the Pope with all his interdictions and depositions, and used his person in the end very coursely, as I before have touched in place where upon occasion. Princes to serve their turns, and to be revenged of their enemies, have oftentimes backed and enforced the Pope's judicial sentence against others: which corrupt affection, to man the Pope's process, when it made for their purpose, god hath punished in them, by making him their master, whom for lucre they served as long as they gained. 
By the dissension & ambition of Princes the Pope grew to be Lord over them.  By the envy and enmity of Princes one against an other, not by the laws of God, or examples of Christ's church, hath the Pope gotten the mastery of all Princes: and so long as they will invade each other at his teasing, they shall never be free from his yoke. By their help he became of a Bishop under them to be a Prince with them, and by their dissensions, of a Prince with them, he is now Lord over them.  
Take king john for a pattern. Had not the French king in hatred of king john, 
Fear of the French King drove King john to put his neck under the pope's g●rdle.  and hope of the crown been willing to hear of this match, and wagered his men and money for that prize, the king of England had easily forced the Pope to some reasonable order. But now, seeing the whole Realm of France was in arms against him, and his own Land likely to be divided within itself, what marvel if he accepted rather any conditions at the Pope's hands, than he would suffer strangers that gaped after his kingdom to devour it?  Phi. 
He did wisely to submit himself; he had otherwise lost both rule & life.  Theo. 
The Pope did as wickedly not to content himself with the king's submission, and restitution of all that was detained, but with a fine devise to cirumvent both parts, 

The Pope gate the kingdom of England for himself.  
Mat. paris. in anno 1213. § hijs ita gestis.   and to get the kingdom for himself and his successors, which was promised before to the French king and his heirs. Such cunning your holy father hath to set others to beat the bush, whiles he doth catch the birds. The king of France was led in a string to muster his men, to rig his ships, to bestow above threescore thousand pounds for the preparation of the war, and was told he should have for his labour, pardon of all his sins, forsooth and the crown of England to him and to his for ever without fail: & when all was in readiness, and they waited nothing now but the French kings coming to go with the army: the Pope's Legate stepped over before and showed king john what a power was levied against him: 
The Pope a skilful fisher for kingdoms.  and how many of his own Nobles had purposed to forsake him: and wan him rather to hold his kingdom in fee farm of the Bishop of Rome for an easy rent, than to leave it a pray to the French king & his people, who would eagerly spoil him of al. Upon which advise the king consented to receive the Archbishop and the rest of the exiles in peace; to restore that to them which he had seized of their livings to his use; to resign his Crown into the Pope's hands, and to take it again as his liege man & secondary for a thousand mark sterling by the year. 
King john farmed his crown of the Pope by a yearly rent.  This done the Legate sailed back, sent home the Bishops, discharged the army, prohibited the French king to proceed any farther, for so much as the king of England was newly become a tenant to the church of Rome. With this sleight the Pope caught the crown of England: neither as I think was there ever any kingdom purchased with less charge and more speed than this was by the Pope.  Philand. 
If the King would resign it, why should not the Pope receive it? And in my conceit, it was safer for the King to fall into the Pope's hands to be rented, than into the French Kings to be spoiled.  Theo. 
That conceit, which you speak of, made the King of England content to be the Pope's vassal.  Phi. 
Better so, 
The Pope showed favour to King john, but most of all to himself.  than worse. Better farmer to the Pope, than prisoner to the French: and in that offer to my judgement the Pope showed favour to king john.  Theo. 
Such favour a thief showeth when he cutteth off both hands, and letteth the head stand.  Phi. 
Compare you the Pope to a thief?  Theo. 
I did him no wr●ng, if I should; except you think it less sin to rob a King of his Crown, than an other man of his goods.  Phi. 
The King was content, and so long it could be no robbery.  Theo. 
So is any man by the high ways side content rather to yield his purse, 

The pope had as much right to the crown of England, as a thief hath by the high ways side to an other man's purse.  
Mat. Paris. in anno 1213. § rebus, ut iam dictum est.   than lose his life, and yet that is felony.  Phi. 
What right hath a thief to an other man's purse?  Theo. 
As much as the Pope had to the Crown of England, when he forced King john to yield it.  Phi. 
Of that we will not dispute.  Theo. 
You should but shame yourselves, if you did.  Phi. 
But since that surrender he hath better title to this Realm.  Theo. 
No more than he had before King john was borne, and that was none at all.  Phi. 
The whole Realm of England with that of Ireland, with all their right and appertinentes were given to Innocentius and his Catholic successors: and the king bound his heirs and after comers for ever to do homage and fealty to the Bishop of Rome.  Theo. 
A fair pair of indentures, but somewhat too short to convey a Kingdom. The King by an oath might make himself thrall during his life, as perhaps he did, but tie his Realm & crown to that perpetual bondage, 

The king might bind himself, but not his successors to these conditions.  
The Barons of this realm detested the king's act.   by his single deed or chart he could not. It is well known the Kings of this Realm can not do less things than the selling or giving of their crowns away without the consent of their nobles & commons.  Phi. 
He had the consent of his Barons.  Theo. 
That is not true. The deed saith, with common counsel (or advise) of our Barons, meaning such as were then by chance about him at Dover; but the most part of his Barons detested that act, and the Kings that came after him never took themselves bound in honour, law, nor conscience, to respect that private submission of their predecessor.  Phi. 
May not a King subject his Realm to whom he will?  Theo. 
I think Lawyers will say no, as well as divines: sure I am the Barons of this Realm thought no. For, when the Pope's Legate spoke to the French king, that his son might not disquiet king john being now fendarie to the church of Rome: the king of France answered, The kingdom of England neither was, 
Matth. Paris. anno 1216. § sub hiis diebu●.  is, nor shall be S. Peter's patrimony. No king nor Prince can make away his Realm without the assent of his Barons, that are bound to defend the Realm; and if the Pope go on to uphold this error, he giveth a most pernicious example to all kingdoms. Then all the Nobles (of England) (for to France were they fled, to accompany their new king whom they had chosen in king john's place) with one voice cried they would stand to maintain this article even with the loss of their lives, that a king or prince cannot at his pleasure give or subject his kingdom to any other, to make the Nobles of his Realm 
Much less successors.  servants. So that his Barons neither consented he should, nor liked that he did subject his realm to the Bishop of Rome; & so far were they from consenting, that in words they reviled, & in deeds resisted both the king & the Pope: and utterly despicing the curses and comminations that came from Rome, they brought in Lodovic the French kings son to take the crown of England from the Pope's lease.  
For when the Pope had sent first a general and after a special excommunication to curse them by name that went about to take the kingdom from his vasal: They said every one of them, 

Matth. Paris. anno 1216. § Cumque omnes. The complaint of the Barons against the Pope and the king.  
Marcidi ribaldi.   that those bulls were of no force, chief for that the ordering of temporal affairs did not appertain to the pope, since the Lord gave Peter & his successors no power but to dispose Church matters. Why then, said they, doth the insatiable greediness of Romans encroach upon us? What have the Bishops of Rome to do with our wars? Behold (they will be) the successors of Constantine, & not of Peter. And in somewhat homely terms, out upon such shriveled ribalds, as are neither valiant nor liberal, & yet will rule the whole world by their excommunications, like ignoble usurers and Simonistes as they are. Even so the Barons, Woe be to thee, the outcast of kings, 
Matth. Paris. anno 1216. § Circa hos● dies▪  the abomination of English princes, & confusion of English nobility. Alas England, England, till this time the Queen of Provinces, but now in subjection and under the rule of base servants and strangers: where as nothing is viler than to be in servitude to a servant. We read that other kings and princes have strived even unto death for the liberty of their Lands, but thou john (of mournful memory to all ages) hast devised and contrived, that thy Realm being anciently free should become bound: and thyself of a most free king a servile tributary, farmer & vassal. And of thee, O Pope, what shall we say, which shouldest shine to the world as the father of holiness, the mirror of godliness, 
The end of all the Pope's devices.  the tutor of righteousness & keeper of truth, that thou consentest, commendest & defendest such an one? But for this cause dost thou maintain, the waster of English wealth, and extinguisher of English nobility depending on thee, that all may be plunged into the gulf of Romish avarice.  
This was the Baron's complaint against king john for intiteling the Pope to the crown of England: 
No King of England ever acknowleged this subjection to the Pope. The Kings of England most of all others kept the Pope shortest from infringing the liberties of their Crown. The pope had a 1000 marks land given him by King john, part whereof the Pope sold after to William wickham.  & though they added other things as occasions to the wars called the Baron's wars I mean the laws & liberties of king Edward, yet this was the ground of their grief, as you may collect by their words: & this respect made them refuse their king, and elect an other: and never leave pursuing him till they brought him to his end.  
And as for the kings that came after him (set his own son aside, who to make himself strong against Lodovic that possessed half this Realm, did homage to the church of Rome for his kingdom and took an oath for the payment of the thousand marks granted by his father, thereby to continue the Pope's censures against all those that affected his crown, or molested his Land) not one of them ever recognised this subjection, or represented this yearly pension to the Bishop of Rome; but kept him off at slaves end, from infringing the royalties of the crown, & oppressing the liberties of the Land more than any Realm christian of the West parts that we read. Insomuch that Polydore, no mean advocate of your side, concludeth this subjection and pension touched personally king john, and not his successors that should reign after him.  
By reason of king john's delivering his Crown into the Legates hands & receiving it again as his gift, It is a fame, saith Polydore, that king john desirous to eternise the memory of this good turn, 

Polidor. Angli. hist. lib. 15. in joan.  
King john burdened himself & not the Princes after him.   made himself beneficiary to the Bishop of Rome with this proviso, that the kings of England after that, should receive the right of their crown only from the Pope. But the kings that followed never observed this form, neither do the Chronicles of England report any such submission. Wherefore it is certain that all those burdens were laid on the person of king john that offended, and not on his successors.  Phi. 
For heresy George king of Boemland was excommunicated, and thereupon by the forces of the king of Hungary at length actually deprived. 

The defence cap. 5.  
George died King of Bohemia, notwithstanding the Pope's practices and Mathias forces.  
Cromer. de gestis Polonor. li. 27.    Theo. 
For the mislike of your Roman vanities; your holy father played his part with George king of Boemland 1466. years after Christ, as he had done with other Princes before, dejecting him from his kingdom by presumptuous judgement at Rome, and enticing the Princes that were neighbours, in hope of his kingdom, to invade him with arms: & to join with the Bohemians that rebelled against him. Which offer Mathias king of Hungary first embraced, a proud, unthankful, crafty, fraudulent, & ambitious man, as Fredrick the 3. then Emperor of Rome complained of him in his embassage to Cazimire king of Pole: & might well appear by his behaviour to king George, who had him in hold, when he was chosen king of Hungary, & might have deprived him both of kingdom & life, 
Cromer. eodem libro.  & would not: but yet that inhuman & aspiring head of his did not prevail. For George persisted & died king of Bohemia, notwithstanding the Pope's curses & Mathias forces, and after his death was Vladislaus Cazimires son chosen to the kingdom: and not only held it in spite of Mathias and the Popes grant to him & none else, but also succeeded Mathias in the kingdom of Hungary.  Phi. 

The Pope very liberal in giving kingdoms that be none of his.  Yet the Pope gave the kingdom of Bohemia to Mathias.  Theo. 
He might have given him the kingdom of Constantinople or Persia with as much right as he did this: but how that gift was esteemed even by those that otherwise depended on the church of Rome, the choice of a new and the next king did declare.  Phi. 

The defence, cap. 5.  Also john Albert had half his kingdom of Navarre taken from him by Ferdinandus surnamed Catholicus, of Arragon; for that he gave aid to jews the 12. being excommunicated by julius the second.  Theo. 
The drifts of Princes, entertaining the Pope's Bulls, and admitting his keys so far as they make for their profit, 

The King of Navarre.  
Prince's content to take part with the Pope so long as it maketh for their profit.   do not prove the Pope's power to be good, or their persons & states to be subject to his censures by Gods Law. Philip the 2. king of France, was earnest to execute the Pope's Bull against king john: & spared no cost for the preparation of the war. The cause was, he hoped to get the Crown of England for his pains: but Lodovic his son, Philip the 4. & this jews whom you name, neither reverenced nor regarded the Pope's Bulls which made against them: but showed a manifest contempt of his censures, & with open Edicts severed themselves & their people from his obedience. So Ferdinand king of Spain, when by violent & sudden invasion he had gotten that part of Navarre which bordered upon him, was content for the keeping of it, to pretend the Pope's Bull against jews the 12. but Charles the fift, the next king of Spain could let his soldiers surprise Rome and desposse it in most cruel manner, abusing & illuding the Priests, nuns, Bishops & Cardinals with all military despites & furies, 
Guicciard. hist. lib. 18.  & keep the Pope fast locked in prison till he paid 400000. pounds for his ransom, and consented to such other conditions as they listed to prescribe.  Phi. 
It was not Charles will, 
Charles looked through his fingers and said he saw nothing.  that Rome should be sacked, or the Pope thus handled: it was the Germans rage for want of pay.  Theo. 
Charles could do little, if he could not dissemble. He neither rebuked his army, nor enlarged the Pope, nor recompensed any part of the Pillage which his soldiers as well Spaniards as Germans had committed in Rome, leaving nothing behind them that was worthy the taking. And so long though his consent did not appear, yet he made his advantage of their act and secretly supported them by his protraction to take the whole spoil of the city.  Phi. 
The variance between the Pope & Charles was for temporal matters.  Theo. 
So jews the 12. contended with julius the 2. for temporal dominion: & therefore the king of Navarre aiding the French king in a civil quarrel, 
Guicci. li. 11. Ferdinand lacking a better title pretended the pope's Bull for that part of Navarre which lay so near him.  was nothing so much to be blamed as Charles: but the truth is, Ferdinand had cast his eyes on that kingdom confining so near & lying so commodious (the ancient desire of the kings of Spain to be Lords of Navarre being well known, as Guicciardin confesseth) & for that cause when he could devise no better title he took hold of the Pope's Bull, colouring his injurious ambition with a semblance of Romish devotion.  Phi. 
It is holden at this day by the same right.  Theo. 
This was no right: & other I know none the king of Spain hath to it besides the sword, by the which it was gotten, not yet 73. years since.  Phi. 
Will you dispute his title?  Theo. 
I am not so curious in an other man's common wealth: 
Right & force do not always meet.  let the Princes whom it concerneth try their own titles: yet this is certain, that neither the kings of England, France nor Spain would suffer the Pope to dispose their kingdoms or any part of their dominions against their likings.  Phi. 
For like causes, and namely for that he was vehemently suspected of the murder of the blessed Bishop S. Thomas of Canterbury, was Henry the second driven by Alexander the third to order and penance. 
The defence, cap. 5.   Theo. 
The strife between the king & Thomas Becket then Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Henry the 2 & Tho. Becket.  is reported before; & not now to be iterated. The laws & liberties of the church, for the which he resisted the king, were nothing else but the rescuing of malefactors, if they were Clerks, from due punishment; & exempting themselves from the king's subjection: which be quarrels of their own nature wicked & irreligious: & therefore well you may call him BLESSED, because you be consorted in the same quarrel with him against God & your Prince: otherwise his pride was intolerable, his contention with the king detestable, his end miserable.  Phi. 
Are you not ashamed to stain the glory of that worthy Martyr?  Theo. 
First prove him an innocent, 
Beckets quarrel must be good before he can be blessed.  before you make him a Martyr.  Phi. 
Who ever charged him with any crime?  Theo. 
The very cause he stood in, was crime enough: besides his resisting the prince, which S. Paul pronounceth to be damnable.  Phi. 
Do you make it damnable to defend the liberties of the church?  Theo. 
To dream, that the stateliness of Popes, 
Appeals to the Pope, & immunity of wicked Priests were the quarrel that Becket stood in.  and licentiousness of Priests was the perfection & happiness of Christ's church, and in that le●de conceit to neglect your oaths, & resist the powers, which God hath established is a triple damnation.  Phi. 
That we do not.  Theo. 
That he did, whom you call a blessed bishop for his labour: & yourselves do worse. For you be not content to resist as he did by wilful departing the Realm, you take weapon in hand to depose the Prince, & term it just & honourable war to rebel against a lawful Magistrate, which impiety he did not declare in act, though in heart perhaps he did not abhor it.  
But omit that he meant and come to that he did, 

Beckets fact damnable for these three respects unless the Jesuits prove those laws which he with stood, to be repugnant to the word of God.  
Such proud prelate's are likeliest to be of your Romish religion.   except you show what one thing in those ancient laws of the crown (to which the Archbishop had expressly sworn) was repugnant to the word of God, or office of a christian Prince: we conclude your blessed Bishop and Canterbury Saint, to be a shameful defender of wickedness, an open breaker of his oath, and a proud impugner of the sword which God hath authorized as the Scripture teacheth. And albeit we like not the manner of his death, that private men should use the sword, which is delivered unto princes: yet the cause for which he withstood the king, was enormous & impious: & dying in that, though his death were violent, he could be no martyr.  Phi. 
You be loath to have him a martyr, he was so far both from your opinion in this point, & religion otherwise: but yet he died in the defence of the Catholic church, & therefore we justly count him blessed.  Theo. 
He died not in defence of the church: he stood stiffly for the Pope's pride and gain, and for the impunity of malefactors among the Clergy, which things no way touch the true laws or liberties of Christ's church. And therefore you must either prove that clergy men are not subject to the Prince's sword for heinous offences, which is most false: and that appeals from all places must be made to the Bishop of Rome, which you shall never do: or else it is evident that Thomas Becket deserved rather the reward of a traitor, 
Becket far from a martyr  than the honour of a Martyr: these two being the principal causes for which he resisted the king, whiles he lived, and was canonised after he was murdered.  Phi. 
The church of Rome liked and allowed of his doings, though you do not.  Theo. 
She had good reason so to do. He gave his life for the maintenance of her wealth and ease: 
The Church of Rome were to be blamed if she did not honour Becket  and therefore if she should not esteem him, she were to blame: but this was no quarrel for a christian Bishop to spend his blood in. The due correction of offenders by the temporal sword, though they were clergymen: and diligent execution of justice at home without running to Rome, when either part was disposed to vex the other; were lawful and wholesome precepts of the kings of this Realm: and so long as the resistance made by the Archbishop against the king was sinful and seditious; & consequently the state he stood in, damnable; though the death he suffered were wrongful, as not proceeding orderly from a magistrate, but furiously inflicted by some that were offended to see a Bishop breast a king in so vile a cause.  Phi. 
The king himself in the end was driven to order and penance.  Theo. 
It was easy for you, when not only his neighbours, but his own son rose in arms against him to win his consent to any thing. 
The pope's practice to subdue Princes.  By wars and invasions of Realm upon Realm, by defection of subjects from their sovereigns, & by the rebellion of children against their parents, your cunning hath been to drive Princes to order and keep them in awe; but that doth not justify your unnatural and unchristian tumults to force them to your bent. We dispute not whether of late you have so done, but whether of right you may so do; we see the means which Antichrist hath used to advance his kingdom: but those we say be neither agreeable to the sacred scriptures, nor to the course of Christ's church in former ages, they be late devices & practices of Popes to exalt themselves above the highest: the justice of God, preparing that plague for the sins of men, and dissension of Princes, 
Princes punished for the neglect of truth & discord that reigned amongst them.  which should have joined together to secure his truth, & safeguard his church, by repressing the Pope's pride, & driving him to Christian integrity and modesty, and would not. Wherefore God gave them over into his hands, that he should tread on their necks, & play with their crowns, as pleased himself: and they think it some great honour and preferment to kiss his feet, & hold his bridle, whiles he gets to horseback.  Phi. 
A number of the like examples more we might recite, of our Country & of the christian world, 
The defence, cap. 5.  whereby not only the practice of the church in all ages may be seen; but also catholic men warranted that they be no traitors, nor hold assertions treasonable, false, or undutiful; in answering or believing that for heresy or such like notorious wickedness, a Prince (otherwise lawful and anointed) may be excommunicated, deposed, forsaken or resisted by the warrant of holy church's judgement and censure.  Theo. 
From the conquest to King Henry the eight there was no Prince of this Land deposed by the Pope but only King john. 

No King of England deposed by the Pope but only King john.  
The Kings of France were too good for the Pope.  
Philip King of France.    
Deposition was offered to Philip the fourth and jews the twelfth, Kings of France: but they were so far from taking it, that they withdrew their whole Realm from the Pope's obedience, and overreached your holy Father with his own practice.  
Philip by the general consent of his Nobles and Bishops not only despised the Pope's sentence of deprivation against him, but requited him with the like: and 
* Navel. gener. 44. anno 1300.  to tame his pride, took him prisoner and made him end his life for very grief of hart within six weeks after. Thus, saith Platina, died Bonifacius, he that went about rather to strike a terror into Emperors, kings, Princes and Nations, than to plant religion in them: and challenged to give and take kingdoms, and to advance and debase men at his plasure. And so saith Gaguinus. This end of his life had Bonifacius the contemner of all men, who not remembering the precepts 
* 
Gagu. in Phil. pulchro. Platina in Bonifacio 8. Platina Ibidem. Gaguin. lib. 7. in Phil. pulchr.  
How Philip of France handled Bonifacius, see part 1. fol. 95   of Christ, took upon him to dispose crowns and deprive kings as he saw cause: whereas he supplieth his room on earth whose kingdom is not of this world, nor in earthly things but in heavenly: and gate the Popedom by deceit and ungodly means, and kept his predecessor in prison so long as he lived, from whom he wrested that dignity. This example you would not allege, because you saw the whole Realm of France stood with Philip against Bonifacius, that the Pope had no right to depose Princes.  
jews the twelft in a Council at Tours had the resolution of all the French Bishops, 

Jews King of France.  
Massaed. in an. 1510.  
The Realm of France in this our age despised the Pope's censure against their King.  
Velleij ad Gag. agger. in Lodou. 12.  
The Pope will be tried by the sword and not by the word.   that he might surcease from the Pope's obedience, and contemn his unjust censures: and had not Maximilian somewhat slacked and julius in the mean time died, the Pope himself had been deprived of his triple crown in the Council of Pisa, which was indicted by the Prelates of Germany and France at the instance and pursuit of Lodovic. The Bishops of Nations assembled and decreed julius to be cited. Upon the citation he refused to come, & knowing his own wickedness, sought to defend himself with arms. Alas, saith this writer being one of your own friends, whither is that ancient sanctity of the Roman Bishops vanished? whither is that clearness of conscience gone, which neglecting the threats of Princes, built the church not with arms, but with the beams of their virtues? They refused not Counsels, but rather frequenting them, cleared themselves from such things as they were charged with, in full assemblies of their mother the church. Behold, julius, who is taken to be the shepherd, giveth no ear to the complaint of his sheep, but killeth the weak ones, and he that with his own blood should purchase them peace, doth what he can with his curses to increase their trouble. 
The Pope no pastor but a warrior.  And getting the Spaniards and Venetians to uphold him, sheddeth not tears with Ambrose, but displaieth his banners with julian, whose name he beareth against the church.  
All the german Emperors, that were deprived by the Pope, you have recited: Others perhaps were blasted with his excommunications, 
All the german Emperors that were offered deprivation by the Pope, are already recited.  as Henry the fifth: or not agnised by him for some dislike in their elections, as Philip of Suevia, and at his first entrance Albert of Austria: or busied with continual wars, (in which the Pope had an oar,) as Conrade the third: but judicially deposed they were not.  Phi. 
Philip of Suevia & Otho the fourth, that was chosen against him, were both deposed by the Pope. 
Philip of Suevia and Otho the 5.   Theo. 
Otho the 4. the same which you call Otho the fifth, was rashly advanced by the Pope against Philip, and as rashly displaced after the death of Philip; the right of the Empire being all that while in Friderike the second: 
Vrspergens. in anno 1197.  whom the Princes of Almanie by the procurement of Henry the sixth had chosen to be their king lying in his cradle and sworn fealty unto him, and testieth so much under their hands and seals to the Emperor, his father. 
The Pope would not acknowledge this Philip for Emperor.  After whose death, when the Princes forgetting their act and oath began to treat of a new election, Philip frederic's uncle fearing least a stranger should be thrust in, to the ruin of himself and his nephew, sought to keep the Empire in his hands during his life, or till Frederik came to age. 
Idem in an. 1198.  This Innocentius the 3. would not suffer: but upbraiding him with the cruelty which his brother & father had showed, & heaping many absurd & some false things against him, in his Epistle to Berthold Duke of Zaringia: stood on frivolous exceptions to hinder him, & objected that he was excommunicated by Celestinus his predecessor whiles he was governor in Tuscia: yea so great was his malice that he protesteth, he would either take the imperial diadem from Philip: or Philip should take the triple crown from him.  


Naucler. gener. 44 anno 1195.  
Otho erected against Philip.   In this rage the Pope caused first Berthold of Zaringia to be chosen king of the Germans: and when he was too weak to encounter Philip, he gate Otho the fifth to be set up against him: whom Philip so long as he lived, drove to the wall: but being 

Cuspinian. in Phil. Caesar.  
frederic's election ratified to spite Otho.   traitorously slain in his chamber by one that would have married his daughter, he left Otho in full possession of the Empire, in which he continued no long time. For two years after the Pope fell into sorer hatred of him than ever he had of Philip: and after excommunication and deprivation, to spite him dealt with the Princes of Germany to remember their choice made of Fredrick the second when he was but young, and their oath passed under their seals to Henry the sixth for the ratifying of that election: and so by the help of the French king gate the Germans to forsake Otho and stick to Fredrick, 
Frederick in greater hatred with the Pope than either of the former.  their right and natural Prince: whom in the end he pursued with greater disdain than any of the former, in so much that in three and twenty years after Frideriks' death, the Empire was not settled in any lawful successor.  
The fruits of these stirs, as your own friends confess, were impiety and all kind of iniquity, in the Priests and people; flattery, perjury and conspiracy in the Nobles; 
What followed of these garboils.  bribery, division and unconstancy in the electors: only the Pope used them as means to increase his wealth, augment his pride, and procure his ease. Then, sayeth Vrspergensis, began evils to be multiplied on the earth. For there sprang discords, deceits, treacheries, treasons to the destroying and murdering of each other. 
Vrspergens. in anno 1198. §. audivi to tempore.  The spoiling, sacking, wasting and burning of Countries, seditions, wars, and rapines were openly allowed, in so much that every man now breaketh his oath, and giveth himself to these sinful mischiefs: yea the Priests are as bad as the people. 
Ibidem § properant electi. dispensing with oaths is the devils art.  The Princes and Barons of the Land learning the devils Art, care for no oaths, violate their faith, and confound all right, sometimes forsaking Philip and clea●ing to Otho, sometimes contrary. Upon these tumults it came to pass that 
Ibidem ¶ iam tunc Colon. The Pope gained by all this.  there was scant any Bishopric, ecclesiastical dignity, or parish Church which was not litigious and the cause carried to Rome, but not with an empty hand. Which made the Abbate then living and seeing the whole order of their doings to cry out, Rejoice our mother Rome, because the windows of earthly treasures are opened, that even streams and heaps of money in great abundance may flow unto thee. Be glad for the wickedness of the sons of men, thou art well recompensed for their foul enormities. Take delight in discord thy best assistant, which is issued from the bottomless pit to increase thy gain. Thou hast that which thou didst always thirst for: 
As true a song as any the Hunnal hath.  sing this song, that by the malice of men, not any religion of thine, thou hast conquered the world. Neither devotion nor good conscience draw men to thee, but manifold sins and strifes wherein money beareth the sway.  
And because the Pope would be sure the Emperor should not trouble, 
Blondus decad. 2. lib. 10.  nor interrupt his excessive gain nor pride: he would not suffer Charles the fourth to be crowned, but on this condition, that he neither stay at Rome, nor in Italy; which Petrarke a man of that time prettily gibeth at. 

Blondus' Ibidem & Naucl. generat. 46. an. 1355  
The Pope would not suffer the Emperor to come near Italy.   All power is impatient to bear an equal: whereof if we had not ancient precedents enough, I fear our age hath given us a late example, and that the Bishop of Rome hath forbidden the Emperor of Rome to abide at Rome: which as they say he hath done, and not only looketh but commandeth the prince should be content with the (bare) crown and title of the Empire: and whom he permitteth to be called Ruler: by no means will he suffer him to rule. And writing to the Emperor himself: 
Blondus & Naucler. ut supra.  With a promise I know not how, and with an oath as it were with a strong wall or high hill, you are prohibited to have access to the city of Rome. 
The Emperor as glad to be gone as the Pope to have him go.  What pride is this, that the Roman prince, the author of public liberty, should be deprived of all liberty, and that he should not be his own, whose by right all things should be?  
Marry the Pope & the prince were well met: for the Pope was not as earnest to have him gone, but he was as glad to go, & as willing never to return. And therefore to take his farewell, he sold all the right & title that the Emperor had throughout Italy: 
Blondus decad. 2. lib. 10.  & as Blondus saith, 
The Prince sold all the Emperor had both in Italy & Germany.  om●ia ubique concessit ex quibus pecunia abra di potuit: passed away every thing in every place, by the which he might get any money. And as he did in Italy so did he in germany. For labouring to have his son Vencelaus chosen his successor in the Empire, when the electors would not agree to it, because the child had nothing in him fit for so great a calling, the Emperor offered every of the electors a hundred thousand pounds to go through with the choice, 
The price of a voice in the election of the Emperor.  and so they did. And not having money sufficient to defray such an infinite sum, he pawned the Lands and revenues of the Empire into their hands, 
Aeneas silvius histor. Bohem. cap. 32.  till they were paid, and so they remain to this day. Hence the Roman Empire came to nought, neither was it ever after able to stand upright, the Prince's Electors keeping all in their hands, and swearing the Emperor, 
The Roman Empire come utterly to nothing.  (when he is first chosen) that he shall not claim such things as they have of the Empire in mortgage.  
Vencelaus, 
Vencelaus put from the Empire as unfit to rule.  for whom his father paid 600000. pounds to have him Emperor, proved so unprofitable for the place, that the electors, when Charles was dead, of their authority 
Cuspinian● in Vencelao.  put him from the crown, and set an other in his steed.  
Some Princes of other countries you might repeat which I omit: no man doubteth but your holy Father's pride and arrogance served him to venture on meaner Princes, as well as on Emperors: 
For a 1000 years no such thing offered: to this present day no such thing acknowledged.  this is it that we stand on; for a thousand years there was no such thing used nor offered in the church of Christ: and since that time though Popes have been very forward to depose Princes, you shall never show any Prince that acknowledged or obeyed that sentence; yea none of their people under them, nor of the borderers about them, embraced those judgements, but such as had secret quarrels against them, or sought to gain some part of their kingdoms from them. The rest of their subjects & neighbours honoured them as Princes, 
In all these examples infinite numbers of their own religion have stood with Princes against the Pope.  notwithstanding your furious lightning and thundering from Rome, as I have showed by many specialties from the time of Henry the fourth to these our days: and an infinite number of your own side have by deeds and words boldly and sharply reproved that insolent presumption. And therefore if you do any good in this cause, you must go higher; and bring us elder examples that Bishops of Rome have deposed Princes, than these violent and tragical uproars of later Popes blinded with error, and puffed with pride, who to compass their ungodly desires have overwhelmed the earth with fraud and force, with perjury and iniquity, with battle & bloodshed, like furies of hell, not like teachers of truth, or Pastors of men's souls. 

We may not leave the precepts of the holy Ghost and the ancient obedience of Christ's Church to follow these fierbrands of hell.  
The defence, cap. 5.   Can you prove ten thousand such attempts, it would relieve you little: we may not leave the manifest commandments of God, & constant obedience of Christ's church for so many hundreths, and allow of those hateful and heathenish devices which the son of perdition hath lately broached.  Phi. 
Will you yield to an elder example, if it be brought you?  Theo. 
Reason we know the man, before we reverence his act.  Phi. 
It shallbe Gregory the great & first of that name, whom you confess to have been both learned and holy. He being many hundredth years before Gregory the seventh and our special Apostle, practised the point we now stand on, and therefore likely to be believed of all reasonable men.  Theo. 
Did Gregory the great ever depose Princes?  Phi. 
That he did.  Theo. 
Name the Prince which he deposed, and win the field. 
Gregory the first n●uer dreamt of deposing Princes.   Phi. 
He deposed them before hand whatsoever they were that should at any time after to the world's end impugn his privilege.  Theo. 
Then he deposed princes not only before they were Crowned, but also before they were conceived of their mothers.  Phi. 
He adjudged they should be deposed, that so offended, though actually he deposed none. 

The def●nce, cap. 5.  
An excommucation of S. Gregory upon Kings and Princes.  
In fine libri 12. epist.   In the form of his privilege granted to S. Medardes' Monastery thus he decreeth, Si quis Regum, Antistitum, judicum, vel quarumcunque personarum secularium huius Apostolicae authoritatis & nostrae praeceptionis decreta violaverit, cuiuscunque dignitatis vel sublimitatis sit, honore suo privetur. If any King, Prelate, judge, or what other secular person soever shall transgress this decree of our authority and commandment, of what pre-eminence of height soever he be, let him be deprived of his dignity.  Theo. 
Why stop you there, and go no farther?  Phi. 
I need not; here is enough for my purpose. 
In fine 12. lib epist. ibidem.   Theo. 
Yet read on the rest, or if you will not, I will. Cum Iuda traditore Domini in inferno inferiori damnetur, and let him be damned with judas the traitor in the nethermost hell.  Phi. 
There is nothing in this against us.  Theo. 
You might the better have rehearsed it. But think you that Gregory did damn men to hell, 
Gregory had no more power to depose Princes than he had to damn them.  or reserve you that power only to Christ?  Phi. 
None can cast body and soul into hell fire but only God.  Theo. 
Doth Gregory take God's office from him?  Phi. 
No, but he meaneth to terrify them with this kind of curse, and prayeth it may fall on their heads, if they infringe his godly acts.  Theo. 
Then as Gregrie had no power to condemn Princes to hell though he threaten it to them, no more had he right to depose Princes, though he wish their overthrow, 
Gregory's words are a curse, & not a judicial sentence.  if they frustrate his decrees. It is therefore AN IMPRECATION, or curse which in the like case the meanest founder that is may lay on the greatest Prince that shall be borne without any judicial authority: It is no deprivation neither prosecuted, nor purposed by the Bishop of Rome.  Phi. 
He saith, Let him be deprived of his dignity.  Theo. 
And know you not, that is the optative mode, by the which Gregory wisheth and prayeth it may come to pass: but neither pronounceth nor perfixeth any such judgement?  Phi. 
If it may come to pass, than Princes may be deposed.  Theo. 
God hath many ways to displace the mighty from their seats, (to whom Gregory prayeth for vengeance,) though the Pope be not the doer.  Phi. 
If this be but a wish, every donor may do as much. 
Every donor hath the like words in his grant. Ibidem.   Theo. 
They be the very words wherewith every donor doth strengthen his endowment: And even in this place Gregory is not alone. Thirty Bishops of divers cities subscribed to this grant and curse in the self same words that Gregory did; Theodoricus the King, and Brunichildis the Queen used the same manner of subscription that the Bishop of Rome did, and the general comprisement that presently followeth, showeth the words that went before to be but curses. Omnium maledictionum anathemate, 
Ibidem.  let him be laden with all those heavy curses wherewith Infidels and heretics from the beginning of the world to this day have been hampered. So that your eye sight was not up, when you took a prayer for a judgement, a form of imprecation for a sentence of deprivation, a curse precedent for an execution that should be subsequent.  Phi. 

The defence, cap. 5.  This was the right and power of S. Gregory, and this hath been the faith of christian men ever sith our Country was converted; and never subject called in question, much less accused of treason for it, till this time; and lest of all, made or found treason by the old laws in K. Edward the thirds reign, as is pretended; howsoever by their new Laws they may and do make what they list a crime capital.  Theo. 
Gregory cursed them and prayed against them that should disorder, or alter his grant made at the Prince's motion, 
In eodem privilegio.  with the consent of all the prelate's in Italy, with the good will of the Roman Senate, and the favourable judgement of all the Bishops of France. This is not it, that is called in question. You bear arms against your natural prince, and encourage her subjects that by God's law should obey her, 
Gregory's act nothing like the Jesuits.  to take her crown from her, when the Pope willeth them. This Gregory never spoke of; neither did England at any time from the first receiving of the faith to this day, ever acknowledge any such right or power in the Pope to depose princes. Much less than was this the faith of christian men ever sith our Country was converted, as you bravely but falsely boast.  Phi. 
In K. john's time, the Prince & realm were of this opinion, which we are now.  Theo. 
They were not. Some bishops & Monks, offended with the King for the loss of their goods, fled the realm: & took part with the Pope against the King, & the Barons for other causes loved not their King as appeared by their 
* 
King john lost the hearts of his Nobles before these troubles began.  
Matth. Paris. anno 1203.   departure from him in Normandy before this trouble began, & by their general rebellion against him when the Pope had not only released him, but also did uphold him to the uttermost of his power. And though he had lost the hearts of his Nobility before, & now of his Clergy, by turning them out of all their livings, yet was there no conspiring against him in those five years in which he stood excommunicate. And to him for defence of himself & his land, came 
* Matth. Paris in anno 1213.  threescore thousand able men of his own subjects well furnished: besides an infinite number that were sent home again for want of armour, and a 
King john thought it easier to lose a 1000 marks by the year than to fight for his Crown and state.  fleet greater than that which the King of France had against him.  Phi. 
If his army were so great and his people so sure, why would he not try the field with the king of France?  Theo. 
He saw the strife was but for the admittance of a bishop: & better to slip his right in so small an injury than to put his own state and welfare to the doubtful success of battle.  Phi. 
The story saith 
* Matt. Paris. Ibidem ¶ Rex denique johan.  he was afraid lest he should be left alone in the field, & be forsaken of his own nation & nobles.  Theo. 
So Pandulfus 
* Ibidem. ¶ Dum autem Rex.  told him, to afreight him & make him yield the sooner: but the Pope himself complaineth of the contrary, that the Barons of England by a perverse order did rise in arms against their king after he was converted and had satisfied the Church, 
Matth. Paris. anno 1215.  who assisted him when he did offend the Church. 
〈◊〉 ●●ins epist.  And yet I am of opinion they would easily have forsaken him: not for respect of your Romish censures, but for their extreme detestation of his odious and tyrannous government, 
The Nobles pursued King john after his reconciliation to the Pope, wo●se than before.  which they showed after his reconciliation to the See of Rome, more than they did before: and obeyed neither King nor Pope so long as he lived and enjoyed the Crown. This realm therefore in the time of King john assisted their Prince against the Pope: and when the king had submitted himself, and rented his Crown at the Pope's hands, they resisted both Prince and Pope, and elected an other. Afore that and since that this realm never confessed or believed any right or power in the pope to depose Princes.  Phi. 
They never made it treason to be of that belief till this miserable time, in which we live. 

Anno 13.  
Richardi 2.  
King Richard made it death to bring any process from Rome to impugn the laws of his realm, for benefices and patronages.    Theo. 
Richard the second very near two hundredth years ago made it death for any man to bring or send within this realm any summons, sentence or excommunication, (from Rome) against any person: for the cause of making motion, assent or execution of the statute of provisors: which barred the bishop of Rome from giving, reserving or disposing Bishoprics and benefices in this land. To impeach the King's laws, or to defeat him of his smaller inheritances, as advowsons & Patronages, by censures from Rome, was death in those days: what think you would they have said to him that should have brought a bull to deprive the Prince of his crown, or a warrant to rebel against him, & to take his life from him as you do in our days?  
And because you stand so much on the word treason, why should not the statute of Edward the third recensing Treasons extend directly to your doings? It is there numbered among treasons, 
25. Edwardi 3.  to compass or imagine the death of the King, to levy war against him in his Realm, or to be adherent to the kings enemies in his Realm, or to give them aid and comfort within the realm or else where. 
To war against the King is treason in subjects, though it be for religion.  If all wars waged against the prince within the Realm (that is by subjects) are treasonable: how should your wars for religion against your sovereign be just and honourable? If to aid or comfort the kings enemies within the realm, or else where, be traitorous conspiracy; how can you stir up foreign power to assault the realm, & persuade the people of this land with arms to displace the prince and not incur that crime?  Phi. 
Do we set strangers to invade, or subjects to rebel?  Theo. 
You be adherents and instruments to him that doth.  Phi. 
You mean we be of the same faith with the Church of Rome: If that be treason, than we are traitors.  Theo. 
We talk not of your faith, but of your works. Believe what you list, so you meddle not with aiding nor comforting invasion nor rebellion.  Phi. 
We do not.  Theo. 
You commend them and allow them that will do either, yourself in this place defend their enterprise to be godly, just and honourable; 
Is not this giving comfort to the Queen's enemies?  Your fellows before you in their printed books openly did celebrate them as Martyrs that lost their lives in the North for bearing arms against the Queen. What greater comfort can you give to rebels and enemies, than to animate and encourage them with praises, promises, defences, and honours, both in this world and the next? It is more pernicious to fire the heart, than to warm the hand: to minister courage, than to give drink to them that shall fight against the Prince. In all actions the persuaders and enducers are equal with the doers and executors. 
The persuaders be traitors as well as the doers.  Why then should you not be within the compass of king Edward the thirds statute, for aiding and comforting the Queen's enemies within the realm or elsewhere?  Phi. 
You must understand that we never will any man to take arms, but for the catholic faith, 
And yet your adherents bare arms against King john and the german Princes for mere private and earthly quarrels.  and at the commandment of the supreme magistrate against one that was, but is no Prince, as being justly deposed.  Theo. 
And you must understand that the statute of Edward the third doth neither allow the Pope to depose the Prince, nor licence the subject to bear arms for religion against his sovereign: and therefore your wars for religion be traitorous insurrections against the Prince by the Laws of Edward the third, notwithstanding your new found glozes that you first depose them, and after resist them, and pursue them with arms by the warrant of holy Church's judgement and censure.  Phi. 
Edward the third never meant, that to obey the Pope above the prince should be treason. 
Edward the 3. never meant to be deposed by the Pope, why therefore should not war to depose him, be treason against him?   Theo. 
It is not for you now to appoint his meaning. His words are, that to give aid or comfort to the King's enemies and such as levied wars against him in his realm, (were it the Pope, the French King, or whom ye will,) should be treason. He had before his eyes the example of King john, upon whom the Pope set the King of France with all his power for not obeying his censures from Rome: he knew he could not be defeated of his Crown without war: and so long as his own subjects were trusty to him he feared not the French, nor any other that should invade him. To make himself therefore assured of his own people against all men, Spanish, Scottish, French, 
It was wisdom in king Edward not to name the Pope, and yet the quarrel includeth the Pope.  Romish or any by whom the deed might be done, and yet to decline the envy of naming the Pope: he with his whole realm by their public law without exception of Person, or cause, made it treason to give aid or comfort within the realm, or else where to any (whatsoever) that should war upon the king: perceiving the general would include the Pope or any other that he should incite against the King, as well as if they were distinctly named.  Phi. 
You suppose the Prince and the people did secretly conspire against the Pope: 
The King and the commons in open parliament join to defend the laws and liberties of the realm against the Pope by name.  where as in those days they did honour him as the Sovereign father and Pastor of their souls.  Theo. 
Howsoever they embraced the religion which he professed, it is evident the King and the whole realm in open Parliament made a general consociation to repel provisions and impetrations of ecclesiastical dignities and offices from Rome: and bound themselves each to other with all their might in common to withstand citations, suspensions, excommunications and censures coming from that Consistory for matters decided in the King's Courts, or pertinent to the Laws and royal liberties of this Realm: and the commons did not stick in parliament likewise to promise King Richard the second to stand with him in all cases attempted by the Bishop of Rome against him, his Crown and his Regality in all points to live and die.  
The consociation against the procurers, bringers, and executors of prohibited process from Rome was this: 

28. Edwardi 3.  
The consociation of King Edward against the Pope.   The King, the Prelates, Dukes, Earls, Barons, Nobles and other Commons, Clerks, and Lay people, be bound by this present ordinance to aid, comfort, and counsel the one and the other, as often as shall need: and by all the best means that may be made of word and of deed to impeach such offenders, and to resist their enterprises, and without suffering them to inhabit, abide or pass by their Seignories, possessions, lands, jurisdictions or places: and be bound to keep & defend the one and the other from all damage, villainy, and reproof, as they should do their own persons and for their deed and business: and by such manner and as farforth as such prosecutions or process were made or attempted against them in especial, general, or in common.  
The complainct and offer of the Commons to king Richard was this: Of late divers processes be made by our holy father the Bishop of Rome, 

16. Richardi 2.  
The people offer to defend their Prince against the Pope.   and censures of excommunication upon certain Bishops of England because they have made execution of the king's commandments (notwithstanding process from the Court of Rome for the contrary) to the open disherison of the Crown and destruction of our Sovereign Lord the King his Law & all his Realm: so as the Crown of England, which hath been so free at all times that it hath been in subjection to no realm, 

The Crown of England not subject to the Bishop of Rome.  
The commons will be with their king in all cases attempted against him, his crown, and regality: could they then suffer him to be deposed?   but immediately subject to God and to none other in all things touching the regality of the same Crown, should be submitted to the Bishop of Rome and the Laws and statutes of the realm by him defeated and destroyed at his will, in perpetual destruction of the king our sovereign Lord his Crown and regality, and of all his realm, which God defend: Wherefore they, & all the liege commons of the same realm will be with our said Sovereign Lord the King and his said Crown and his regality in the cases aforesaid, and in all other cases attempted against him, his crown, and his regality in all points to live and to die. This was the ancient love and faith of the Commons of this Land toward their Princes, against the Bishop of Rome even by name: and this if you were true English or good Christian men, you would rather exhort the people unto, than as you do, wish them to take weapon in hand to pull the Prince from her throne, because the Bishop of Rome hath sent out his calves to disclaim her.  Phi. 
Ever sith the said S. Gregory's time, 

The defence, cap. 5.  
The oath of the Kings of England at their coronation.   or thereabout, all Kings in Christendom, speciállie those of Spain, France, Pole and England take an oath upon the holy Evangelists at their Coronation, to keep and defend the Catholic faith: and ours of England expressly, to maintain also the privileges and liberties of the Church and Clergy, given by King Edward the confessor and other faithful Kings their ancestors.  Theo. 

King's swear to defend the faith & assist the Church.  That Kings should take an oath to defend the Catholic faith & assist the Church of Christ we do not repine: only your collection is foolish, if you think, that by Catholic faith is by and by meant your late Romish faith: or that the church can have no privileges nor liberties, except the Pope may deal and distribute kingdoms to his liking. The Prince's oath in the Laws of King Edward the confessor, 

Leges Edwardi Regis, cap. 17.  
The Prince sworn to govern the church of her Kingdom.   was to keep, nourish, maintain and govern the holy Church of his kingdom with all integrity and liberty according to the constitutions of his Fathers and predecessors. But in our days you will not suffer the Prince to govern the Church of her kingdom: and the Church liberty which you seek for, is a wicked impunity for sin, and a plain contempt of all Christian authority.  Phi. 
S. Thomas of Canterbury putteth his Sovereign Henry the second in memory thereof both often in speech and expressly in an epistle written to him in these words: 
The defence, cap. 5.  Memores sitis confessionis q●am fecistis & posuistis super altare apud Westmonasterium, 
In vita S. Thomae.  de servanda Ecclesiae libertate, quando consecrati fuistis & uncti in regema predecessore nostro Theobaldo. Keep in memory the confession which you made and laid upon the altar at Westminster, touching the keeping of holy churches liberties, when you were consecrated & anointed king by my predecessor Theobald.  Theoph. 
Your Canterbury Saint was very careful to put the King in mind of Church-mens liberty: 
Thomas of Canterbury put others in mind of their promises & forgot his own oath.  but he was never so religious as to remember what was Church-mens duty to God and the magistrate. He could call on others to keep touch, but himself procured a dispensation, that his oath should not tie him, though it were never so lawful and honest. And surely this was a seemly sight, for a subject that had violated his own faith and truth to importune his Sovereign to observe covenants: but such is your store, for want of better, you must bring perjures to talk of promises.  Phi. 
The patriarchs of Constantinople took an instrument of such as were to be crowned Emperors (specially in the times of heresy) wherein they made the like promise and profession, 
The defence, cap. 5.  to keep and defend the faith and decrees of holy Counsels. So did the Patriarch Euphemius, in the coronation of Athanasius; Nicephorus, in the investing of Michael: and others in the creation of other Emperors of the East. 
Zonar. tomo 3. & Cuspinian. in Anast. & in Zimisce.  And Zonaras writeth that the patriarch of Constantinople plainly told Isaac Commenus the Emperor: that as by his hands he received the Empire: so if he governed not well, by him it should be taken from him again.  Theo. 


The patriarch once or twice required of him that should be crowned a confession of his faith.  
Euthemius & Anastasius.   From Popes you come to patriarchs, from Rome to Constantinople, and there in steed of deposing them after their coronation, you show what was exacted at their hands before they were crowned: and that not ever, nor by any superior calling, but the Bishop of that city offering once or twice rather to lose his life, than to crown one that he feared would innovate the faith or afflict the Church.  
Euphemius was the first that gave this onset, and the first that repented it. When Ariadna the Empress that buried her husband alive, being fallen into a trance, would needs exalt Anastasius a man of no great reckoning before, and bestow both the sceptre and herself upon him, Euphemius the Patriarch, whether it were that he claimed a consent in that election as well as others, or suspected Anastasius inclination, and so thought it easier to exact a confession of his faith before than after his coronation: required him under his handewriting to promise that he would alter no point of Religion established in the Church. Which Anastasius then yielded to do: 

Zonar. in Anast. Dicoro.  
The Prince banished the patriarch.   but as soon as he was crowned, the first thing almost that he did, he banished Euphemius for his bold adventure. What you would conclude out of this fact for the deposition of Princes, I know not: well I wot the Prince deprived the patriarch, and not the Patriarch the Prince, though he fell from the faith which he professed, and promised at his coronation to continue.  Phi. 
He did, that he did, by violence.  Theo. 
I commend not his doings, only I would have you mark that though he joined tyranny with heresy, neither Patriarch nor Pope did depose him. 
Anastasius not deposed though he broke the promise made at his coronation   Philand. 
The Pope did excommunicate him.  Theo. 
So you said before, but you proved it by no sufficient testimony: yet grant he were, I thence infer, the teachers & people of the primative Church endured and obeyed an heretical and excommunicate person as their lawful Emperor: which clean everteth all your plaltform.  Phi. 
Nicephorus required the like writing of Michael. 
Niceph. and Michael.   Theo. 
Michael was chosen to the Empire, Stauracius yet living and not allowing their act: and when he came the next day to the Church to be Crowned, 
Zonar. in Michael. Rangab.  the Patriarch required his writing, that he would neither spill Christian blood, nor change the faith of the Church, which Michael willingly granted.  Philand. 
The Patriarch then prescribed conditions to the Prince.  Theo. 
When the Empire went by election, the people might prescribe needful and honest conditions, to which their princes should subscribe before they were crowned.  Phi. 
But I talk of the Patriarch.  Theo. 
The Patriarch did it not often. There were forty Christian Emperors from Constantine to Michael, and this writing never required but of two: and those not succeeding, but elected. Whose coronation the people might tie to those Christian and godly conditions. And though the Church were the meetest place, and the Patriarch the fittest person in matters of faith, 
The patriarchs fact had the people's consent.  to take the Prince's subscription, yet was it done in the presence of the whole people, and not without their consents, and then only, when some fear of alteration urged them unto it. The Patriarch of himself had neither right, nor power to draw the Prince to such covenants as he would limit; and therefore it was necessary the people should join their authority with his in that action.  Philand. 
The Patriarch would not crown him, unless he would subscribe.  Theo. 
If he would not, an other might. The ceremony of setting the Crown on the Prince's head, 
He that crowneth is not superior to him that is crowned.  is a service due to him that is chosen, not any superiority in him that doth it; and if it be refused by him, that of order is bound to do it, any Christian Bishop may perfit it, and the other be punished for his recusance.  Phi. 

Polieuctus & Zimisces.  The Patriarch by your leave had more interest to the crowning of the Emperor than you mention. For Polyeuctus the Patriarch would not suffer joannes Zimisces so much as 
Zonar. in joh. Zimisce.  to enter the Church, till he had banished the murderers of the former Emperor, and thrust the Empress out of the Court, and torn the book which the Bishops were in trouble for: and given all his goods to the poor.  Theo. 
The Empire of Constantinople was now 970. years after Christ carried along neither by lawful succession nor election, but become a very pray for him that would murder his master, and defile his mistress: without all respect of duty or honesty. Zimisces not content secretly to keep Nicephorus wife, with her help most villainously flew the Emperor in his bed, 
Zonar. in Niceph. Phoca.  commanding his men, besides the wounds they gave him in the head and elsewhere, with the hilts of their sword to dash out his teeth, & break his jaw-bones. Upon this horrible and devilish slaughter, when he came to the Church intending to have the crown, the Patriarch 

Zonar. in Zimisce.  
The Patriarch would not suffer a murderer that aspired to the crown to enter the Church before some recompense were made.   would not suffer him being polluted with blood to come within the Church. Where he confessing that others did it by instigation of the Empress, the Patriarch required, that she might be forthwith banished, and they pursued, and the book torn that entangled the Bishops, and that he would think on some punishment for himself. Zimisces yielded to all that the Patriarch asked: and for himself promised to give the goods which he had gotten whiles he was a private man, to the poor.  
How this serveth your turn, I see not. The Patriarch kept him, not from the Crown, but from the Church; and he that was kept off, was no Prince either by descent, or by choice: but one that aspired to the crown by killing the king, and abusing the Queen in most heinous manner. 
Zimisces killed the King and defiled the Queen.  In which case, if the Patriarch had offered his life, rather than suffered such an one to approach to the Lords table, he had done but his duty.  Phi. 
Would you now have bishops rebel?  Theo. 
You think so much on it, you can not choose but talk of it, I said no such thing: the common wealth had to do with the crown, and not the Bishop: that if they gave, he might not deny: but as for divine service and Sacraments, the Bishop might well d●me them to that infamous adulterer and murderer.  Phi. 
You may perceive by that which the Patriarch of Constantinople said to Isaac Commenus, 
Isaac Commenus.  what sway the Bishop of that city bore in crowning the Emperor. He told the Prince plainly that as by his hands he received the Empire, so if he governed not well, by him it should be taken from him again.  Theo. 
We may perceive by that which you bring, both the pride of the Patriarch, and the falsehood of your dealing. This Bishop was a ringleader in the rebellion wherein Michael Stratiotes the former Emperor was displaced, 
Zonar. in Mich. Stratio.  and Isaac Commenus exalted in his stead: and when the new Prince happened to deny the proud and seditious Patriarch a request which he made, he braced out in great rage and told him, that as he had helped him (by his wicked conspiracy) to the Crown, so would he (by like means) help him from it. 
A fit precedent for the jes.  An example as fit for your doings as you could possibly light on, that a Priest should tell his Prince, he would thrust him out of his seat by the head and shoulders.  Philand. 
If he governed not well, he would take the Crown from him.  Theo. 
If he governed not well, is your addition and misconstruction of your Author: 
Zonar. in Isaac. Commeno.  the story lieth as I report it. The words of Zonaras are: Neque verò Patriarcha superbia illi cedebat, sed imperare illi volebat, a● si quando non impetrasset quae petierat, egrè ferebat, increpabat, minabatur denique, quemadmodum imperium illi contulisset ita se idem illi orepturum. The Patriarch yielded not a jot in pride to the prince, and if at any time he miss of the requests which he made, he disdained, and cast it in the prince's teeth & threatened, that as he had promoted him to the kingdom, so he would take it from him. Now in what sort he with others conspired for Isaac Commenus against Michael, Zonaras showeth in this page before. And in truth he was led with the same spirit that Hildebrande was, 
another Hildebrand.  living at the same time with him and sitting at Constantinople, whiles the other reigned in Rome: and had the very same event of his pride which Hildebrande had; the Greek Prince being not able to bear the patriarchs insolency, and therefore banishing him, where for spite and anger he shortly after died.  Philand. 
Likewise when kings, 

The defence, cap. 5.  
In what ca●es subjects may break with their Princes.   that before were infidels, do enter by Baptism into the Church, they submit their sceptres to Christ, and consequently make themselves subject and punishable if they revolt from their faith and promis●.  Theoph. 
When Kings by Baptism put on Christ they submit their sceptres and souls to the word and will of Christ, 
Baptism maketh not princes deprivable by the Pope.  but what this availeth the Pope I see not: except you assume that your Holy Father is Christ, and so the subjection professed by Kings unto Christ must be yielded to your Romish Antichrist; which were very far fet, and scant worth the carriage.  Phi. 
If they revolt from their faith, 
Revolt from the faith is punishable in Princes, but not by man.  they be punishable by reason of their former subjection unto Christ.  Theo. 
Yea verily: and that not only in this world if it please him, but in the next also with everlasting pains if they repent not.  Philand. 
If they be punishable in this world, then may they be deprived.  Theo. 
Doth Christ use no punishment but deprivation? or ever read you that in this life Christ sententially deposed any Prince, though he might have punished many?  Phi. 
I mean they may be deprived by men, if they revolt from their promise made to Christ.  Theoph. 
Your own meanings be your best arguments: otherwise I see no strength in this reason. Princes are punishable, if they break their faith given to Christ: Ergo by men: and if by any man, ergo by the Pope. This is leaping logic, of all that ever I heard.  Philand. 

Baptism bindeth no man to corporal or temporal losses of land or life.  They submitted themselves in Baptism to be punished by deprivation, if they kept not faith and truth with Christ.  Theo. 
If you should not eat, till you prove that assertion, you should fast a lent not of days but of years. It is a wicked error to say, that any private man in Baptism must or doth submit himself to the violent and corporal correction of his flesh: or to the temporal losses of land or life: which you would fasten on Christian Princes by virtue of their Baptism.  Philand. 
Upon these conditions and none other, Kings be received of the Bishop that in God's behalf anointeth them: 
The defence, cap. 5.  which oath and promise being not observed, they break with GOD and their people; and their people may and by order of Christ his supreme minister their chief Pastor in earth, must needs break with them: heresy and infidelity in the Prince tending directly to the perdition of the commonwealth and the souls of their subjects, and notoriously to the annoyance of the Church and true religion, for the defence of which kings by GOD are given.  Theoph. 
Again you leap from the baptising to the crowning of Princes, and because at their admission into the Church they promised to renounce the devil and his works, but not their swords and sceptres which are of GOD: you range to their coronations and tell us in great state that the Bishops which anointed them in God's behalf did not receive them to be kings but on these conditions; as though it were in the hands of Bishops to receive and reject Kings, 
Bishops have nothing to do with the Crowns of Princes.  and to prescribe them conditions of taking and leaving the Crown. feign you would encroach upon Kings by the bishops act and oil, that in the end you might possess the Pope with a full interest to dispose their Crowns at his pleasure: but such as be wise will look to your fingers and keep you short of that desire.  
The solemn rites of coronations have their end and utility, but no direct force nor necessity. 

Inunction maketh not the Prince subject to the Priest.  
Anointing is a service, not a superiority to the prince.   They be good admonishments to put Princes in mind of their duty: but no increasements of their dignity. For they be Gods anointed: not in respect of the material oil which the Bishop useth, but in consideration of their power, which is ordained: of the sword, which is authorized: of their Persons, which are elected by GOD and endued with the gifts of his spirit for the better guiding of his people: If oil be added, it is but a ceremony representing that to their eyes, which all the godly believe with their hearts: If oil be wanting, they be perfect Magistrates notwithstanding, and Gods anointed as well as if they were inoyled. And so for the person of the Bishop, that doth anoint them. It is fittest, it be done by the highest: but yet if they can not or will not, any Bishop may perform it.  
Authority to condition with Princes at the time of their coronation, 
The Bishop is to declare gods will and not his own unto Princes at their coronation.  the Bishop hath none: he is faithfully to declare what GOD requireth at the hands of Princes: not in religion only, but in rewarding virtue, revenging sin, relieving the poor and innocent, repressing the violent, procuring peace and doing justice throughout their Realms: and that if they fail in any of these, God will not fail severely to visit the breach of his Law, and contempt of their callings: but yet he hath no commission to denounce them deprived, 
The Jesuits would have Princes hold their crowns by Indenture.  if they miss in some or all of these duties: much less to draw Indentures between God and Princes containing the forfeiture of their crowns, with a clause for the Pope and no man else to re-enter, if they keep not covenants.  Phi. 
You grant they be bound to God: to defend the Church and true Religion.  Theo. 
Even so be they bound to do those other things which I before rehearsed. The covenant which God made with the Prince of his people, was to fear the Lord his God and to keep (not some but) all the words of his Law. 
Deut. 17.  The oath which the Kings of England take, hath many things besides the defence of the faith and the Church. 
Edwardi Lege● cap. 17.  The King shall fear God and love him above all things, and keep gods precepts through his whole kingdom. He shall advance good Laws and approved customs, and banish all evil Laws from his kingdom. He shall do right judgement in his realm, and maintain justice by the counsel of his Nobles: with many other points there specified: All these things the King in his own person shall swear beholding and touching the holy Gospel, in the presence of the people, the Priests and the Clergy, before he be crowned by the archbishops and Bishops of his Realm. 

The breach of covenants is no deprivation.  
The defence, cap. 5.   Shall a king be deposed, if he revolt as you call it from his promise and oath in any of these points?  Phi. 
Heresy and infidelity tend directly to the perdition of the commonwealth and the souls of their subjects, and notoriously to the annoyance of the Church & true Religion.  Theoph. 
We compare not vices, 
The people may not break with their Princes though Princes break with God.  but discuss the viciousness of your conclusion. Kings you say covenant with GOD at their anointing. That oath and promise if they break with God, the people (you add) may, and by order of Christ's supreme minister, their chief Pastor in earth, must needs break with them. If by BREAKING you meant not obeying them in those particular cases which tend to the defacing of God's truth, your illation were not much amiss: for in all things we must obey God rather than man: but by BREAKING you understand an utter refusing of obedience, in all other cases, and a violent removing them from their crowns: which we say is not lawful for Pastor nor people to attempt against princes though they answer not their duties to God in every point. 
If two swear to do● any thing, and one break his ●th, shall the other be excused before God if he follow that example?  They covenant at the same time, and with the same oath the keeping and observing of the whole law of God: and yet was there never any man so brainsick as to defend that Princes for every neglect and offence against the Law, should be deposed.  Phi. 
Heresy is one of the greatest breaches of Gods Law.  Theo. 
To hold the truth of God in manifest and known unrighteousness, without repentance, is a greater impiety than ignorantly to be deceived in some points of religion: but we stand not on the degrees of sins, which God will revenge from the greatest to the smallest as much as on the person which may do it, and the warrant whereby it must be done. We deny that Princes have any superior and ordinary judge to hear and determine the right of their Crowns. We deny that God hath licensed any man to depose them, and pronounce them no Princes. The son cannot desherit his father, nor the servant countermand his master by the laws of God and nature; 
It is against the Law of God & nature for subjects to punish their Princes.  be the father and master never so wicked. Princes have far greater honour and power over subjects than any man can have over sons and servants. They have power over goods, lands, bodies and lives: which no private man may challenge. They be fathers of our Countries, to the which we be nearer bound by the very confession of ethnics, than to the fathers of our flesh. How then by God's law should subjects depose their Princes to whom in most evident words they must be subject for conscience sake though they be tyrants and Infidels? 
Rom. 13. And strangers have less to do with their Crowns.  And if the subjects themselves have no such power, what have strangers to meddle or make with their Crowns?  Phi. 
Do you count the Pope a stranger to Christian Princes?  Theo. 
Would God he were not worse; even a mortal and cruel enemy to all that be Godly. He was a subject under them eight hundredth years and upward: he after by sedition and usurpation grew to be a s●ate amongst them: a Superior over them in causes concerning their Crowns and states you shall never prove him to be. For a thousand years he durst offer no such thing: 
Deposition of late years attempted, but not agnised to this present day.  these last five hundredth he often assayed it, and was as often repelled from it: by factions, conspiracies, excommunications and rebellions he molested and grieved some of them, as I have showed: but from the ascension of our Lord and Saviour to this present day never Prince Christian did yield and acknowledge any such power in the Pope: and those that seemed in their neighbour's harms somewhat to regard his doings for an advantage: when the case concerned themselves most boldly rejected his judgements.  Phi. 

The defence, cap. 5.  By the fall of the King from the faith, the danger is so evident, and inevitable, that GOD had not sufficiently provided for our salvation and the preservation of his Church and holy Laws, if there were no way to deprive or restrain Apostata Princes.  Theo. 
You make us many worthy reasons for the deprivation of Princes, but of all others this is the chiefest. If there were no way to deprive Princes, God hath not, say you, sufficiently provided for our salvation and the preservation of his Church. 
Extra. commu. de maioritat. & obedient. ¶ unam sanct●● in addi●. Petri Bern. § respondeo & di●●.  Even so one of your own fellows said before you of the very same point: Non vider●tur Dominus discretus fuisse (ut cum reverentia ●ius loquar) etc. The Lord (by his leave) should have seemed scant discreet, except he had left one such Vicar behind him as might do all things (to wit) depose Emperors and all other Princes. Unless your rebellious humours may take place, you stick not to charge the son of God with lack of discretion & negligence: but look better about you, ye blasphemous mouths, & you shall see that the Church of God is purest when she is tried in the furnace, cleanest when she is vanned, whitest when she is scoured, and safest when she is judged in the world that she be not condemned with the world. The Church of Christ hath always prospered in misery, and decayed in prosperity: Israel increased whiles they were oppressed by Pharaoh: and when they came to be fed with Manna under Moses, they were consumed. The blood of the Martyrs is the very nursery of the Church, and the first poison of Religion was the wealth and pride of Bishops. 
2. Cor. 22.  The grace of God is made perfect through weakness: 
2. Cor. 4.  and when our outward man perisheth, our inward is daily renewed.  Phi. 
Why rage you thus? 
If jesuits may not rebel, their salvation is unsufficient in their judgements.  What have we said?  Theo. 
That which never learned or Christian man said before: you say your salvation is unsufficient if you may not rebel against Princes, when they oppress you.  Phi. 
If there were no way to deprive or restrain Apostata Princes.  Theo. 
Then was not the primative Church sufficiently provided for by the son of God, for they lacked compotent forces as yourself did confess to restrain those heretics, Apostates and tyrants that afflicted them. Then were the Apostles unfurnished for their salvation, for they had nothing besides hope to bear the brunt of those continual and bloody persecutions which they suffered. Then is God careless of his Saints, (for so much your religious words import) since they shall have none other refuge in all assaults but 
Re●●lat. 13.  faith and patience. woe worth your worldly minds, that cannot so much as say with the Apostle, whatsoever you think, 
2. Cor. 1●.  I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessity's, in persecutions, in anguish for Christ: for when I am weak, then am I strong.  Phi 
We have given better experience thereof than you: we have these 27. years endured all sorts of afflictions & calamities that might befall men in exile; and therefore never charge us to be worldly minded: our long and hard banishment doth clearly quite us from that slander.  Theo. 
You have been long absent, but much against your wills: had any of your practices well succeeded, you had many years since returned with fire and sword, 
The Jesuits impatient to see themselves disappointed.  but God of his mercy toward this realm, hath wearied their heads and filled their hands that should be your leaders: and now waxing sharp through impatience, & much displeased to see yourselves so often disappointed, you not only by your book blow the trump to rebellion; but show the very ground and persuasion of your hearts to be this: that except you may deprive the Prince with dint of sword, God hath not sufficiently provided for your salvation; as though life to come would do you little good, except in the mean time you might abound and not feel want: live in honour, and not thus wander: reign over Princes, and not obey them, or endure them.  Phi. 

The defence, cap. 5. The example of a Prince most dangerous.  We see howè the whole world did run from Christ after julian, to plain Paganism: after Valens to Arianisme: after Edward the sixth with us, into Zwinglianisme: and would do into turcism, if any powerable Prince will lead his subjects that way.  
If our faith or perdition should on this sort pass by the pleasure of every secular Prince, and no remedy for it in the state of the new Testament, but men must hold and obey him to what infidelity so ever he fall: then we were in worse case than heathens, and all other human common wealths; which both before Christ and after, have had means to deliver themselves from such tyrants as were intolerable, and evidently pernicious to human society, and the good of the people: for whose peace and preservation, they were created by man, or ordained by God.  Theo. 
You find that multitudes ran from Christ, to Paganism after julian: to Arianism after Valens: but do you find that the godly did rebel against them, because a number ran after them? What presumption is this in you to control the wisdom and goodness of God, sifting his Church by the rage and fury of wicked Princes, 
God hath provided patience for his saints, not violence to conquer tyrants.  and crowning those that be his as patiented in trial, and constant in truth? Were you thoroughly persuaded that the hearts of Kings are in the hands of GOD, and that the hairs of our heads are numbered, so that no persecution can apprehend his, which he disposeth not toward them for experience of their faith, or recompense of their sins: you would as well honour the justice of God in erecting tyrants that our unrighteousness may be judged and punished in this world: as embrace his mercy in giving rest to his Church by the favour of good and virtuous Princes. And therefore I appeal to the consciences of all good men, whether this reason of yours (if there were no way to deprive Princes, and to take their Crowns from them, we were in worse case than heathens) be not a profane despising the Counsel of God toward his Church, and an open betraying of your unquiet stomachs when you be in trouble. Our Saviour foreteaching his that they should be 
Mat. 10.  brought before Kings and Rulers, and put to death, and hated of all men for (his) names sake: addeth not as you would have it, and he that first rebelleth, but 
Mat. 10.  he that endureth to the end shall be saved; and again, not with violence restrain them, but 
Luke. 21.  in patience possess your own souls. This is the way for all Christian subjects to conquerre tyrants, and this is the remedy provided in the new Testament against all persecutions, not 
Rom. 13.  to resist powers, which GOD hath ordained, lest we damned: but with all meekness to suffer, that we may be crowned.  Phi. 

The defence, cap. 5.  The heathens before Christ and after had means to deliver themselves from such tyrants as were intolerable, and evidently pernicious to human society and the good of the people, for whose peace and preservation they were created by man or ordained by God.  Theo. 
A mean they had to dispatch such as they counted tyrants, and that was to kill them, 
The Jesuits would fain be heathens.  which Christians may not imitate: and yet did your Holy Father of late in Cardinal Comos' letter promise earthly and heavenly recompense to Parry for offering his service to kill her majesty. The letter is extant, the purpose confessed, the party executed. 
The Pope encourageth subjects to kill their princes.  Look there, you shall see the Bishop of Rome and his Cardinals to be right heathens, and to carry the same minds that they did, if not worse. For they knowing no GOD besides the guess of their own hearts, and having no rule to lead them but only reason, and building a felicity to themselves in this life: saw no cause why one man should be suffered to afflict and disease a number: and supposing any thing to be lawful that relieved the Common wealth, they decreed him to be no murderer, but a deliverer of his country that would kill a tyrant: You having the manifest voice of GOD thou shalt not kill, which you ought to prefer afore your own lives: and being prohibited by the holy Ghost 
Exod. 20. Rom. 3.  to do evil that good may come thereof, with what faces can you, not only acquit them, and praise them, that kill Magistrates, but also assure them of reward in heaven that wilfully destroy their Princes: and where GOD threateneth 
Rom. 13.  damnation to all that resist them, make it meritorious to murder them, and encourage subjects to the slaughter of their Princes, as to an holy and honourable exploit?  
Lest you deny it, 
Cardinal Comos' letter for the murdering of her Majesty.  or Posterity not believe it, thus saith the Cardinal in his letter to William Parry:  
Mon signore la Santita de N.S. ha veduto le lettere di V.S. del primo con la fede inclusa, & not puo se non laudare la buona disposittione & risolutione, che scrive di tenere verso il seruitio & beneficio publico, nel che la Santita sua lessorta diperseverare, con farne riuscire li effetti che V.S. promette: Et accioche tanto maggiorment V.S. sia aiutata da quel buon spirito che l●hamosso, le concede sua Beneditione, plenariae Indulgenza & remissione di tutti li peccati, secondo che V.S. ha ●hiesto, assicurandossi che oltre il merito, che n'hauera in cielo vuo, le anco sua Santita constituirsi debitore a riconoscere li meriti di V.S. in ogni miglior modo che potra, & cio tanto piu, quanto che V.S. usa maggior modestia in non pretender mente. Metta dunque ad effetto li suoì santi & honorati pensieri, & attenda a star sano. Che per fine io me le offero di core, & le desidero ogni buono & felice success▪  
Di Roma a 30. di Gennaro. M.D.Lxxxiiii. Al piacer di V.S. N. Cardinale di Como. Al Sig. Guglielmo Parri.  
Sir, the holiness of our Lord (the Pope) hath seen your letter with the credence enclosed, & cannot but praise your good disposition & 

That resolution was to kill the Queen, as PARRY himself confessed.  
A passing good spirit that leadeth subjects to murder their Princes. Holiness fit for your holy father.   resolution which, you writ, holdeth to the service and benefit public. Wherein his holiness exhorteth you to continue and to bring to pass that which you promise. And to the end you may be the more aided by that good spirit which hath induced you to this, his blessedness granteth you full pardon & forgiveness of all your sins, as you requested; assuring you that besides the merit which you shall receive in heaven, his holiness will make himself a farther debtor, to acknowledge your deservings in the best manner that he may: and so much the more, because you use so great modesty in not pretending any thing. Put therefore in act your holy and honourable thoughts, and look to your safety. And so I present myself heartily to you, and wish you all good and happy success.  
From Rome the 30. of january, 1584. Yours to dispose, N. Cardinal of Como.  
Cicero never said so much in the praise of Brutus and Cassius that slew Caesar in the Senate house: as Como doth to incite this Traitor to murder the Queen of England. You did well therefore to take the heathens for your Pattern: it is right an heathenish trick to kill Princes upon any colour of tyranny or heresy: 
The holy ghost abhorreth the murder of Princes. 1. Sam. 26. Rom. 13.  but if you listen to the spirit of God speaking by the mouths of his Prophets and Apostles, he will teach you an other lesson. Who can lay his hand on the Lords anointed, and be guiltless? saith David of Saul: when yet Saul in all men's sight was a tyrant and by your opinion deposed. Whosoever resist, purchase to themselves damnation, saith Paul, when none were Princes but such as were manifest and mighty bloodsuckers: what then shall become of such as pursue them to death or lay violent hands on them? 
1. Peter. 2.  Submit yourselves, saith Peter, that is murder them not: though you suffer as innocents.  Phi. 

The jesuits allow that Princes should be murdered. William Chreictons letter to sir FRANCIS WALSINGHAM. PARRYES' confession under his own handwriting to the prince. The murdering of Prince's allowed by their defence of Catholics.  As for murdering of Princes I will not meddle with it. If Parry did attempt it, reason he should answer it, & not we.  Theo. 
Your holy Father did commend him, & exhort him to continue the mind with promise to reward him.  Phi. 
These be secrets to us.  The. 
In deed they be the mysteries of Antichrist: but some of your fellows were well acquainted with the case & consulted in plain speech, if it were leason to kill the queen, as William Chreicton confesseth he was.  Phi. 
There you see he answered no.  Theo. 
But you resolve yea.  Phi. 
You hear me say no such word.  Theo. 
Parry himself collected no less out of your own writings. DOCTOR ALLENS book, saith he, was sent me out of France: It redoubled my former conceits, every word in it was a warrant to a prepared mind. It taught that kings may be excommunicated, deprived and violently handled: It proveth that all war civil or foreign undertaken for religion is honourable.  Phi. 
By his patience and yours to, no such thing may justly be collected out of my words, that Princes may lawfully be murdered by their own subjects.  Theoph. 
May there not? Go no farther than the very sentence which Parrie citeth. There is no war in the world so just or honourable, be it civil or foreign, 
The defence▪ cap. 5.  as that which is waged for religion. Be not these your own words?  Phi. 
They be.  Theo. 
Civil war, is of subjects against their Prince. 
He that may fight, may kill.   Phi. 
It is.  Theo. 
And in war, he that may lawfully fight, may he not lawfully kill?  Phi. 
You fetch about otherwise than I meant.  Theo. 
Murdering and killing of Princes, be gross and unmannerly speeches: but observing your dainty stile, 
War against the Prince & murdering of the prince are inevitable consequents  you could not speak it in exacter terms. The issue of war is death, as every baby knoweth. If then Subjects may levy war against their Princes for religion, which is the main scope of your fift chapter: Ergo your doctrine is, they may kill their Princes: unless you can command their sword that they shall not cut, and their bullets that they shall not enter, when they fight.  Phi. 
They may save the Prince's life, 
The Prince directly impugned by the jesuits arms.  though they win the field.  Theo 
They may, if they lift; but I pray you Sir, when you fight for religion, whom do you directly impugn? the people or the Prince?  Phi. 
That's an other matter.  Theo. 
And when you must place an other in the steed of the prince ●●posed, whose life do you chief seek for? Not the Princes?  Phi. 
If the Prince will not otherwise yield.  Theo. 
And if the Prince do yield, are not your laws such, that you may put him to death for an heretic?  Phi. 
Except he revolt from his heresy.  Theo. 
Then never dissemble, the principal person that you shoot at in your civil war for religion is the Prince: whose crown you reach at as being deprived by your censures, and whose life by your laws you can not spare: 
The pharisees did but censure Christ when they put him to death. Acts. 7.  except her highness will forsake Christ, and stand at the Pope's mercy: which God defend.  Phi. 
That is no murdering but censuring of Princes, by the judgement of holy Church.  Theo. 
So the Pharisees did not murder Christ, they did but censure him as worthy to die: and then delivered him to the secular power: but yet S. Stephen said unto them: you betrayed & murdered that just one.  Phi. 
We have the judgement of holy Church for our doings.  Theo. 
Never talk of your censures, 
As though the church could be holy that contradicteth the holy Ghost.  as if they were the judgements of holy church, so long as they end in murders; they be the wicked, injurious and mischievous attempts of Antichrist, incensing subjects to rebel against the powers which God hath ordained, to their own damnation: and you be the blazers and abettors of that his impiety: and for lack of better proofs, you bring the Pagans' and Heathens which knew not God, to fortify your doings.  Phi. 
They had means to deliver themselves from tyrants: shall we have none? They had murdering of tyrants, which God hath prohibited to all christians toward private men, much more toward Princes. deliverance if you would have, obtain it by prayer, and expect it in peace: those be weapons for Christians: Somerfield's 
Unfit weapon's for Christian men, but fit for Jesuits & heathens.  dag, and Parries 
Rom. 12.  dagger be devilish means to dispatch princes, used by Heathens to revenge their pursuers, but to their sharp and heavy punishment before God, who hath taught his an other way to deliver themselves from tyrants: that is, to repay no man (therefore not Magistrates) evil for evil▪ to be patient in tribulation, to rejoice in hope, not to avenge themselves but to bless their persecutors, to bless them I say and not to curse them: much less to kill them. These be the manifest precepts of Christ: If you be of God, you will hear them: If not, in truth you be heathen: and then may you well follow your forefathers the heathens, in murdering, or as you call it, in depriving and restraining of Princes.  Phi. 

The defence, cap. 5. Our bond to Christ more than to our Prince.  The bond and obligation we have entered into for the service of Christ and the Church, far exceedeth all other duty, which we own to any human creature: and therefore where the obedience to the inferior hindereth the service of the other which is superior, we must by Law and order discharge ourselves of the inferior.  Theo. 
You say you have heaps of learning: sure you show little. There is no doubt, but the duty which we own to Christ and his church, far exceedeth the service that we can owe, 
We may yield God his due with out rebelling against the Prince: marry that is by suffering the Prince's pleasure which the Jesuits cannot brook.  or must yield to any human creature: and also against the superior we must yield no obedience to the inferior: and thence you may rightly conclude, that we must not obey man above, or against God: but when you infer that if Princes command some things against Go●, you must therefore obey them in nothing: this is wicked and most absurd sophistry. We must not obey them in those points which they command against God: in all other things we must; because God hath so prescribed us to do.  
Take an example of the Tyrants that were in the Apostles time. Did they not directly command against God, not in one or two, but in all matters of religion? It is evident they did. Did the Apostles thence conclude that the christians should take them for no Princes; but by law and order be discharged of all other service due unto them as you do. It is evident they did not. Yea rather they earnestly adjured all christians to be subject to them in all other things, and even in those things which were commanded against God, to 
The Jesuits in no wise can away with this submission to the sword of Princes: & therefore they imagine Princes may be deposed: & by that colour also resisted.  submit themselves with meekness and reverence, to endure the Magistrates pleasure, though not to obey his will. Why then in matters of so great moment bring you so light and vain delusions? Why repeat you so often the same antecedent, and never attend the fault of your consequent?  Phi. 

The defence, cap. 5. How man and wife may departed for Christ. Theod. L. Man. de haere●.  The wife if she cannot live with her own husband (being an Infidel or an heretic) without injury and dishonour to God; she may departed from him, or contrariwise he from her, for the like cause: neither oweth the innocent party, nor the other can lawfully claim any conjugal duty or debt in this case.  
The very bondslave, which is in an other kind no less bound to his Lord and master, than the subject to his Sovereign: may also by ancient Imperial Laws departed and refuse to obey or serve him, if he become an heretic, yea ipso facto he is made free.  

Cap. ●in. Ex●●. de haere●.  Finally the parents that become heretics lose the superiority and dominion they have by Law or nature over their own children.  
Therefore let no man marvel that in case of heresy the Sovereign loseth his superiority and right over his people and kingdom.  Theophil. 
If we should grant you these three precedentes, even as yourself set them down, 
Husbands, Parents and Masters lose not their right by God's Law though they be heretics.  they would nothing further your conclusion.  
That heretical Husbands, Masters and Parents lose their right and interest which they otherwise have in their wives, servants and children: is no position of God's Law, but a terror devised and established by the Prince's power to fray men from Heresy. Now Princes appoint punishments for their Subjects, not for themselves: therefore no good consequent can be framed from these patterns to the deprivation of Princes. 
The jesuits would punish Princes in the same sort that princes punish their subjects.  It is over much boldness in you, Masters, without authority to require to punish your Superiors in such sort, as they with authority punish their subjects. They be Princes, you be not: they bear the sword to revenge wickedness, you do not: they may dispose of their people be they Masters or Parents, you may not dispose of them being Magistrates: Much less may you turn the Laws, which they made to punish subjects, against themselves: That were to make them not Princes over others, but Subjects under you; which I trust they be not.  
You see the disparison of your examples: and so the disiuncture of your argument: 
Heresy dissolveth not matrimony. 1. Cor. 7.  and yet your supposementes be not simply true. Neither infidelity nor heresy by God's Law doth dissolve matrimony. The Apostle willeth the believing wife to stay with the unbelieving husband: if he be so content: and our Saviour will have no man put away his wife for heresy, 
Mat. 19  but only for incontinency. Where danger of life is feared, or bodily wrong offered; the Magistrate may permit the wife to dwell asunder from her husband till he be reclaimed: 
The subjects more bound to the Prince than the servant is to his master.  but in no case to be divorced.  
The Servant is not so surely bound to his Master as the Subject is to the Prince: power of life and death the Master hath none: the Prince hath; refuge against the Master the Servant hath to the common governor of them both, 
The Prince may discharge the servant; but no man can discharge the subject. 1. Pet. 2.  which is the Magistrate: the Subject hath no refuge against his Sovereign, but only to God by prayer and patience: and therefore the Prince may demise the Servant, if the Master be like to corrupt him: but no man can discharge the Subject, though the Prince go about to oppress him, and that your own example will conclude. 
The Apostles neither did nor could set servants free from their masters for any cause.  For who set free the Servant from his Master, the Apostles or Princes? You know the Apostles neither did nor might attempt any such thing. Peter in God's behalf requireth all Servants with fear to obey their Masters (excepting neither infideles nor heretics) not only if they were good & courteous, but though they were froward. For that is thanksworthie if a man for conscience towards God (that is chief for religion) endure grief and suffer wrong undeserved. If then Peter, whom you make the Pillar of your Popedom, neither would, nor could deprive a poor craftsman (though an infidel or an heretic) of his servant or prentice: what right can your holy Father now have to deprive Princes of their crowns for those or any other causes: and to absolve their subjects from all obedience, though they would yield it and have sworn it?  
That Parents should lose the regiment and authority which by nature & law they have over their children; is a late Pope's decree, which we little regard: & not found in the extravagants, as you quote it, Cap. ●in. but in the Decretals of Sixtus, 
No law giveth the son leave to dishonour or disherit his father.  lib. 5. de haereticis, cap. 2. and were it to be found in ancient imperial Laws that heretics should not bring up their children, for fear of infecting them, which we greatly mislike not: yet no Law, Gods, nor man's doth licence the son to dishonour, relinquish, forswear and murder his father, though a Turk or a Saracene, as you teach subjects to use their Princes.  Phi. 
Thus much may (as we trust) suffice with all reasonable indifferent persons, 
The defence, cap. 5.  for defence of our brethren.  Theo. 
Thus much sufficeth to convince you of that wherewith you were charged: that is with liking, labouring, persuading, and expecting the deprivation and destruction of your natural and lawful Sovereign: 
If Princes may not be deposed, ergo civil war to displace them is a wicked & wilful rebellion against God & his ordinance.  And since the foundation of your doings hath neither warrant in the word of God, nor example in the church of Christ for a thousand years, as we trust the reader by this time perceiveth, but only dependeth on the late violent and wicked treacheries of Popes, swelling with earthly pride, and savouring of filthy gain, who for the readier atchiving of their enterprise, began with cursing, & always ended in sowing seditions, managing rebellions, kindling wars, allowing perjuries, upholding treasons, and shaking the frame of the earth with horrible tumults: I hope no Christian subject will be so unwise as to believe you, or so wicked as to follow you: seeing you pretend religion, & defend rebellion, & come now to the public patrocination of that which all this while you secretly cloaked with cunning and subtle evasions: knowing that God is the ordainer of Princes, and will be the revenger of all that presume to displace them or resist them: he having expressly commanded them to be served, obeyed, and honoured.  Phi. 
It shall not be amiss perhaps to set down the judgement and practise of Protestants in (this very) case: 
The defence, cap. 4. The Protestants opinion & practice for deposition of Princes in case of false Religion.  which though it weigh little or nothing with us, as being altogether both done and spoken of seditious and partial affection to their heresy, and against the lawful Magistrate of God: yet you seeing (your) own masters against (you) shall well perceive that the resisting of Princes and Magistrates in cause of religion, as also the subjects taking arms for their defence in such a case, is no way to be accounted treason: but most lawful according to (your) new Gospel.  Theo. 
As for the newness of our Gospel, we say with Tertullian: If Christ were ever and afore all, 
Tertul. de Virg. velandis.  the truth (of his Gospel) is as ancient and everlasting. Let them therefore look to themselves, to whom that is new, which in itself is old. Masters we have none, but Christ, neither bind we ourselves to the will of any but only of God. 
The jesuits abuse the names of protestants for the colouring of their conspiracies.  And though by your own confession in the next Section before, we need not busy ourselves to defend every private man's writing or action concerning (this) matter: yet lest by depraving the sense and abusing the words of some that never spoke of the case in question between us, you should commend rebellion to the common people as allowed of either side, yours and ours, in cause of religion: I will not be grieved to sit their sayings, and to consider how far they make with you or against you.  Phi. 
First (your) grand-master john calvin putteth down his oracle as a conclusion approved of (your) whole sect and confraternity in these words: 
The defence. cap. 5. In Dan. cap. 6. vers. 22.25.  Abdicant se potestate, terreni Principes, dum insurgunt contra Deum: immo indigni sunt qui censeantur in hominum numero. Potius ergo conspuere oportet in illorum capita, quam illis parere, ubi sic proteruiunt ut velint spoliare Deum suo iure, etc. Which in english is thus: 
The doctrine of Father CALVINE.  Earthly Princes do bereave themselves of all authority when they do erect themselves against God, yea they are unworthy to be accounted in the number of men: and therefore we must rather spit upon their heads, than obey them; when they become so proud, or perverse, that they will spoil God of his right; and to the same place I further refer the Reader for his instruction.  Theo. 
calvin is so well known to those that be learned or wise for his great pains and good labours in the church of God: that a few snarling Friars can not impeach his name, though you never so wretchedly pervert his words. 
calvin wrested by the Jesuits.   Phi. 
We pervert them not, we allege them as they lie.  Theo. 
calvin in that place speaketh not one word of depriving of Princes of their Crowns, or resisting them with arms: but only showeth that Daniel did rightly defend himself for not obeying the kings wicked edict, because it was joined with the manifest dishonour of God and restraint of his service, which no king can prohibit.  
By Abdicant se potestate, he meaneth not they forfeit their Crowns, but that they lose their power to command in those things, 
calvin saith Princes have no power to command against God, but he doth not say that subjects may displace them with arms.  which in other cases, that be lawful, they notwithstanding retain. And though the phrase, to spit upon their heads seem somewhat hard: yet the comparison so standing as he maketh it: that is, whether we were better utterly to contemn their impious edicts, and to defy such sinful acts to their faces, which is meant by spitting at them, or else obey them spoiling God of his right, and as it were pulling him out of heaven; I say we must no way consent to yield any regard or reverence to their idolatrous rage and pride against God. This is all that calvin in vehement words, as his manner is, urgeth; and this is far from rebelling & pursuing Princes with arms, as you would have his words to sound.  Phi. 
Let the Reader view the place & see whether your construction be true or no.  Theo. 
With a good will. 
Not a word of using weapon or violence in all that place of calvin.  If you find one word there of taking or using weapon or violence against the king, I yield the whole. For how could any such thing be grounded upon daniel's example? He submitted himself to be cast to the Lions for the breach of the kings commandment. And when he was mightily delivered from their jaws by the hand of God, all that he said to the king, was, against thee O king I did no evil, meaning in that he served GOD, though the king by his Law had prohibited him so to do for thirty days. Upon that calvin saith: Daniel could not obey the kings edict, but he should deny God. He sinned not against the king, when he constantly went forward in the exercise of prayer to God. Daniel therefore, doth rightly 
Dan. 6. Calvin. in 6. Dan. vers. 22. He defended his innocency with reverent words, as every subject may, not with violent weapons.  defend himself that he did no wickedness against the king, in that, being bound to obey the precepts of God he neglected the kings commandment to the contrary. Then follow your words: that Princes lose their right to be obeyed, when they presume to command against God: and that we were better defy their edicts to their faces, than obey them when they wax so froward that they will put God from his right and sit in his throne.  Phi. 
For declaration of (this) text and for cutting off all cavillation about the interpretation of his words, (your) brother Beza shall speak next, 
The defence, cap. 4. The doctrine of brother Beza.  who alloweth and highly commendeth in writing, the fighting in France for religion, against the laws and lawful king of that country, saying in his Epistle dedicatory of his new Testament to the Queen of England herself: That the Nobility of France, (under the noble Prince of Condy) laid the first foundation of restoring true Christian religion in France, 
In editione anno 1564. The opinion of the congregation art. 39  by consecrating most happily their blood to God in the battle of Druze. Where of also the Ministers of the reformed French Churches (as their phrase is) do give their common verdict in the confession of their faith, thus: We affirm that subjects must obey the Laws, pay tribute, bear all burdens imposed, and sustain the yoke even of infidel Magistrates: so for all that, that the supreme dominion and due of God be not violated.  Theo. 
You have already belied calvin, and now you take the like course with Beza and the French churches. Their speech can be no declaration of Caluines words; if they did lean that way which you make them, as they do not: & therefore this is but a friars trick to abuse both writers & Readers.  Phi. 
Beza highly commendeth the fighting in France for religion, against the Laws, and lawful king of that country.  Theo. 
The battle, which Beza speaketh of, 
The battle of Druze.  was neither against the Laws, nor the king of that country. That old fore the Duke of Guise, hating the Nobles of France as being himself a stranger, 
The Nobles of France repressed the fury of the Guise, the king being under age.  and seeking to tredde them down, whom he knew inclined to religion, that he might strengthen himself and his house to take the crown, if aught should befall the kings line: as his son the young Duke at this present in arms for that cause doth not stick to profess watching his opportunity, whiles the king of France was yet under years, armed himself to the field, as his son now doth, and against all Law with open force murdered many hundredth subjects, as they were making their prayers to God in their assemblies: upon pretence that their service was not permitted by the Laws of that Realm. The Nobles and Princes of France perceiving his malice & seeing his injustice, that being a subject as they were, he would with private and armed violence murder innocents, neither convented nor condemned, which the king himself, if he had been of age, by the laws of their Country could not do, gathered together to keep their own lives from the fury of that violent bloodsucker: and in that case if they did repel force, what have you to say against it, or why should not Beza praise the Prince of Condy and others for defending the Laws of God and that Realm against the Guise's open injury with the consecrating of their blood most happily to God?  Phi. 
The Duke did nothing without the king and the Queen mother: and therefore impugning the one they impugn the other.  Theo. 
The king was young and in the Guise's hands: & therefore his consent with the Peers & states of his Realm, that a subject should do execution upon his people by the sword without all order of justice, could be nothing worth. The king had neither age to discern it, nor freedom to deny it, nor law to decree it. 
The King had neither age nor Law to licence the Guise to murder his people. L●x Salica.   Phi. 
The Queen mother had her son in custody and not the Duke: and with her consent were these things done.  Theo. 
Of the Queen mother of France, I will say no more, but that the ancient law of that Realm did bar her from the Crown: and therefore her consenting with the Guise might sharpen the doer, but not authorize the deed.  Phi. 
Defend you then their bearing arms against the king?  Theo. 
To deprive the king or annoy the Realm they bore none; but to save themselves from the violent and wrongful oppression, of one that abused the kings youth to the destruction of his laws, Nobles and commons.  Phi. 
As you say.  Theo. 
And you shall never prove the contrary.  
But these things are without our limits. We be scholars not soldiers, divines not lawyers, English not French. The circumstances of their wars no man exactly knoweth besides themselves: as also we know not the laws of that Land. 
beza's judgement of bearing arms against the Prince out of his own works.  We will therefore not enter these acts which have so many parts, precedentes, causes, concurrents, and those to us unknown, and yet all to be discussed and proved before Beza may be charged with this opinion by his commending the battle of Druze: but will rather give you his undoubted judgement out of his own works quite against that which you slander him with.  
Purposely treating of the obedience which is due to Magistrates, thus he resolveth: 
Beza in confession fidei Christianae & eiusdem cum Papisticis erroribus Collatione, cap. 5. sect. 45.  Quod autem attinet ad privatos homines, tenere illos oportet plurimum inter se differre, iniuriam infer & iniuriam pati: Iniuriam enim pati nostrum est, sic praecipiente Domino, & suo exemplo nobis praeeunte, quum nobis illam vi arcere non licet ex nostrae vocationis praescripto; extra quam nefas est nobis vel pedem ponere: neque aliud ullum remedium hic proponitur privatis hominibus tyranno subiectis, praeter vitae emendationem▪ & preces & lacrymas. As touching private men, they must hold great difference between doing and suffering wrong. It is our part to suffer injury: the Lord so commanding and teaching us by his own example, for so much as it is not lawful for us to repel it with force, by the prescript of our calling, from the which we may not step one foot: neither is there here proposed any other remedy for private men that are under a tyrant, but the amending of their lives, and therewithal prayers and tears.  
And making a plain distinction between not obeying and taking arms, when the Magistrate commandeth against God, he saith: 
Ibidem, cap. 5. sectio. 45.  This rule is firm and sure, that we must obey God rather than man, so often as we can not obey the precepts of men, but we must violate the authority of that supreme King of Kings and Lord of Lords: yet so that we remember it is one thing not to obey them, and an other thing to resist, or take arms, which God hath not permitted thee. 
Privatmen may disobey a wicked prince but not bear arms against him. To you Sir slanderer.  So the midwives are praised that obeyed not Pharaoh: and the Apostles and all the Prophets and Martyrs could by no tyrants be brought to betray the truth with their silence. What then we think of the subjects duty to the Magistrate, you shall far more certainly and truly learn by this our doctrine, than by their slanders which are not ashamed to join us with the frantic Anabaptistes subverting the Magistrates authority.  

The wars of the French ministers lewdly perverted by the Jesuits.  How the confession of the reformed churches in France should allow rebellion, I see no conjecture in their words, unless a rebel may have them to mistake and deprave at his pleasure. Subjects must obey the laws, pay tribute, bear all burdens imposed, and sustain the yoke even of infidel Magistrates: so for all that, that the supreme dominion & due of God be not violated. What mislike you in these words? Would you that Infidels should be served afore, or above God?  Phi. 
Their meaning is that if God's due be once violated, we must no longer pay tribute, nor obey the Laws of any Prince.  Theo. 
How gather you that out of this place? Their words sound otherwise. Subjects must obey the laws, 
If the supreme dominion of God be violated by the commandment of any prince, that precept may be well disobeyed but not the prince displaced.  and sustain the yoke even of Infidels, so that the supreme dominion of God be not violated.  Phi. 
If that be violated, they must obey no longer, but elect an other Prince.  Theo. 
That is your rebellious inclination, not their position: They say subjects must obey Princes (so) far forth (as the supreme dominion of God be not violated). In any matter if the choice come between God and the Prince, which of the twain shallbe served and obeyed, God must ever be preferred.  Phi. 
Surely they mean, that if once the Magistrate violate the supreme dominion of God, we must account him no longer a magistrate.  Theo. 
The devil himself can show no greater malice than to pervert that which is well spoken: and to force a lewd sense of his own on an other man's words. It is evident they never meant that if the Magistrate once violate Gods due, the pe●ple might reject him, for than were it not needful at all to sustain the yoke of a● infidel, as their own words import; 
Infidel's must be obeyed so far forth as their precepts tend not to the dishonour of God's holy name.  because he can not be an Infidel, except he first violate the supreme dominion of God by commanding against his truth in matters of religion; and therefore they meant as their words lie; that even Infidels if they be Princes must be obeyed, but so that Gods due be ever forprised. If they presume to violate the dominion which God hath reserved to himself, we may not rebel (that is your jesuitical doctrine) but disobey them, in that or any point that is prescribed by man against the will of God, and submit ourselves to endure persecution for 
Mat. 5.  righteousness sake: which, as our Saviour assureth us, is not without great and happy recompense.  Phi. 
Zuinglius likewise a cater-cosen to the calvinists in religion, writeth thus: 
The defence, cap. 4. The defence of Zuing. lib. 4. epist. Zuing. & O●col. fol. 186. 4. Reg. 21.  If the Empire of Rome, or what other sovereign soever, should oppress the sincere Religion and we negligently suffer the same, we shallbe charged with contempt, no less than the oppressors thereof themselves: whereof we have an example in the fifteenth of jeremy, where the destruction of the people is prophesied; for that they suffered their king Manasses, being impious and ungodly, to be unpunished.  
And more plain in an other place. 
Art. 42. explan. fol. 84.  When kings (saith he) rule unfaithfully, and otherwise than the rule of the Gospel prescribeth, they may, with God, be deposed: as, when they punish not wicked persons, but specially when they advance the ungodly, as idle Priests, etc. Such may be deprived of their dignity, as Saul was.  Theo. 
I undertake not to discuss or defend each several man's opinion or speech. 
The manifest for●es of common wealths make diverse men speak diversly of the magistrates sword.  The Romans we know could never abide in their city the name of a king. The commonwealths of Venice, Milan, Florence & Genua are of the same mind. Many states have governors for life or for years as they best liked that first erected their policies: & yet a sovereignty still remaining somewhere in the people, somewhere in the Senate, somewhere in the Prelates & Nobles that elect or assist the Magistrate: who hath his jurisdiction allotted and prefixed unto him, thus far and no further, and may be resisted & recalled from any tyrannous excess, by the general and public consent of the whole state where he governeth. In Germany the Emperor himself hath his bounds appointed him which he may not pass by the laws of the Empire: 
Germany a free state, and the Emperor's authority limited by the Laws of the Empire.  & the Princes, Dukes & cities that are under him, have power to govern & use the sword, as God's ministers in their own charges. And though for the maintenance of the Empire, they be subject to such orders as shall be decreed in the convent of all their States, and according to that direction are to furnish the Emperor with men and money for his necessary wars and defences: yet if he touch their policies, infringe their liberties, or violate the specialties which he by oath and order of the Empire is bound to keep: they may lawfully resist him, and by force reduce him to the ancient and received form of Government, or else repel him as a tyrant, and set an other in his place by the right and freedom of their Country. 
The germans proportion their speeches according to the state of their country.  Therefore the Germans doings or writings can help you little in this question. They speak according to the laws and rights of the Empire: themselves being a very free state and bearing the sword as lawful Magistrates to defend their liberties and prohibit injury, against all oppressors, the Emperor himself not excepted.  
In this sense, Zuinglius may say that if the Empire of Rome, 
Zuinglius meant this of Princes elected & limited.  or any other Sovereign should oppress the truth & they (that have rightful power by the laws of their country to withstand) should negligently suffer the same, they shallbe charged with contempt no less than the oppressors themselves: but that subjects and such as are only bound to obey, and not by the Laws of the Land authorised to use the sword, should take weapon in hand to displace the Prince and change the state, that Zuinglius never said nor much less that the Pope might warrant such private violence.  Phi. 
For his example he bringeth the men of juda and jerusalem whom God by jeremy threatened to destroy for that they suffered their king Manasses, being impious and ungodly, to be unpunished, & yet the people of Israel had no such Soveraingty over their king.  Theo. 
What Sovereignty the whole people of Israel had over their kings is a question amongst the learned, & Zuinglius might be of opinion they had. When Saul would have put jonathan his son to death: the people would not suffer him so to do, 
1. Sam. 14.  but delivered jonathan that he died not. When David purposed the reducing of the Ark, his speech to the people was: 
1. Chron. 13. 1. Kings. 12.  If it please you we will send to the rest of our brethren, that they may assemble themselves unto us. After salomon's death all the congregation of Israel came and said to Roboam, make thy father's yoke, which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee: as if it had lain in their choice to be subject or free from the kings power. The people likewise took jeremy, when he had prophesied against them and said, thou shalt die the death. 
jerem. 26.   
These places have persuaded some and might lead Zuinglius to think, that the people of Israel, notwithstanding they called for a king, yet reserved to themselves sufficient authority to overrule their king in those things which seemed expedient & needful for the public welfare: else God would not punish the people for the king's impiety which they must suffer & might not redress. But yet in the 15. of jeremy there is no such cause pretended: their consent rather and zeal to please Manasses in his wickedness, 
God never required the people to displace their King, but not to consent to his wickedness  & their general shrinking back from truth so lately professed under Ezechias, for fear of his cruelty that did next succeed: were the causes why God would punish both the king and the Realm. For God never required of the people to displace their Prince that we can read, but only that they should rather yield their lives than forsake his truth, when any tyrant offered to deface his glory.  Phi. 
By Zuinglius decision, the people may depose the Prince.  Theo. 
Zuinglius doth show the causes for which magistrates may be justly deplaced by those that have authority to do it: but he giveth no private man leave to take the sword or offer violence to any Prince, though he be a tyrant: again, he speaketh of Rulers elected and limited, not succeeding and absolute: In which ease by the Laws of sundry Realms, much is permitted, which otherwise may not be presumed.  Phi. 
Nay he speaketh of all sorts of Princes whether they be made by succession, election or usurpation.  Theo. 
In that Article he mentioneth them, but he neither resolveth any certainty of them, or alloweth any force to be used against them. Of hereditary succession these be his words: 
Explanat. articulo 42.  Mihi ergo compertum non est unde hoc sit, ut regna per successiones & quasi per manus posteris tradantur. I confess I have no skill in this how kingdoms should be derived to posterity by succession & as it were by hand. If then a tyrant chosen by no man get a kingdom by inheritance: which hath his foundation I know not how: 
Ibidem. A tyrant inheriting may not be displaced by Zuinglius opinion.  far hunc oportet: sed quomodo imperitabit? he must be endured, but how shall he govern? His answer is: Regnum aliquo sapiente administrandum erit, the kingdom must be governed by some wise man: that shall assist him. If a tyrant succeeding may not be repelled from his inheritance, but suffered and assisted, then by this confession may he not be deposed.  
And that no violence may be used to any Prince promoted by succession or election, his words are plain. 
Ibidem. Prince's may neither be murdered nor assaulted with any tumult by Zuinglius judgement.  Disputing quo pacto movendus sit officio by what means a magistrate may be displaced, he saith: Non est ut eum trucides, nec ut bellum & tumultis quis exitet, quia in pace vocavit nos Deus. Thou mayst not kill him, nor levy war or any tumult against him: because God hath called us in peace.  Phi. 
How then shall he be displaced since no Prince will yield his crown without force?  Theo. 
He answereth, hic iam labor est: this is the difficulty: but his conceit is, that they which chose him, should denounce him unfit to wear the crown: & if he yield, it is well; if not, they must offer their lives in so good a cause as to die for justice & truth. 
Ibidem.   Phi. 
In faith that were folly, first to provoke a tyrant with deprivation, & after to lay down their necks to his fury.  The. 
Yet that is his resolution: 
Ibidem.  for he addeth, Qui hoc ferre non possunt, ferant insolentem tyrannum, They that can not abide (to die for the defence of justice) let them tolerate the pride of the tyrant.  Phi. 
Are you of that mind?  Theo. 
You are not to seek after all our reasoning what I think; I have meetly well repeated it. And as for Zuinglius though he measure all Nations by the Germans, & proportion other kingdoms to the Empire: & in that respect speak somewhat strangely; yet he justifieth no tumult against a tyrant, much less rebellion against lawful and absolute Princes: which is the case at this instant in question betwixt us.  
That touching rebellion: now for succession, as I muse at his words, so I like not his judgement, when he saith, he can not tell whence it is that kingdoms should go by succession. 
Succession most usual in christian kingdoms and allowed by God himself.  The Roman Empire itself from Constantine the great and before till the time of Otho the third, that is 700. years and upward, went by succession; save where the right lines failed, or sedition disturbed the heir. The greatest kingdoms of the West parts, as France, England, Spain, Scotland and others have always gone by succession since they were divided from the Empire, and never by election. The like I might say almost of all profane kingdoms and Monarchies: where not election but succession hath prevailed. But omit them: God himself gave this to David as a great blessing, of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne: 
Psal. 132.  & this was it which was denied to saul for revenge of his disobedience: Thou hast done foolishly: for the Lord had now established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. All the recompense which jehu had for his zealous service was this, 
1. Sam. 13.  Because thou hast diligently executed that which was right in mine eyes, 
2. Kings. 10.  (therefore) shall thy sons unto the fourth generation sit on the throne of Israel. So that succession in kingdoms hath not only the consent of all ages & Nations: but the manifest subscription of God himself, that it is his special favour & blessing to continue the successions of godly Princes.  Phi. 
And what our english Protestants write or think of this matter, 
The defence, cap. 4.  you shall well perceive, by their opinion and high approbation of Wiat's rebellion in Queen Mary's days: whereof one of your chief Ministers called Goodman thus speaketh in his treatise entitled; 

Goodman's opinion. Cap. 14. à pag. 204. ad pag. 212.  
Goodman's private opinion long since corrected by himself, cannot prejudice the whole realm.  
Goodman did not hold that lawful Princes might be thrust from their Crowns, but that Queen MARY was no lawful magistrate.   How superior Magistrates ought to be obeyed. Wyatt did but his duty, and it was the duty of all others that profess the Gospel, to have risen with him, maintenance of the same. His cause was just, and they all were traitors that took not part with him. O noble Wyatt, thou art now with God, and those worthy men that died for that happy enterprise.  Theo. 
It is much that you measure the whole Realm by one man's mouth: and more that you draw the words which he spoke, from the meaning which he had, to warrant your rebellions. The party which you name at the time when he wrote took Queen Mary for no lawful Prince: which particular and false supposal beguiled him & made him think the better of Wyat's war; but our question is of lawful Princes not of violent intruders. And therefore Goodman's opinion which himself hath long since disliked, is no way serviceable for your seditions.  Ph. 
Hold you Queen Mary for an intruder?  Theo. 
Not I, but he than did when he spoke these words: and so the case doth not concord.  Phi. 
We take Princes deposed if they stand out, to be intruders: and so by your own rule may debel them with arms.  Theo. 
Prove first you may depose them; and than if they yield not, use your right.  Phi. 
We take them for deposed.  Theo. 
So did the jews take Christ for a blasphemer of God, and deceiver of the people, and yet that nothing impeached his sanctity or sincerity. The Princes right may not go by your thoughts. You may quickly persuade yourselves, what you list, as you teach the boys & girls with us to pretend conscience, when in deed they should blush at their shameful ignorance.  Phi. 
What the Scottish ministery defineth in this question, is plain, by the verdict of john Knokes their mightiest Prophet: 

The defence, cap. 5.  
The judgement of the Scottish ministery.  
john Knokes Ibidem pag. 77.   the argument of a treatise of this matter being set down by himself thus: If the people have either rashly promoted any manifest wicked person, or else ignorantly chosen such an one, as after declareth himself unworthy of regiment above the people of God (& such be all idolaters & cruel persecutors) most justly may the same men depose and punish him.  Theo. 
Were it in a point of doctrine, or part of faith, it had yet some show to charge the rest with one man's verdict: but in a singular & superfluous assertion it hath no more ground, than if we should pronounce all Popes, to be conjurers & Atheists, because john the twelfth, and Sylvester the second were such: or suspect all Spaniards to be as loving to their brethren as Alfonsus was to 
Sleid. lib. 17.  joannes Diazius, whose head he clave a sunder with an hatchet, and the romanists to be as virtuously disposed as ever were 
Sleid. lib. 19  Petrus Aloisius the son, a famous citizen of Sodom, or 
lib. 21.  Paulus the third his father a fit bishop for Gomorra, which iwis would offend you.  
Knokes book I have not seen, and therefore the circumstances I do not know: yet the very words which you bring, prove that he spoke not of Princes entering by inheritance, but of Magistrates promoted by election: & that not a part of the people but the very same States that elected, by their common consent may forsake their Governor; if he show himself unworthy of the regiment: but whether he mean they may do this by the law of God in all kingdoms or by the laws of the Land in some places, these words do not express, only he saith they that promoted any, may justly for these causes depose them: which we grant to be true, if the laws of the Realm warrant the promoters in that action as in some places they do. If his meaning be otherwise, as we see not his reasons, so we receive not his speeches, though by his own words he be clean out of our question: for he saith not that men may bear arms against inheritors, but that they which choose one Governor, have the same right to choose another if he be unfit: which is nothing to Princes that inherit, nor to subjects that are absolutely bound to obey: as in this Realm and some others they be.  Phi. 
So Luther also the Protestants Elias being asked his opinion of the almains confederacy, 

The defence, cap. 4.  
The opinion and definition of Luther. Sled. hist. li. 8.   made at Smalcalde against Charles the fift their lawful and noble Emperor, answered: that in deed he was in doubt for a time, whether they might take arms against their supreme Magistrate, or no: but afterward seeing the extremity of things, and that religion could not otherwise be defended, nor themselves: he made no conscience of the matter, but either Caesar, or any, waging wars in his name, might be resisted.  
Sleidan also recordeth that the Duke of Saxony and the Lantzgrave, gave this reason of their taking arms against their supreme Magistrate: 
Lib. 21.  For as much (say they) as Caesar intendeth to destroy the true religion and our ancient liberty, he giveth us cause enough, why we may with good conscience resist him, as both by profane & sacred histories may be proved.  
The same writer reporteth the like of the Ministers of Magdeburge, 
Lib. 22.  declaring how the inferior may defend himself against the superior, compelling him to do against the truth and rule of Christ's laws.  Theo. 
It was skill not to report these places as you found them; lest you should open their meaning which maketh nothing for you: and bewray your malice in omitting the limitation of their words to serve the licentiousness of your weapons. Luther as a divine taught constantly and truly that no Magistrate should be resisted, exception to that doctrine he saw none in the word of God, as at this day we do not, but that subjection was due to the Magistrate were he tyrant, heretic or infidel: 
What Luther taught of obedience to magistrates.  subjection he meant to obey the princes will if it were agreeable with Gods, or else to endure the sword if the Prince opposed himself against God: Yet when Charles the fift determined to war with the Princes and cities that had renounced the Pope, and the german Lawyers made evident demonstration, that the free States by the laws of the Empire might defend their liberty against Caesar himself if he would impugn it, to whom they were not subject but with that condition: & no liberty more urgent or necessary than liberty of conscience, Luther not reversing his former opinion, but expounding himself with an other position which he always held, that the Gospel doth not bar nor abolish any politic laws, 

Sleid. lib. 8.  
The Gospel doth not bar the politic laws of any country.   resolved that in such extremity, having the laws of the empire for their warrant, which he knew not before, they might enter a league, not to displace Caesar as you do, but to defend themselves and their ancient freedom against Caesar or any that would disturb them in Caesar's name. This is the right intent o● Luther's words: and this I ween you will hardly refute or convert to your purpose.  

Sleid. lib. 8.  Luther, saith Sleidan, had always taught that the Magistrate should not be resisted: & his book of that matter was extant. Yet when the lawyers in that consultation had proved that the laws (of the Empire) permitted resistance in some cases, 
The Laws of the Empire permit resistance.  & that this was one of those cases which the laws did mention, Luther plainly confessed he was ignorant thereof before, that any such thing was permitted (by the laws of the empire) & because the gospel doth not repeal nor abolish the laws of any commonwealth, & the time was now so doubtful & dangerous that not only the laws themselves, but the very force of conscience & necessity did lead them to arms: he said they might make a league to defend themselves, though Caesar or any in is name, would wage war against them.  
The Duke of Saxony & the landgrave made the same reply to the Emperor when they were proscribed by him, 

Sleid. lib. 18. not the 21. as you quote.  
The states of Germany not subject to the Emperor but with condition.   If the Emperor, say they, had kept his bonds & covenants, we would have done our duties: but because he began first to make the breach, the fault is his. For since he attempteth to root out religion & subvert our liberty: he giveth us cause enough to resist him with good conscience. The matter standing as it doth, we may resist, as may be showed both by sacred and profane stories. Unjust violence is not God's ordinance, neither are we bound to him by any other reason, than if he keep the conditions, on which he was created Emperor.  

Sleid. 22.  The same defence was alleged not by the ministers but by the magistrates of Magdeburg. So our religion & liberty left us by our forefathers may be permitted we refuse no kind of duty that ought to be yielded to Caesar or the empire. Now by the laws themselves it is provided that the inferior Magistrate shall not infringe the right of the superior: & so likewise, if the magistrate exceed the limits of his power & command that which is wicked, 
This is true in free States but not in absolute subjects.  not only we need not obey him, but if he offer force we may resist him.  
I ask not what fault you can find with their answer: but what propinquity or nearness hath your fact to theirs? They were magistrates and bare the sword in their own dominions: 
The difference between the jes. & the Germans resistance.  you are private men, & want lawful authority to use the sword. Their states be free & may resist any wrong by the laws of the Empire: you be subjects & simply bound by the laws of your country to obey the prince, or abide the pain, which the public state of this realm hath prefixed. The german Emperor is elected, & his power abated by the liberties & prerogatives of his princes that owe not many services, & those conditional. The Queen of England inheriteth & hath one & the same right over all her subjects, be they Nobles or others. And that which is most to be detested in you: they having so good warrant for their enterprise did but join together to save themselves, & their countries from servitude & subversion: you having nor one of those reasons to justify your doings, take arms to pull the prince from her throne & to shorten her days with violence.  Phi. 
We have better reason for our doings, than the Germans had for theirs. We have the laws of holy church & the judgement of Christ's vicar to bear us out.  Theo. 
The church of christ hath not to do with delivering or drawing the temporal sword. She cannot make laws for princes crowns: 
No law permitteth the Pope to depose Princes, but that which is of his own making.  neither can she licence private men to stand in arms against a Magistrate: much less can the Pope, whose presumptuus & proud meddling with the swords & sceptres of earthly princes, no law, gods nor man's, but of his own making, did ever allow. If this be all the warrant you have for bearing arms against your prince, the Germans for aught that I see may be commended for retaining their liberty: 
The defence, cap. 4.  & you not excused for impugning authority.  Phi. 
The Protestants of all sects do both hold & practise it, England itself specially allowing of the same. And therefore there is no treason in this case, if we follow the present divinity of England, nor new example if we respect the furious attempts & rebellions of Scotland, Flanders, France, & Germany, against their superiors, for maintenance of their heresy, & all well allowed by the ministry of every province. And upon these examples you should look (my masters of England) when you make so much ado for one poor commotion, made in defence of the catholics', in 26. years space of the greatest persecution & tribulation that ever was since Goths & Vandals times. Where if the Q. had holden her ancestors faith & had ruled over so many protestāns but a quarter of the time, afflicting them, as she hath done catholics' (though perhaps not herself so much as her unmerciful Ministers) her Majesty should have seen other manner of attempts against her state and quietness, than have fallen by Catholics either in England or Ireland in this her reign.  Theo. 
A bold face, & a bitter tongue be your best objections throughout your book. The Protestants, you say, of all sects do both hold & practise it, England itself, specially allowing of the same. How loud a lie the first is, we have already seen: now to the rest. The tumults of any subjects against their sovereigns as we do not allow: so may we not condemn the poor afflicted christians, our neighbours, before we hear them what they can say for their defence. 
The rage of popish persecutors is able to set good men besides their bias.  Admit them to their answer, & then if their attempts be like yours, or themselves of the same mind that you are, we reject their doings, as hateful before God & man, no less than yours. Your Spanish inquisitions & French massacres, where you murdered men, women & children by 1000 & 10000 against the very grounds of all equity, piety, charity & humanity, without convicting, accusing, or so much as calling them before any judge to hear what was misliked in them, are able to set grave men & good men at their wits ends: & to make them justly doubt, since you refuse the course of all divine & human laws with them, whether by the law of nature they may not defend themselves against such barbarous bloodsuckers: yet we stand not on that: if the laws of the land, where they converse do not permit them to guard their lives, when they are assaulted with unjust force against law: or if they take arms as you do to depose princes, we will never excuse them from rebellion.  Phi. 
Then they may resist, but we may not.  Theo. 
Your lives are not hunted after for religion as theirs be: nothing is attempted against you without due course and trial of law: towards them no law is observed; no punishment is laid on you, 
There is great diversity in bearing arms, though we allow none if the laws of the Land do not warrant the same.  but by the full consent of the Nobles and Commons of this realm: & that openly decreed in Parliament. The Friars presume to put them to death upon his sole authority that hath nought to do with other men's subjects: you mean to deprive Princes, they seek no farther but to defend themselves: not denying to their princes any tribute, subjection or honour which the laws of their Country require: only they will not have the Pope overrule Princes as his manner is, and tease them on to all kind of tyrannies. These be differences enough between your wars and theirs: and yet for my part I must confess, that except the laws of those Realms do permit the people to stand on their right if the Prince would offer that wrong, I dare not allow their arms.  Phi. 
What their Laws permit, I know not; I am sure in the mean time they resist.  Theo. 
And we, because we do not exactly know what their Laws permit, see no reason to condemn their doings without hearing their answer.  Phi. 
Think you their Laws permit them to rebel?  Theo. 
I busy not myself in other men's commonwealths as you do, neither will I rashly pronounce all that resist to be rebels: cases may fall out even in christian kingdoms where the people may plead their right against the Prince, and not be charged with rebellion. 
In some cases the nobles & commons may stand for the public regiment & laws of their Country.   Phi. 
As when for example?  Theo. 
If a Prince should go about to subject his kingdom to a foreign Realm, or change the form of the common wealth, from empery to tyranny: or neglect the Laws established by common consent of Prince and people, to execute his own pleasure: In these and other cases, which might be named, if the Nobles & commons join together to defend their ancient & accustomed liberty, regiment and laws, they may not well be counted rebels.  Phi. 
You denied that even now, when I did urge it.  Theo. 
I denied that Bishops had authority to prescribe conditions to kings when they crowned them: but I never denied that the people might preserve ye●sundation, freedom & form of their commonwealth, which they forprised when they first consented to have a king. 
Christian Kingdoms may settle their States with common consent of Prince and people, which the Prince alone cannot alter.   Phi. 
I remember you were resolute that subjects might not resist their Princes for any respects, and now I see you slake.  Theo. 
As I said then, so I say now, the Law of God giveth no man leave to resist his Prince: but I never said that kingdoms and commonwealths might not proportion their States as they thought best by their public laws, which afterward the princes themselves may not violate. By superior powers ordained of God we understand not only princes, but all politic states & regiments, somewhere the people, somewhere the Nobles, having the same interest to the sword, y Princes have in their kingdoms: & in kingdoms where princes bear rule, by the sword we do not mean the princes private will against his laws: but his precept derived from his laws, & agreeing with his laws: which, though it be wicked, yet may it not be resisted of any subject with armed violence. Marry when Princes offer their subjects not justice, but force: and despise all Laws to practise their lusts: 
The Prince's sword is his law & not his lust.  not every, nor any private man may take the sword to redress the Prince: but if the laws of the land appoint the nobles as next to the king to assist him in doing right, & withhold him from doing wrong, them be they licenced by man's law, & so not prohibited by Gods to interpose themselves for the safeguard of equity & innocency: 
Prince's may be stayed from tyranny by their own realms, though not deposed.  and by all lawful and needful means to procure the Prince to be reformed, but in no case deprived where the sceptre is inherited.  Phi. 
If I should assent to this, how doth it acquit your fellows in Germany, Flaunders, France, and Scotland, that resist their Catholic Princes for maintenance of their heresies?  Theo. 
Not unless they prove their states to be such as I speak of.  Phi. 
That they shall never.  Theo. 
You be deeper in policy than in divinity: that belike fitteth your affection better: and yet therein you show but what a malicious conceit and a slippery tongue may soon suspect and utter. It is easy for a running and railing head to sit at home in his chamber and call all men rebels, himself being the rankest; otherwise I see neither truth in reporting, nor sense in debating the matters that are so often in your mouth.  
Why should the Germans, 
Germany.  submitting themselves to the Emperor at his election but on condition, not enjoy the same liberties & securities of their public State which their fathers did before them? Why should they be counted rebels for preserving their civil policy, more than Italians which cut themselves utterly from the Empire, by no consent nor allowance, but only by force and disturbance?  
The like we say for the Flemings. 
Flaunders.  What reason the King of Spain should alter their State, and evert their ancient Laws, his stile declaring him not to be King but Earl of Flaunders? And being admitted for a protector if he will needs become an oppressor, why should they not defend the freedom of their country?  
The Scots what have they done besides the placing the right heir and her own son when the mother fled and forsook the realm? 
Scotland.  Be these those (furious attempts and rebellions) you talk of?  
In France the King of Navarre and the Prince of Condey might lawfully defend themselves from injustice and violence, 
France▪  and be aided by other Princes their neighbours, if the King as too mighty for them sought to oppress them, to whom they own not simple subjection but respective homage as Scotland did to England, and Normandy unto France when the Kings notwithstanding had bitter wars each with other. The rest of the Nobles that did assist them: if it were the King's act that did oppress them and not the Guises: except the Laws of the land do permit them means to save the State from open tyranny: I will not excuse: and yet the circumstances must be fully known, before the fact can be rightly discerned, with which I confess I am not so exactly acquainted.  
But grant you could find us where PROTESTANTS have taken arms in some one place or other for religion: their arms were defensive: not invasive, as yours are; they resisted the Pope's inquisitions, not the laws of their Countries, 
The Jesuits forget how often the Italians have rebelled both against the Emperor & against the pope himself, & in every nation what dissensions & rebellions have been before our time.  as you do: they rescued their wives and children from horrible butchery; they deprived not Princes as you would. And yet all these imparities considered, if I do not show by your own stories an hundredth outrages of your side for one of ours, I am content to lose the cause. Look back therefore, Sir Auditor, to your own accounts, and view with shame enough how many rebellions your fellows have made within these last five hundredth years, how many Princes they have displaced, poisoned, and murdered: and make no such tragical exclamations at others for saving themselves, and their innocent families from your cruel and incredible furies.  Phi. 
We put you in mind of the Protestants in other Countries, because you make so much ado, for one poor commotion in England made in defence of the Catholics, in twenty six years of the greatest persecution and tribulation that ever was since the Goths and the Vandals times.  Theophi. 
That we had but one commotion in this realm, we may thank God and not you: you did your best by procuring invasion abroad, and ripening rebellion at home, to multiply that one to twenty six, twice told, but that the mighty hand of GOD did always unjoint your devices.  

The practices of the jesuits wherewith this land is grieved and displeased.  Neither make we not so much ado that you did once rebel: but that you still seek to continue the same by comforting foreign powers to enter the land, by disposing the hearts of all Catholics, as you call them, within the realm to wait for that day, by maintaining and avouching the Pope's wicked claim to depose Princes for a point of Christian faith, by canonising the Northern rebels in your open writings for Martyrs; by proclaiming as you do in this book, such wars against the Prince to be Godly, just and honourable: and last of all by resolving, directing, and encouraging Parry, Somerfield, & other that with violent hands sought to attempt your sovereigns' life. 
These be no points of religion, but flat treason.  These be the things for which we make so much ado, and which if there be but one jot of true religion or obedience in you, my masters of Rheims, you would not so freshly approve and practise.  
The correction that is here laid on you, you every where amplify, with words of the highest and hoattest degree: as if it were tyranny to touch the hems of your garments, notwithstanding you seek to pull the Crown from the Prince's head, and teach others to treadde the same path by your example; 
This easy punishment for twenty years showeth the goodness of her disposition and the mildness of her regiment.  but such is your daintiness that you offering others fire and sword, never think it sharp enough: And tasting no quicker discipline with us for twenty years than the loss of two shillings by the week, or some restraint of liberty, cry out of the greatest persecution and tribulation that ever was since the Goths and Vandals times. We speak of things that are in the eyes and ears of all men, what punishment did the Laws of this realm the first twenty years of her majesties reign inflict to any recusant for religion but either imprisonment or amercement? Which was as easy as you could wish, till within these six or seven years, by the facility of the Law which you despised, your attempts grew so dangerous, that the Prince was forced for the repressing of your audacious adventure, to temper her Laws with more severity. 
This later severity the jes. have provoked by their wilfulness.  You must thank yourselves therefore if this latter affliction seem somewhat heavier: till you gave the onset to put the bull in execution which deprived her highness of the crown, you were used with as much mercy and clemency as was possible for a Christian prince to afford unruly subjects: whatsoever hath since fallen out must be imputed not to her majesties inclination, whereof you had so good proof for twenty years: but to your wicked and undutiful affection, that were perplexed to see her live and govern in so long happiness, and therefore assayed to shorten her reign.  Philand. 
You never found that affection in any Catholic.  Theoph. 
We need not search your affections for it: you have made it an open point of your faith which no Catholic as you teach must deny, though the affirming of it should cost him his life. 
The Jesuits make rebellion a point of their Catholic faith, because they would the sooner infect the people with it   Philand. 
What do we teach?  Theo. 
That if the Pope say the word, none of your Catholics within this Realm must obey or account her Majesty for Queen of England. And because you would be sure to root this persuasion in the hearts of your adherentes, you deliver it them as a part of their faith, which they must avouch and much more execute, notwithstanding any danger of death that may be offered.  Philand. 
Where do we teach so?  Theoph. 
In the cases of conscience, wherewith you furnished the Jesuits that came into England. There to the 55. article when you be asked whether, notwithstanding the bull (of Pius the fifth) that was given out, 
Casus conscientiae qui hody in Anglia occurrunt sacerdotibus comissis: artic. 55. And if you be asked, do you believe that the Bishop of Rome may licence you to bear arms against the Queen of England, and to kill her if you can, what must you answer by this resolution of your but, I believe he may.  or any bull that the Bishop of Rome can hereafter give forth, all Catholics be bound to yield obedience, faith and loyalty to Queen Elizabeth as to their lawful Prince and Sovereign: you make this resolution, Qui hoc modo interrogat, illud quaerit, an id potuerit S. Pontifex facere? Cui quaestioni quid debeat Catholicus respondere, clarius est quàm ut a me hic explicetur. Sirogatur ergo Catholicus, credis Romanum Pontificem Elizabetham potuisse exauthorare: respondebit non obstante quovis metu mortis, credo. Quaestio enim haec ad fidem spectat & exigit confessionem fidei. He that demandeth this question, asketh (in effect) whether the Pope might do it or no. To the which demand what a catholic aught to answer, it is plainer than that I need here to explicate. If therefore a catholic be asked, do you believe the Bishop of Rome may deprive Queen Elizabeth of her crown? He must answer, not regarding any danger of death, I believe he may. For this question is a point of faith, and requireth the confession of (our) faith. And yourself in your defence of English catholics say: This was the right and power of Saint Gregory (to deprive Princes) and this hath been the faith of Christian men ever sith our Country was converted. Why then are you so angry that Jesuits should be counted traitors, since you make treason to be a point of your faith and religion? And how just cause hath the Prince to banish you her land under pain of death, when you do with this cunning inveighle her subjects to rebel against her?  Phi. 
It is no treason to say the Pope may depose Princes.  Theo. 
Much less is it a point of Christian faith that the Pope may deprive the Queen of her Crown; 
Till this position be recanted by the jes. a traitor & a jesuite cannot be sundered.  as you falsely, absurdly and traitorously teach.  Phi. 
The Pope received that power from Christ.  Theo. 
If you did prove it, you had some colour to believe it: but now you require all Catholics boldly to put that into their Creed, which the Pope himself for a thousand years was ashamed to profess.  Phi. 
Hath he not the keys of the kingdom of heaven?  Theo. 
But you must prove he hath the keys of all earthly kingdoms.  Phi. 
He may bind and lose.  Theo. 
sins he may where he hath charge: but no where Sceptres.  Phi. 
If Princes persist in sin, he may take their Sceptres from them.  Theo. 
That is it, which all this while you were to prove; you teach that for religion, which the word of GOD rejecteth for rebellion: you embrace it as piety, which the Church of Christ abhorred as iniquity.  

Mat. 22. Princes not deprivable by any mortal man.  Give to Caesar, saith the son of God, the things which are Caesar's. The sword and sceptre are Caesar's: this therefore is a plain precept to Peter himself and all other Christians to suffer Caesar to enjoy his own. Now show you an other, that you may take from Caesar that which is Caesar's. When one said, 
Luke. 12.  Master, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me: the Lord answered, man, who made me judge or divider over you? If Christ would not meddle with private men's inheritances, as being without the compass of his vocation, I pray you who could make the Pope judge and disposer of Prince's crowns? Our Saviour being asked of Pilate what kingdom he claimed, openly avouched my kingdom is not of this world; 
john. 18.  and you by one turn of the keys which he gave to Peter and the rest of his Apostles, would bring all the kingdoms of the world to be at the Pope's appointing. S. Augustine assureth Princes by force of these words, 
August. in Psal 47.  that they shall not need to fear deprivation of their earthly kingdoms at Christ's hands. Why envy you, saith he, ye kings? Mark & envy not. (Christ) is a king, but far otherwise (than you are) which said my kingdom is not of this world. Fear not therefore lest the kingdom of this world be taken from you; (rather) an other kingdom shall be given you and that of heaven where he is king. 
Ibidem.  And so expressly resolveth: Kings ought not to fear lest they lose their kingdom, or that their kingdom be taken from them, as wretched Herode feared. Which is utterly against you, that make it a point of your faith, for the Pope to take not only their kingdoms from them but also their lives.  Phi. 
That we mean when they will not otherwise obey.  Theo. 
By your construction & meaning the world is well amended with you. For where the holy Ghost commandeth Prelates, Popes and all others to be subject to Princes, you with the cunning of your keys give the Spirit of God the plain ●lip, and challenge not only right to rule them, but power to deprive them at your pleasures. And this heinous impiety, lest the simple should distrust it, 
The Jesuits make the Pope's pride a point of Christian faith.  you overspread with a cover of the Catholic faith, as if the Pope's ambition, and your sedition, were lately become parts of Christ's doctrine.  Phi. 
In obedience to the keys we put no difference between princes and private persons.  Theo. 
Prove that of private persons, which you presume touching Princes, and we will agnise the rest, though we need not.  Philand. 
What shall we prove?  Theo. 
That the Pope's keys by God's Law reach unto the goods or lands of the meanest subject in this Realm. 
The Pope's keys extend not to the goods or lands of the poorest subject in this realm.   Phi. 
I proved that before, by the dealing of Peter with Ananias, and of Paul with Elimas'.  Theo. 
And I answered you before, that from God's miraculous working by their mouths, to your ordinary calling and attempting the like with your hands, is no good argument. And therefore they might pronounce the word, and not be murderers, because the fact was Gods and not theirs: you can not execute the Pope's censures, without actual conspiring and rebelling against your Prince, which God hath prohibited. If then you may not offer the poorest craftsman that is, that wrong, by the word of God; what ground of christian religion can this be, that the Pope may take the sword and Sceptre from the Prince, and command you to be his helpers and coadiutours in that wicked enterprise, whom the Apostle chargeth to give tribute, custom, fear and honour to superior powers that have the sword in God's steed to reward good, and revenge evil?  Phi. 
May not the shepherd reclaim the sheep, if they will not be ruled?  Theo. 
But no good shepherd lameth or killeth his sheep though they will not be folded; and yet similitudes be no syllogisms. I trust you will not claim that same dominion over Princes, which owners have over their sheep and oxen.  Phi. 
No, but I show you by this example that correction is permitted, where direction is refused.  Theo. 
Pastors have their kind of correction even over Princes, 
Pastors have their kind of correction over Princes, but that is far from deprivation.  but such as by God's law may stand with the Pastor's vocation, and tend to the Prince's salvation; and that exceedeth not the word and Sacraments: other correction over any private man, Pastors have none, much less over Princes.  Phi. 
yes they may force them to repentance if they can not persuade them. 
The Pastor cannot force his flock.   Theo. 
Prince's may force their subjects, by the temporal sword which they bear: bishops may not force their flock with any corporal or external violence. chrysostom largely debateth and fully concludeth this matter with us. 
Chrysost. de sacerdot. lib. 2.  If any sheep, saith he, go out of the right way, & leaving the plentiful pastors graze on barren and steepe-places, the shepherd somewhat exalteth his voice to reduce the dispersed and straggling sheep, 
pastors may not constrain but only persuade.  and to compel them to the flock. But if any man wander from the right path of the christian faith, the Pastor must use great pains, care, and patience. Neque enim vis illi inferenda, neque terrore ille cogendus, verùm suadendus tantum, ut de integro ad veritatem redeat. For he may not be forced, nor constrained with terror, but only persuaded to return again to the truth. And again, A (Bishop) can not cure men with such authority, as a shepherd doth his sheep. For a shepherd hath his choice, 
Ibidem.  to bind his sheep, to diet them, to sear them, and cut them: but in the other case the facility of the cure consisteth not in him that giveth but only in him that taketh the medicine. This that admirable teacher perceiving said to the Corinthians: not that we have any dominion over you under the name of faith, but that we are helpers of your joy. For of all men Christian (Bishops) may least correct the faults of men by force. 
Bishop's least of all men may correct with force.  judges that are without (the Church) when they take any transgressing the Laws, they show themselves to be endued with great authority and power, and compel them in spite of their hearts to change their manners. But here (in the Church) we may not offer any violence, 
Compulsion neither lawful nor expedient in Bishops.  but only persuade. We have not so great authority given us by the Laws, as to repress offenders: and if it were lawful for us so to do, we have no use of any such violent power, for that Christ crowneth them which abstain from sin, not of a forced, but of a willing mind and purpose.  

Hilar. ad Const. lib. 2. imperfect.  Hilary teacheth the same lesson. If this violence were used for the true faith, the Doctrine of Bishops would be against it. God needeth no forced service, 
Bishop's may not meddle but with those that be willing.  he requireth no constrained confession. I can not receive any man, but him that is willing: I cannot give ear, but to him that entreateth, I cannot sign any but him that (gladly) professeth. Origen agreeth with them both. See the wisdom of the holy Ghost. Because that other faults are judged by the Laws of Princes, 
Orig. in cap. 13. epist. ad Rom.  and it seemed superfluous now to prohibit those things by God's Law, which are sufficiently revenged by man's, 
God will not have crimes revenged by the Rulers of the Church, but by the judges of the world.  he repeateth those and none else as fit for religion, of which man's Law said nothing. Whereby it appeareth that the judges of this world, do meddle with the greatest part of God's law. For all the crimes which God would have revenged, he would have them revenged not by the Bishops and rulers of the Church, but by the judges of the world: & that Paul knowing rightly calleth (the Prince) Gods minister and judge of him that doth evil.  Phi. 
bishops may not offer force with their own hands, but they may command others to do it for them.  Theoph. 
A gross shift. As though temporal Princes or judges did execute malefactors with their own hands. 
Bishops by virtue of their calling cannot authorize violence or arms.  Bishops by virtue of their vocation can not claim the sword: and consequently they cannot command or authorize any man to take the goods or touch the bodies of Christians or Infidels. Which being a clear conclusion, it is most evident they can much less licence you to take the Crowns, and touch the lives of Princes, to whom God hath delivered the sword to judge the earth, 
Rom. 13.  and made them servants only to himself, since all other souls must be subject to them by the tenor of his own prescription and their first erection, as the Scripture witnesseth.  Phi. 
Say what you will, it is religion, it is no treason to defend that the Pope may lawfully depose Princes for tyranny and heresy.  Theoph. 
It is easy for you to multiply words: you have store of them as appeareth by your Apology and defence of English Catholics which consist of nothing else: but the Pope's power to deprive princes, 
Defendor● of the Pope's power to depose princes are no Martyrs but heinous traitors.  is a matter of more dependence than may be overruled with a few piked and well couched terms. You must therefore exactly and directly prove the Pope's authority to depose Princes (which you shall never be able to do) or else he for attempting it is the man of sin exalting himself in the Church of GOD, and you for defending and executing the same, lack not many degrees of high and heinous treason.  
The carrying of this in your own hearts, 
The maintainers & abettors of this power put to death, and none else.  and reconciling of others within the realm that they might be ready to receive this impression at your mouths, when time should serve, were the very causes why some of your fellows tasted of her majesties just and provoked indignation: and if it be tyranny for the Prince to put them to death, that lay plots to have her crown, and her life, and writ books to avouch it lawful for themselves, and all others so to do, when the Pope saith the word: then her highness hath done you some wrong: but if by divine and human records it be damnable in the subject to attempt or abet any such thing: and most laudable in the Prince to revenge the consenter and encourager as well as the doer: then, for religion hath none of your side been martyred in England, as your shameless eloquence would enforce, only some were executed for affirming, publishing, and furdering the Pope's Antichristian power to rule realms and deprive Princes: which you call religion, because you would plant it in the people's hearts with less labour, and more liking, though in deed it be pestilent pride in him, and a plain contempt of God and the Prince in you that should obey.  Phi. 
M. john Slade and M. john Body, two famous confessors, 
The defence, cap. 1. An. 1583. M. Slade. M. Body.  were they not condemned to death in public judgement for confessing their faith of the Pope's spiritual sovereignty, and for denying the Queen to be head of the Church of England, or to have any spiritual regiment▪ and that twice at two divers sessions (a rare case in our country) the later sentence being to reform the former, (as we may guess in such strange proceed) which they perceived to be erroneous and unsufficient in their own Laws?  Theo. 
Promotions are rife at Rome: you would not else so soon advance two froward and rude companions for masters & martyrs. Their judgement was twice given, not, (as you perversely, yet after your manner, interpret) the later to reform the former as erroneous and unsufficient, but for that they complained they were drawn afore they were ware and against their wills, to utter speeches against the Prince's sword, for which they were condemned: the grace & mercy of the Prince was such, that her highness was content they should be tried the second time, (to see whether those words were unadvisedly and unwillingly spoken as they pretended, or of set mischief & malice) and warned by the judge to take good heed, and look well about them before they rashly offered themselves to the danger of the Laws. Where, if they fell again openly and lustily to avouch that the Pope was supreme head of the Church of England, and consequently the Queen had no right to make laws as she had done, but was subject to the Pope's Decrees and censures, which is the main ground of all your rebellion, and his presumption: who besides you that are yoked in the same cause with them, will say they died for religion, and not rather for their wilful charging the Prince with usurpation, & yielding the Pope that dominion which he claimeth over kingdoms, and you would feign establish with your untrue surmises?  Phi. 
The question of Peter's keys is it not a matter of mere religion? 
The question of Peter's keys as the Jesuits expound them is no religion.   Theo. 
If you draw Princes crowns and sword within the limits of Peter's keys, you leave religion, and hatch rebellion.  Phi. 
Yet is it a question, whereof divines do doubt.  Theo. 
You may doubt what you list, to flatter the Pope, but your doubting may not stop Princes from defending that which is their own, against the Pope's unjust claim and unlawful force. The Prince striveth not with the Pope neither for the dignity which he taketh above all Bishops, nor for the power which he seeketh to bind and lose sins in heaven, (though therein he doth the Church of Christ great wrong and oppresseth his brethren: 
To subject the Prince's sword or Crown to the Pope's courts and Bulls is treason by our Laws▪ the rest of his usurped power is heresy, not treason. ) but only for her right to command and punish within her own Realm in ecclesiastical causes and crimes, (as well as in temporal, which I have largely proved every Prince may within his own Dominion) and for the wrong that her majesty received, when she was deprived of her crown by him that had no warrant from Christ to disquiet her state or dispose her crown. These be the points comprised in her highness Laws. Against these if your rash and ill advised brethren would run headlong to their own perdition, when they were admonished by the magistrate to have better regard to their words; they have the just reward of their unfaithful and disloyal hearts, and my assertion is true that these two ignorant, yet obstinate persons, with some others which came not to any particular mention of the Pope's bull against the Prince, but generally stood in defence of that power to be good and lawful, from whence the bull proceeded, died in the same quarrel with the rest that purposely promoted, defended and assisted the bull; and so can be no witnesses of Christ's truth and glory, which would needs cast away their lives for the Pope's pride and tyranny.  Phi. 

These treasons be no trifles.  It is hard dealing to make such trifles treasons.  Theo. 
Call you those trifles, when Princes shall lose their kingdoms, and their people freely rebel, and you defend the wars of their own subjects against them to be just and honourable, by virtue of that power which you attribute to the Pope, when you make him head of the Church? Had you lived in Saint Augustine's days, you would have said it had been harder dealing that one word against the Christian Emperors although they were dead should be counted treason. 
August. contra literas Petil. lib. 2. cap. 92.  Thou dost promise, saith Augustine to Petilian, that thou wilt reckon many of our Emperors and judges, WHICH BY PERSECUTING YOU, PERISHED: and concealing the Emperors thou meanest two judges or Deputies. Why didst thou not name the Emperors of our communion? were thou afraid to be accused as guilty OF TREASON? where is your courage which fear not to kill yourselves? To say that Emperors PERISHED FOR PERSECUTING, was Treason in his time: In our age you think it much that reproaching of Princes as tyrants and heretics, & aiding the Pope with your persuasions, absolutions, & rebellions to take their crowns from them, should be punished, or adjudged Treason.  Phi. 
There is no law so rigorous but your divinity will serve you to defend it.  Theo. 
What is against your duty to God and your Prince, in that I am a divine, I may justly debate: what punishment the Prince will appoint for such offences as be committed against her, neither you, nor I have to do with it. We may do better to learn obedience, than sawcely to check the magistrate for allotting such penalties as we do not like, yet this I will say, there is no conspiracy so pernicious and dangerous to the State, as that which is secretly crept into the hart upon a sense of devotion, 
No conspiracy so dangerous as that which possesseth the heart under a show of religion.  and outwardly covered with a show of religion. If therefore the Prince severely revenge both your pretences in opinion, & practices in execution, absurdly grounded on Peter's keys, and wickedly derived thence for the removing of her crown, defacing of her person, and diminishing of her right, that rigour may well be defended as coming from just and lawful authority not without sufficient and evident necessity: 
Peter's keys wickedly wrested to command the sword and dispose the crowns of Princes.  neither can you bring aught against it, but only that you profess it, as a point of your Catholic religion: not of any sinister or direct intention to hurt her majesty or any other Christian Prince, which is most frivolous & false. For the Pope's authority, jurisdiction and power, lately claimed by him, and usurped within this Realm, and since maintained, extolled and defended by you and such your adherents as have suffered death, to prescribe Laws as he list, to command Princes, and interdict their Realms, yea to deprive them of their crowns, absolve their subjects, licence rebellions, and dispense with the murdering of heretics as you call them, 
A lewd deceit of the Jesuits to call that religion which is none.  even of Princes themselves. This authority, jurisdiction and power, we deny to be any doctrine or doubt of Christian religion, or to be so much as once spoken or thought of, I say not by the Scriptures (which put no difference between the Pope and an other Bishop,) but by any father or Council for a thousand years in the Church of God. It was the mere devise and drift of Antichrist to make himself mighty, when it was first attempted by Hildebrand, and it is now coloured by you with the name of religion, because you would poison the people the sooner with that persuasion, & have somewhat to say for yourselves when you be charged with rebellion and disobedience to the temporal magistrate.  Phi. 
Your own masters and leaders, 

Apol. cap. 4. sect. 21.  
Magdebur. in praefat. Cent. 7.  
Cal. in 7. cap. Amos.   whom I trust you will not condemn for Traitors, have detested the title of Supreme head of the Church, in princes, as well as we, the Lutherans flatly controling it in general, and Calvin himself with all the Puritants much misliking and reprehending the first grant thereof to king Henry. Why then put you poor men to death for that which your own side abhorreth?  Theo. 
Your brethren were not put to death, for denying her majesty to be supreme head of Christ's Church in England in causes ecclesiastical, though 
Body said so at Andever, but he lied the more.  one of them for want of truth or wit, did so report at his end: and you for lack of better proof have brought his own words spoken in favour and excuse of himself, as some worthy witness. No man is compelled by the laws of this Realm to confess any such title in the Prince, much less punishable by death for denying it; and therefore your martyr was a Liar at the hour of his death, and either of malice inverted, or of ignorance misdeemed the cause for which he died.  Phi. 
It is all one to be head of the Church and to be chief Governor in causes ecclesiastical. 
Apol. cap. 4. sect. 21.   Theo. 
They suffered neither for the one, nor for the other; but for 
1. Elizabethae: The statute upon the which they were condemned.  maintaining and defending the jurisdiction and power of the Bishop of Rome heretofore claimed and usurped in this Realm: which general includeth all your erroneous and traitorous assertions of the Pope's power tending no way to religion, but only savouring of the Pope's pride to be ruler and displacer of Princes. And therefore either prove that claim to pertain to faith, or leave your vain presuming, and fond discoursing that a number of your brethren have been condemned and executed for mere matter of religion. Though you list to take that for spiritual which is temporal, and call it religion, which in deed is sedition, yet your idle multiplying of words, and changing of names, doth not convince your quarrel to be righteous, or the Laws of this Land to be tyrannous. Show that power, jurisdiction and authorit●e, which your holy father hath heretofore claimed and used in this realm, to be consonant to the laws of God, or church of Christ for a thousand years, and we will yield your friends and familiars have died for religion: otherwise you do but face out the matter with fiery words, to keep deceived and simple souls from suspecting the secrets of your profession.  

Popish Bishops were the first that consented to have the king called supreme head.  As for supreme head of the church: it is certain that title was first transferred from the Pope to king Henry the eight by the Bishops of your side, not of ours: & though the pastors in King Edward's time, might not well dislike, much less dissuade the stile of the crown, by reason the king was under years and so remained until he died, yet as soon as it pleased God to place her majesty in her father's throne, the Nobles & preachers perceiving the words, head of the church, (which is Christ's proper and peculiar honour,) to be offensive to many that had vehemently refelled the same in the Pope, besought her highness the meaning of that word which her father had used might be expressed in some apt & plainer terms, 
A plainer stile received to avoid offence  and so was the Prince called Supreme governor of her Realm, that is ruler and bearer of the sword with lawful authority to command and punish answerably to the word of God in all spiritual, or ecclesiastical things, and causes, as well as in temporal. And no foreign Prince or prelate to have any jurisdiction, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, to establish, prohibit, correct, and chastise with public laws or temporal pains, any crimes or causes ecclesiastical or spiritual within her Realm. This Calvin and they of Magdeburge never misliked: howsoever you would seem to take advantage of their words.  Phi. 
Calvin saith it is sacrilege and blasphemy. Look you therefore with what consciences you take that oath, 
Supreme head no more blasphemous in the Prince than in the Pope to whom the Jesuits give that stile.  which your own master so mightily detesteth.  Theo. 
Nay look you with what faces you allege Calvin, who maketh that stile to be sacrilegious and blasphemous as well in the Pope, as in the Prince: Reason therefore, you receive or refuse his judgement in both. If it derogate from Christ in the Prince, so doth it in the Pope; if it do not in the Pope, as you defend, no more doth it in the Prince. Yet we grant the sense of the word supreme, as Calvin conceived it by Steven Gardiner's answer, and behaviour, 
Calvin mistook supreme by Gardiner's wily suggestion,  is very blasphemous and injurious to Christ, and his word, whether it be Prince or Pope that so shall use it. For by supreme Calvin understood a power to do what the Prince would in all matters of religion without respect to the will, or precepts of God: which is a thing most impious.  Phi. 
His words are, 
Calvin. in 7. Amos. Cal. Ibidem.  They were blasphemers in calling him supreme head of the Church under Christ.  Theo. 
They are so: but that which goeth before & followeth after, showeth in what sense he took the word supreme. At this day, saith he, where Popery continueth, how many are there which load the king with all the right and power they can, that there should be no disputing of religion, but this authority should rest in the king alone, to appoint at his pleasure what he list, and that to stand good without contradiction. They that first so highly advanced king Henry of England, were inconsiderate, they gave him supreme power of all things, and that was it which always wounded me. 
Steven Gardiner expounded supreme as if the prince might do what he would in matters of religion without regard of God o● his word.  Then succeed your words; and withal a particular exemplication how Steven Gardiner alleged and construed the King's stile in Germany. That juggler, which after was chancellor, I mean the Bishop of Winchester, when he was at Rentzburge, neither would stand to reason the matter nor greatly cared for any testimonies of the scriptures, but said it was at the kings discretion to abrogate that which was in use, & appoint new. (He said) the king might forbid priests marriage, the king might bar the people from the cup in the lords supper, the king might determine this or that in his kingdom. And why? Forsooth the king had supreme power. This sacrilege hath taken hold on us (in Germany) whiles Princes think they cannot reign, 
How calvin understood Supreme head.  except they abolish all the authority of the church, & be themselves supreme judges as well in doctrine, as in all spiritual regiment.  
This was the sense, which Calvin affirmed to be sacrilegious and blasphemous, for Princes to profess themselves supreme judges of Doctrine and discipline, and in deed it is the blasphemy which all godly hearts reject and abomine in the Bishop of Rome. Neither did King Henry take any such thing on him for aught that we can learn: But this was Gardiner's Stratagem to convey the reproach and shame of the six articles from himself, and his fellows that were the authors of them, and to cast it on the king's supreme power. 
Supreme must be referred to person's and not to things.  Had Calvin been told that supreme was first received to declare the Prince to be superior to the Prelates (which exempted themselves from the King's authority by their Church liberties and immunities) as well as to the Lay men of this realm, and not to be subject to the Pope; who claimed a jurisdiction over all Princes and Countries: the word would never have offended him; but as this wily fox framed his answer, when the Germans communed with him about the matter, we blame not Calvin for mistaking, but the Bishop of Winchester for perverting the king's stile, & wresting it to that sense which all good men abhor.  Phi. 
Do not you at this day make the Queen supreme Governor of all ecclesiastical doctrine and discipline? And what discrepance I pray you between judge and Governor?  Theo. 
You may be Steven Gardiner's scholar, you be so well trained in his method, and maxims. We told you long since and often enough, if that will serve, the prince by her stile doth not challenge, neither do we by our oath give her highness power, to debate, decide, or determine any point of faith or matter of religion, much less to be supreme judge or governor of all doctrine and discipline: But if in her realm, you will have the assistance of the magistrates sword to settle the truth, 
We give the Prince no right to be judge of religion, but power to receive & settle in her realm that which is good both in doctrine & discipline.  and prohibit error, and by wholesome punishments to prevent the disorders of all degrees, that authority lieth neither in Prelate nor Pope, but only in the Prince: and therefore in her Dominions you can neither establish doctrine nor discipline by public Laws without her consent. This neither Calvin, nor the compilers of the Centuries, nor any other of sound religion ever did, or justly can mislike: only, Jesuits & their adherents would feign reserve this power to the Pope in all Christian realms, because they be sure he will allow and suffer no religion but his own: and so long their profession shall not miscarry.  Phi. 
The Centurists say: Princes may not be heads of the Church, that primacy is not fit for them.  Theo. 
That word if they mislike, we stand not for it. The holy Ghost hath invested the son of God with it, and therefore reason princes even for reverence to him should forbear the stile which he first used, & most esteemeth. And though some defence might be brought for the word, as that which Samuel said to Saul, 
a 1. Sam. 15.  When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made HEAD of the tribes of Israel? For the Lord anointed thee king over Israel: and that which David saith of himself, 
b 2. Sam. 22.  Thou hast made me HEAD of the heathen: and that which isaiah saith of the king of Syria, 
c isaiah. 7.  THE HEAD of Aram is Damascus, and the HEAD of Damascus, is Rezni: and again, 
d isaiah. 9  the honourable man he is the HEAD; as also S. Paul: 
e 1. Cor. 11.  the man is the woman's HEAD: & Chrysostom not sticking to call certain women that laboured in the Gospel, 
f Chrysost. in ca 4. ad Philip. homil. 13.  HEAD OF THE CHURCH at Philippi: and saying of Theodosius the Emperor, 
g Idem homil. 1. ad Papil. Antioch.  Summitas & caput omnium super terram hominum, SUPREME AND HEAD of all mortal men: Though these and many like places might be brought to avouch the word, HEAD; yet because that title, HEAD OF THE CHURCH, rightly and properly belongeth only to Christ, & not to Princes without many mitigations and cautions: 
Head of the Church belongeth properly to Christ.  and head as it is applied to Princes is all one with Supreme, for it importeth but the chiefest or highest person of the Church on earth: and with the regiment of the Church whereof Christ is head, I mean his mystical body, Princes have nothing to do, yea many times they be scant members of it: and the Church in each country may stand without Princes as in persecution it doth, and yet they not headless; we think not good to contend with our brethren for words, and to grieve their ears with titles first abused by the pope, and first reproved in him, so long as in matter and meaning there is no discord betwixt us.  Phi. 
Will you make us believe, they mislike nothing but the words head of the Church?  Theo. 
yes they mislike, that Princes should mingle truth with falsehood, and temper religion with corruption as their private fancies lead them, which we mislike no less than they. This is the scope (of our speech) say they, that it is not lawful for civil Magistrates to devise forms of religion in destruction of the truth: 

Praefat. 7. Centuriae.  
Prince's may not be devisers of new religions.   and so to reconcile truth and error that they may both be lulled asleep. They may not prescribe religions alone, they must not engender new articles of the faith; they must not strangle the truth with errors, and shackle it when it is revealed, that they may let lose the bridle to corruption. These be the points which they dislike, and we be as far from approving any such thing in Princes, as you or they.  Phi. 
If the Prince establish any religion, 
We may by our oath serve God & not men, if their laws descent from his.  whatsoever it be, you must by your oath obey it.  Theo. 
We must not rebel and take arms against the prince, as you affirm, you may: but with reverence and humility serve God before the Prince, and that is nothing against our oath.  Phi. 
Then is not the Prince supreme.  Theo. 
Why so?  Phi. 
Yourselves are superior, when you will serve whom you list.  Theo. 
As though to serve God according to his will were to serve whom we list, and not whom Princes and all others ought to serve.  Phi. 
But you will be judges, when God is well served and when not.  Theo. 
If you can excuse us before God, when you misled us, we will serve him, as you shall appoint us: 
We be subject to Princes in that we must suffer, not in that we must obey whatsoever they command.  otherwise if every man shall answer for himself, good reason he be master of his own conscience in that which toucheth him so near, and no man shall excuse him for.  Phi. 
This is to make every private man supreme judge of religion.  Theo. 
The poorest wretch that is may be supreme Governor of his own hart: Princes rule the public and external actions of their Countries, but not the consciences of men: and therefure this thwartling is to no purpose.  Phi. 
By what authority then in the first Parliament of the Queen's highness reign, 
Apol. c. 4. sect. 6.  was the determination, decision and definition of truths or of heresies and errors; of the true worship of God and the false, attributed to that Court of the states no less or rather more than to the four first or any other general Council: to which the deciding of such things is there granted with this limitation, so far as they can warrant their doings by the express words of Canonical Scriptures, and no farther: but to the Parliament absolutely, decreeing at the same time, that nothing there determined should be counted heresy, error or schism, what order, decree, sentence, constitution, or law so ever were to the contrary, the holy Scriptures themselves not excepted.  Theo. 

The Jesuits as bold with the Parliament as they be with the Prince.  It is no wonder to see you quarrel with the court of the States, that are so busy with the Prince's Crown. And therein, as in the former, your behaviour doth not change. For entering with a manifest untruth, and keeping on a course of empty and haughty words, which is your glory, you tell us at length with pride enough, that our Laws be strange and unnatural dealings, proceed dishonourable to her MAJESTY and the Realm, 
Apol. cap. 4. sect. 10.  against God's express commandment lymiting his constant and permanent truth, to mortal men's wills and fancies, violent disorders, which to all our posterity must needs breed shame and rebuke, unjust, and therefore bind not in conscience; repugnant to the dignity and privileges of the Church, against the oath of the makers, and in deed no Laws at all, the makers lacking competent power, authority and jurisdiction to proceed judicially and authentically to hear, determine and define 〈◊〉 give sentence in any such things as be mere ecclesiastical, with a number of those bold and stately brags, having neither proof of your part, nor reproof of ours, but only pretending certain legalities, quiddities & solemnities of human judgements, which in God's cause be very ridiculous, and in matters of faith more than superfluous. 
God will not be tied to the form of human judgements.  For God will not have his truth depend either on the numbers or qualities of persons; and when his word is offered, we may not stand staggering till the Pope and his Cardinals please to assemble, and there judicially and authentically hear and determine what they think good, which I win they will never against themselves.  

The Church planted without any judicial process.  Christ sent not judges with judicial process, but a few disciples with the sound of their voices to convert the world; the Prophets that taught the people of God, and reproved both Priests and Princes, used no legal nor authentical proceed, but a bare proposing the will of God to such as would believe. The Kings and Princes before Christ that subverted Idols and reformed religion in their realms relied on their Princely Power and zeal, for the doing of that service, and not on the ceremonial and sentential acts and decrees of Priests or Prophets. The Christian Princes, take which you will, that first received and after restored the faith in their Empires and kingdoms, tied not themselves to the voices and suffrages of the Clergy that were in present possession of their Churches: but often times removed them without Council or common consultation. You may do well to correct S. Paul, where he saith, 
Apol. cap. 4.  faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God: and to add, faith cometh by 
a sect. 19  judicial cognition, and 
b sect. 12.  competent jurisdiction of such as have 
c sect. 19  legal means to deliberate and pronounce of God and his truth.  Phi. 
Would you have such disorder and confusion suffered in the Church, that every man should follow what he list? 
Christ will not be subject to the voices of men.   Theo. 
I would not have such presumption or wickedness brought into the Church, that Christ, or his word should be subjecteth to the wills or voices of mortal men: for though the whole world pronounce against him, or it, God will be true and all men shall be liars.  Phi. 
No more would we.  Theo. 
Why then restrain you truth to the assemblies and sentences of Popes and Prelates, as though they must be gently entreated and fairly offered by Christ, before he might attempt or should expect to recover his own.  Phi. 
We would have things done orderly.  Theo. 
Call you that order, where Christ shall stand without doors till your Clergy consent t● bring him in?  Phi. 
God is not (the author) of confusion but of peace. 
He hath authority enough that hath God on his side.   Theo. 
It is no confusion for one family, yea for one man to serve God though all the families and men of the same realm besides will not. joshua said to the whole people: 
a jos. 24.  If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom you will serve, but I and mine house will serve the Lord. Elias was 
b 3. Kings. 19  left alone for any that he saw willing to serve God in Israel, and yet that abated not his zeal. Micheas alone 
c 3. Kings. 22.  opposed himself against four hundredth Prophets, with what judicial authority can you tell? jeremy assured the Priests and Prophets of jerusalem that God would 
d jerem. 23.  forsake them; and that he did without any legal means that we can read. Amos spared neither 
e Amos. 7.  jeroboam the King, nor Amaziah the Priest, and yet he was but a simple herdman, and not so much as the son of a Prophet. john Baptist had no competent jurisdiction over the Scribes and Pharisees that sat in Moses chair, and yet he condemned them for 
f Mat. 3.  a generation of vipers. The Counsels where 
g Acts. 5.  Peter, 
h 6.  Steven, 
i 23.  Paul, and other of the Disciples were convented, accused and punished, lacked none of your judicial formalities, and solemnities, and yet the Apostles stoutly resisted and utterly contemned both their deliberative, and their definitive sentences.  
In deed your forefathers assaulted our Saviour himself with that very question; 
The wicked always asked the godly for their authority.  as also they did john before him, and the Apostles after him. When the Lord was teaching in the temple, the chief Priests and the elders of the people came unto him and said, 
Mat. 21.  by what authority dost thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? When john began to baptise, 
joh. 1.  the jews sent priests and Levites from jerusalem to ask him, WHO ART thou? And when he denied himself to be either Elias, or the Prophet that was looked for, they inferred, 
joh. 1.  Why Baptizest thou then, if thou be neither Christ, nor Elias, nor the Prophet? And even so they asked the Apostles, 
Acts. 4.  by what power, or in what name have you done this?  Philand. 
The Apostles commission we know, but yours we know not. 
He that preacheth the same doctrine which the Apostles did, hath the same commission which they had.   Theo. 
You can not be ignorant of ours, if you know theirs. So long as we teach the same Doctrine which they did, we have the same power and authority to preach, which they had. Keep your competent jurisdictions, judicial cognitions and legal decisions, to yourself; the son of GOD first founded and still gathereth his church by the mouths of Preachers, not by the summons of Consistories: and he that is sent to preach may not hold his tongue and tarry, till my Lord the Pope, and his mitred fathers can intend to meet, and list to consent, to the ruin as they think, of their dignities and liberties.  Phi. 
Despise you Counsels?  Theo. 
By no means, so long as they be Counsels, that is sober and free conferences of learned and godly teachers: but if they wax wanton against Christ, and will not have truth received, until they have consented, we reject them as conspiracies of the wicked, which no Christian ought to reverence.  Phi. 

One man preaching truth hath warrant enough against the whole world.  Had you truth on your side you said somewhat, but you h●ue it not.  Theo. 
Then should that be the question betwixt us: & not whether the Prince might make Laws for Christ without your consents, or whether the Realm had competent power and authority to debate and determine without a Council what religion they would profess. For though the Prince and the realm have done nothing herein, that Gods and man's Law doth not warrant, yet may we not suffer you to stand on these quirks to delude God and his truth: 
Tertul. de virg. velandis.  against the which, as Tertullian saith, no man may prescribe, not space of times, not patronage of persons, not privilege of places. He therefore that defendeth truth, 
The whole world drowned for resisting the preaching of one man.  is armed with authority sufficient though all the world were against him, as it was against Noah, when GOD saved him and drowned them, for a monument of his justice, to quail the rout, and pair the pride of such as after should resist the meanest servant that he would send.  Phi. 
Still you ground yourselves, as if you had the truth.  Theo. 
If we have, 
Whether side hath truth must be the question, the rest is superfluous quarreling.  the poorest Preacher in this Realm, hath lawful power enough to pronounce the Pope and all his Cardinals to be heretics: and therefore whether we have or no must be the question.  Phi. 
We say you have not: and yet if you had, your proceed in it are disorderly.  Theoph. 
You must show us some reason.  Phi. 
The Prince and Court of Parliament hath no more lawful means to give order to the Church and Clergy in these things, than they have to make Laws for the hierarches of Angels in heaven. 
Apol. cap. 4. sect. 21.   Theo. 
Will you suffer God himself to make Laws for his Church?  Phi. 
What else?  Theo. 
And may not every private man for his own person embrace those Laws, 
God must be obeyed, when he commandeth, whosoever dissent.  which God hath made, whosoever say nay?  Phi. 
He must.  Theo. 
May not the Prince and the people do the like?  Phi. 
They may no doubt embrace the Laws of God.  Theo. 
What if some Bishops will not agree they shall? must the Prince and the people cease to serve God till the Clergy be better minded?  Phi. 
That is odiously spoken.  Theo. 
But truly. The case between the Clergy and the laity in the first Parliament of her majesties reign, was whether God should be served according to his word, or according to the devices and abuses of the Romish Church. 
The Jesuits call it a disorder to obey God before the Bishops.  The prince, as also the Nobles and commons submitted their consents to the word of God: the Bishops refused. The foundation of all the Laws of our Country being this, that what the Prince and the most part of her Barons and Burgesses shall confirm, that shall stand for good, there was no disorder nor violence offered in that Parliament, as you lewdly complain, but that to public protection which the Prince and most part had agreed on.  Phi. 
In matters of faith the Prince and the lay Lords had no voices.  Theo. 
In making laws they had.  Phi. 
True, but laws for religion they might not prescribe.  Theo. 
No more might Bishops: It is only God's office to appoint how he will be served.  Phi. 
God's will must be learned at the mouths of Bishops.  Theo. 
They must teach, leaving always this liberty to the Prince and people, to examine their doctrine, and avoid their errors; and if they teach not truth, the Prince and people may repel them, as the Parliament did which you speak of.  Phi. 
The decision of truth or heresy pertained not to that Court. 
Apol. cap. 4. sect. 6.   Theo. 
They took it not upon them.  Phi. 
Yeas. The determination, decision and definition of truths and errors, 
The Prince and the Parliament took not upon them the decision but the permission & protection of truth.  of the true worship of God and the false is attributed to that Court no less or rather more than to the four first, or any other general council.  Theo. 
The simple rustics of our Country do not so grossly conceive of their acts and decrees as you do that would seem great masters in Israel. For who knoweth not, that in divers realms have been diverse positive laws, and in this kingdom within our age clean contrary parliaments? No man is therefore so foolish as to think it, neither is any besides you so malicious as to report it, that the temporal States of this Realm took upon them the absolute deciding of truths and errors above the four first general Counsels, 
Queen Mary by Parliament received the Pope, why might not Queen Elizabeth do as much for Christ?  yea the holy scriptures themselves not excepted.  Phi. 
What did they then?  Theo. 
They submitted themselves and the public state of this Realm, to the word of God, which by law they might, as well as the same Court six years before in the first of Queen Mary subjecteth this Realm to the Pope's decrees and fancies.  Phi. 
The Parliament of Queen Marie can not be misliked for admitting the faith of their fathers.  Theo. 
Much less can the Parliament of Queen Elizabeth be reproved for receiving the faith of Christ.  Phi. 
The faith of Christ is in question: the faith of our fathers is not.  Theo. 
The faith of Christ we be bound to keep, 

We be bound to the faith of Christ, not of our fathers.  
Deut. 32.   the faith of our fathers we be not.  Phi. 
Keeping the faith of our fathers we can not miss the faith of Christ.  Theo. 
What privilege had our fathers more than we that they could not err?  Phi. 
Ask thy father, saith Moses, and he will show thee; thine elders, and they will tell thee.  Theo. 
Shall not we be fathers to our posterity, as well as our ancestors were to us?  Phil. 
Yeas.  Theo. 
Then must our children ask of us, as we must of those that were before us. If therefore we may err, why might not our fathers as well err in their generations before us?  Phi. 
They kept the steps of their fathers, 
They be gone from the faith of their first fathers and eagerly follow the blindness of their later fathers.  which if you do, you shall not err.  Theo. 
This is the next way round about to come to the wood. For how will you prove that every generation which hath been these 1500. years since Christ, hath precisely kept the rules and limits of their forefathers?  Phi. 
You can not show when or where they swerved.  Theo. 
If we could not, our ignorance in that point, is no great security for your faith. The defection of every age from their fathers might be either not marked, or not recorded, or since oblitered; and therefore reason you prove your faith to have descended from age to age without alteration, before we believe it to be the faith of your fathers.  

God hath not referred us from his word, to our fathers.  But what meaneth this that you prescribe that way to judge of religion and the service of God, which God himself prohibiteth?  Phi. 
Doth God forbidden us to follow our fathers?  Theo. 
In as plain words as can be spoken with a tongue: by the mouth of Ezechiel he saith, Walk ye not in the precepts of your fathers, 
Ezech. 20.  neither observe their manners, nor defile yourselves with their idols. I am the Lord your God, walk in my statutes, and keep my judgements. 
Psal. 78.  By David he saith, Let them not be as their fathers were, a disobedient and rebellious generation: a generation that set not their heart aright, & whose spirit was not faithful unto God. And dehorting them from their father's steps: 
Psal. 95.  To day, saith David, if you will hear (Gods) voice, harden not your hearts, as in the day of contention, & as in the day of temptation in the wilderness, where your fathers tempted & proved me though they had seen my works. Forty years did I contend with that generation, and said, they are a people that err in heart, they have not known my ways. By Zacharie he saith, 
Zach. 1.  Be ye not, as your fathers, unto whom the former Prophets have cried saying, Thus saith the Lord of host●●, turn you now from your evil ways and from your wicked works, but they would not hear nor hearken unto me saith the Lord. And what you count devotion & humility for the people to follow their fathers, that God himself calleth defection & conspiracy. 
jerem. 11.  I have protested unto your fathers, ever since I brought them out of the land of Egypt to this day, saying, obey my voice. Nevertheless they would not obey, nor incline their ear, but every one walked in the stubbornness of his wicked heart. And of the children doing as their fathers did he saith, A conspiracy is found among the men of judah and among the inhabitants of jerusalem. 
Ibidem vers. 9  They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers that refused to hear my words. With what face then can you deal so earnestly with the simple subjects of this Land, to regard neither God nor his word, but only to run the race of their Elders, seeing God so straightly commanded the children of Israel to beware the paths and presidents of their forefathers?  Phi. 
We must beware their wickedness.  Theo. 
Then may they be wicked and so no patterns for us or any others to follow. 
Our fathers may err, though his elect can not.   Phi. 
The jews were wicked.  Theo. 
What charter can you show, that christians shall not be the like?  Phi. 
Hell gates shall not prevail against the church of Christ.  Theo. 
No more did they prevail against the chosen and elect of Israel: but the greatest number and gayest men are not always the church of God. 
2. Tim. 2.  The foundation of God standeth sure, and hath this zeal, the Lord knoweth who are his. Of his elect which are his true church our Saviour hath pronounced it is not possible they 
Mat. 24.  should be deceived: the rest have no such privilege; yea rather the holy Ghost forewarneth that all besides the elect shall be deceived. 
Mark. 13.  Our Saviour our saith, 
Mat. 24.  There shall arise false Christ's and false Prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, so that, if it were possible, they should deceive the very elect. The rest then, which are not elect, they shall deceive. And so S. Paul speaking of the very same deceivers, 
2. Thes. 2.  addeth, whose coming is by the working of Satan with all power, and in all deceiveableness of unrighteousness among them that perish, because they received not the law of the truth, that they might be saved. And therefore God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies, that all they might be damned, which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. And S. john speaking of the beast that made war with the Saints & had power over every kindred, 
Reue● 13. All shall err saving the elect.  and tongue, and nation, saith, Therefore all that dwell upon the earth, shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life. So that the visible church, consisting of good & bad, elect and reprobate, hath no such promise, but she may err: only the chosen of Christ which are the true members of his body, 
The elect cannot be discerned of men.  properly called his church, they shall not err unto perdition: and those if you could point them out with your finger, the people might safely follow: otherwise if you set men to follow the rest of their fathers, be they never so many, never so grave, never so godly to your seeming: you bid them take the wide gate and broad way that leadeth to destruction, 
Mat. 7.  because there were many that entered it before them.  Phi. 
Will you make us believe that our fathers are perished? 
To follow the greatest number is most dangerous.   Theo. 
Who are perished, is not for us to pronounce. They were his servants that judgeth justly: neither have we to meddle with their doom, but to look to our own: yet this we can assure you, 
Mat. 22.  that many be called and few chosen, And therefore if you advise the people to imitate the multitude of their fathers, you teach them the right way to hell. And though we may not judge of your fathers, yet know you for a certainty that God is not afraid to judge them and condemn them, if they refused his truth, as you do.  
Neither is it any such dangerous doctrine to say that our forefathers have sinned and displeased God, 
Our Fathers sinned and rebelled against God.  as you would make it: the godly have always confessed it of their fathers: and not spared to tell the wicked so much to their fates. David slandered not his forefathers when he said: 
Psal. 106.  We have sinned with our fathers, we have done wickedly. Our fathers understood not thy wonders in Egypt, neither remembered they the multitude of thy mercies, but rebelled at the Sea, even at the red Sea. Daniel knew what he pronounced when he confessed: 
Dan. 9  O Lord to us (belongeth) open shame, to our kings, to our Princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee. Ezechiah was not ashamed to say: 
2. Chron. 29.  Our fathers have trespassed and done evil in the eyes of the Lord our God, and have forsaken him, and turned their backs. And lo, our fathers are fallen by the sword. john told the Pharisees to their faces, their fathers were vipers, and themselves venomous, in saying, 
Mat. 3.  ‛ Ye viper's brood; and Steven full of the holy Ghost rated the jews on this wise, 
Acts. 7.  Ye stiff-necked and of uncircumcised hearts and ears, ye have always resisted the holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you. It is therefore a strange course that you take to make the people disobey God to follow their fathers: and a stranger, that you freely permit all kind of Infidelity and tyranny to yourselves under the names of your fathers, as if the men that were before you could neither err, nor shed innocent blood.  Phi. 
What they could, we dispute not: we say they did not.  Theo. 
That must be proved, before you may propose their acts for your imitation. Their doings may be doubted & disliked as well as yours, & so the labour is all one to justify theirs and yours. 
Our fathers cannot prejudice the truth of God. Luke. 16.  Times and persons do not prejudice the truth of God. It is permanent in all ages, & eminent above all things. If your fathers disdained and pursued the truth as you do, they were enemies to God as you are, notwithstanding their earthly dignities and other excellencies, which may seem precious in your eyes, but are abominable in the sight of God, when men are void of truth.  Phi. 
We are not.  Theo. 
Leave then your fathers and other idle fancies, & go directly to that question. For if her Majesty received & established nothing but the truth of Christ in her Parliament, 
A parliament taking part with truth hath the warrant of God & the Magistrate.  in vain do you bark against God and the Magistrate, for lack of competent Courts, ecclesiastical judges, and legal means to debate and decide matters of religion. When God commandeth, all human bars and Laws do cease. If they join with God, they may be used: if they impugn the truth, they must be despised.  
And yet in our case the sceptre united and adjoined itself to the word of God: and therefore if Princes may command for truth in their own dominions, as I have largely proved they may: why should not the Prince having the full consent of her Nobles and Commons restore and settle the truth of God within her Realm?  Phi. 
Lay men may not pronounce of faith.  Theo. 
But lay men may choose what faith they will profess, 
Lay men may make their choice what faith they will profess.  and Princes may dispose of their kingdoms, though Priests and Bishops would say nay.  Phi. 
Religion they may not dispose without a Council.  Theo. 
Not if God command?  Phi. 
How shall they know what God commandeth unless they have a council?  Theo. 
This is childish wrangling. I ask, if God command whether the Prince shall refuse to obey till the clergy confirm the same?  Phi. 
You may be sure a wise and sober Clergy will not dissent from God's precepts.  Theo. 
What they will do, is out of our matter: but in case they do; to which shall the Prince hearken, to God or those that bear themselves for Priests?  Phi. 
In case they do so, you need not doubt, but God must be regarded, and not men.  Theo. 
And hath the Prince sufficient authority to put that in ●●e which God commandeth, 
The Prince is authorized from God to execute his commandment.  though the Priests continue their wilfulness?  Phi. 
There is no council nor consent of men good against God.  Theo. 
Hold you there. Then when christian Princes are instructed and resolved by learned and faithful teachers what God requireth at their hands, what need they care for the backward disposition of such false Prophets as are turned from the truth and preach lies?  Phi. 
In England when her Majesty came to the Crown, it was not so. The Bishops that dissented, were grave, virtuous and honourable Pastors, standing in defence of the catholic and ancient faith of their fathers.  Theo. 
You say so: we say no.  Phi. 
Those be but words.  Theo. 
You say very right; and therefore the more to blame you, that in both your books do play on that string with your Rhetorical and Thrasonical fluence, 
The Jesuits presume that all is the●●s.  and never enter any point or proole, that may profit your Reader. You presume yourselves to have such apparent right and rule over the faith, over the church, over christian Princes & Realms, that without your consent they shall neither conclude, nor consult what religion they will profess: Their acts shall be disorders, their laws injuries, their correction tyranny, if you mislike them. This dominion and jurisdiction over all kingdoms and countries, if your holy father and you may have for the speaking, you were not wise if you would not claim it; but before we believe you, you must bring some better ground of your title than such magnifical and majestical flourishes. 
The Prince may command for truth, though the bishops would say no.   
The Prince and the Parliament, you say, had no power to determine or deliberate of those matters. And why so? You did dissent. May not the Prince command for truth within her Realm, except your consents be first required and had? May not her highness serve Christ in making Laws for Christ, without your liking?  
Claim you that interest and prerogative, that without you nothing shall be done in matters of religion, by the laws of God, 
The Jesuits have neither God's law nor man's to make that which the Prince and the Parliament did, to be void for lack of the Bishop's assents.  or by the liberties of this realm? By the laws of the Land you have no such privilege. parliaments have been kept by the king and his Barons, the clergy wholly excluded, and yet their acts and statutes good. And when the Bishops were present, their voices from the conquest to this day were never negative. By Gody law, you have nothing to do with making laws for kingdoms and commonwealths. You may teach, you may not command: Persuasion is your part, compulsion is the Princes. If Princes embrace the truth, you must obey them: If they pursue truth, you must abide them. By what authority then claim you this dominion over Princes, that their laws for religion shallbe void unless you consent?  Phi. 
They be no judges of faith.  Theo. 
No more are you. It is lawful for any Christian to reject your doctrine, if he perceive it to be false, though you teach it in your churches and pronounce it in your counsels, to be never so true.  Phi. 
That proveth not every private man's opinion to be true.  The. 
Nor yet to be false; the greater number is not ever a sure warrant for truth. And judges of faith, though Princes be not, yet are they maintainers, establishers and upholders of faith with public power, & positive laws, which is the point you now withstand.  Phi. 
That they may do when a council is precedent to guide them.  Theo. 
What council had Asa the king of judah when 
The Kings of judah did command for truth without Counsels.  he commanded his people to do according to the law, and the commandment, and made 
2. Chron. 14. Cap. 15. Cap. 15.  a covenant that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be ●laine?  Phi. 
He had 
Cap. 15.  Azariah the Prophet.  Theo. 
One man is no Council; and he did but encourage and commend the King, and that long after he had established religion in his realm.  
What Council had Ezechiah to lead him when he restored the true worship of God throughout his land, 
2. Chron. 29.  and was feign to send for the Priests and Levites and to put them in mind of their duties?  
What council had josiah, when ten years after his coming to the crown he was forced to send for direction to Huldath the Prophetess, 
4. Kings. 22.  not finding a man in judah that did, or could undertake the charge?  Phi. 
These were kings of the old Testament: and they had the Law of God to guide them.  Theo. 
Then since christian Princes have the same Scriptures which they had, 
Christian Princes may do the like.  and also the Gospel of Christ and apostolic writings to guide them, which they had not, why should they not in their kingdoms retain the same power, which you see the kings of judah had & used to their immortal praise and joy?  Phi. 

Constantine authorized Christian religion without any Council.  The christian Emperors ever called Counsels, before they would attempt any thing in Ecclesiastical matters.  Theo. 
What council had Constantine, when with his Princely power he publicly received and settled christian religion throughout the world, 
Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 2. justinian had no Council for the making of his constitutions.  twenty years before the fathers met at Nice? What counsels had justinian for all those ecclesiastical constitutions and orders, which he decreed and I have often repeated? What counsels had Charles for the church laws and chapters which he proposed and enjoined as well to the Pastors as to the people of his Empire?  Phil. 
They had instruction by some godly Bishops that were about them.  Theo. 
Conference with some Bishops, su●h as they liked, they might have: but counsels for these causes they had none.  
In 480. years after christian religion was established by christian Laws, I mean from Constantine the first, to Constantine the seventh, there were very near forty christian Emperors, whose Laws and acts for ecclesiastical affairs were infinite: 
But 6. general Counsels in 790. years.  and yet in all that time they never called but six general Counsels, and those for the Godhead of the Son and the holy Ghost, & for the two distinct natures and wills in Christ: All other points of christian doctrine and discipline they received, established and maintained without ecumenical counsels, upon the private instruction of such Bishops and Clerks as they favoured or trusted.  

S●c. lib. 5. ca 10. Theodosius made his own choice what religion he would establish, & when the second general council could not get him to receive the Arians from their churches, Amphilochius did win him to it. Theod. lib. 5. cap. 16.  Theodosius, as I showed before, made his own choice what faith he would follow, and had no man, nor means to direct him unto truth, but his own prayers unto God, and private reading of those sundry confessions that were offered him. And when neither Bishops nor Counsels could get him to remove the Arians from their churches, Amphilochius alone with his witty behaviour, & answer won him to it. For entering the Palace, and finding Arcadius the eldest son of Theodosius lately designed Emperor and sitting with his father, Amphilochius did his duty to the father and made no account of his son that sat by him. Theodosius thinking the Bishop had forgotten himself, willed him to salute his son: to whom the Bishop replied, that which he had done to the father was sufficient for both. Whereat when the Emperor began to rage, & to con●●er the contempt of his son for his dishonour, the wise Bishop inferred wi●h a loud voice, Art thou so grieved, O Emperor, to see thy son neglected, and so much out of patience with those that reproach him? Assure thyself then that almighty God hateth the blasphemers of his Son, and is offended with them as with ungrateful wretches against their Saviour and deliverer.  
Had you been in the primative church of Christ you would have gallantly disdained these and other examples of christian kings and Countries converted & instructed sometimes by Merchants, 
Realms have been Christened upon the persuasions of Lay men & weemen.  sometimes by women, most times by the single persuasion of one man without all legal means or judicial proceed: the poor souls of very zeal embracing the word of life when it was first offered them, and neglecting your number of voices, consent of Priests, & competent courts, as frivolous exceptions against God, & dangerous lets to their salvation.  
Frumentius a christian child, taken prisoner in India the farther, and brought at length by God's good providence to bear some sway in the Realm in the nonage of the king, 
India converted by Merchants.  carefully sought for such as were christians among the Roman Merchants, and gave them 
* Ruffin. l. 1. ca 9  most free power to have assemblies in every place yielding them whatsoever was requisite, and exhorting 
* And never asked the Priests leave so to do.  them in sundry places to use the christian prayers. And within short time he built a Church & brought it to pass that some of the Indians were instructed in the faith, and joined with them.  
The king of Iberia near Pontus, when he saw his wife restored to health by the prayers of a christian captive, and himself delivered out of the sudden danger that he was in, only by thinking and calling on Christ, whom the captive woman named so often to his wife, sent for the woman, and desired to learn the manner of her religion, and promised after that never to worship any other God but Christ. The captive woman taught him as much as a woman might: & admonished him to build a church and described the form (how it must be done). Whereupon the 
* 
Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 19  
Iberia converted by a woman.  
Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 10.  
The Jesuits would have been eloquent against this King, that yielded his Realm to Christ at the direction of a see●●e wench.   king calling the people of the whole nation together told them what had befallen the Queen and him, and taught them the faith, and became as it were the Apostle of his nation, though he were not yet baptised.  
The examples of England, France & other countries, are innumerable, where kings & commonwealths at the preaching of one man, have submitted themselves to the faith of Christ, without counsels or any Synodal or judicial proceed. And therefore each Prince & people without these means have lawful power to serve God & Christ his Son, notwithstanding twenty Bishops, as in our case: or if you will, 
Any man may serve Christ whosoever say nay.  twenty thousand Bishops, should take exceptious to the Gospel of truth, which is nothing else but to wax mad against God, by pretence of human reason and order.  Phi. 
Their examples and yours are not like. They received the same faith that the church of Christ professed, 
Many Countries received the faith before they knew what the Church ●●nt.  you do not.  Theo. 
They know not what the church of christ meant, when they submitted themselves to the faith of Chri●●; they respected not the countenances of men, but the promises of God when they first believed. And were you not so wedded to the Pope's tribunals & decrees that you think the God of heaven should not prevail nor command without your allowance, you would remember that the church her sel● was first collected and after increased by Christ's Apostles, maugre the councils of Priests and Courts of Princes that derided the baseness, and accused the boldness of such as would preach Christ without their permission.  Phi. 
The Apostles had a just and lawful defence for their doings. 
Act. 5.   Theo. 
What was it? 

If truth were ●●ufficient ●●●charge for fishermen to withstand both Priests and Princes, much more may Princes upon that warrant neglect the consent of their own subjects, though they be Priests.  
john. 7.    Phi. 
We ought rather to obey God than men.  Theo. 
Was that authority sufficient for them to withstand the Synods of Priests and sword of Princes?  Phi. 
Most sufficient.  Theo. 
And the truth of God changeth not, neither doth his right to command against the powers and laws of all mortal men decay at any time.  Phi. 
By no means.  Theo. 
Then this must only be the question betwixt us, whether the Prince or the Prelates stood for that which God commandeth. If the Prince took part with God, than your clergy were but Antichrist's Attorneys, and all your Apologies, Defences, Replications and Demonstrations are but profane brabbles and quarrels, such as julian or Porphyry might and did object against Christ, for that his faith came first into the world, by the disordered rashness, as they thought, and tumultuous headiness of the common people; even as the jews also disdained Christ himself, and said of his followers; Doth any of the Rulers or of the Pharisees believe in him? but this people, that know not the law, are cursed. If your Bishops held the faith, then had you wrong before God, but no violence before men sith every Realm may dispose themselves, their Lands, and livings, as they see cause, and make choice of their religion and teachers, though they take not upon them to decide and define which is truth and which error, as you falsely and scornfully report.  Phi. 
Thy make it treason to call their proceedings heresy.  Theo. 
To call the Prince tyrant or heretic, is no point of Religion, but plain railing on powers, 
Railing on Princes is prohibited by the Law of God.  which all christians are prohibited: That law represseth the filthiness of your tongues, it forceth not the persuasions of your hearts, it is no decision of heresy, but a prohibition of cursed and intemperate speech▪ which of duty you should forbear, and the Prince may justly punish.  Phi. 
Shall it be death for a man to speak what he thinketh?  Theo. 
If the speech be slanderous or opprobrious, why should it not? 
Exod. 21.  He that curseth his father or mother, shall die the death by the law of God: and the self same reverence is due to the magistrate, 
levit. 20.  thou shalt not rail upon the judge, nor 
Exod. 22.  speak evil of the ruler of the people: yea saith Solomon 
Eccle. 10.  Curse not the king, no not in thy thought: and though David himself in respect of his oath spared Shimei that railed on him, yet he charged Solomon his son to give him ●● his deserts. 
3. Kings. 2.  Thou shalt not count him innocent, for thou art wise, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him, therefore thou shalt cause his hoar head to go down to the grave with 
David judged Shimei worthy to die for railing on him.  blood. Therefore you must either leave railing with Shimei, or not think it much to suffer at salomon's hands as Shimei did.  Phi. 
The Prince's person we will spare, but that shall never drive us to think well of your proceedings.  Theo. 
If this Realm have received or established any other faith than that which Christ commanded, the Apostles preached, the catholic church embraced, then let all our proceed be violent, disordered and reproachful: but if we have not, then look to yourselves. For the Prince and the Parliament had Gods and man's authority to do as they did.  Phi. 
If, doth not hurt us: our faith is catholic.  Theo. 
No one point of your faith which we reject, is catholic: And the reformation which is now settled, by the laws of this Realm in matters of religion, is warranted by the word of God, and ancient judgement of Christ's church.  Phi. 
Nay our faith is grounded on the sacred Scriptures & the general consent of the catholic church.  Theo. 
Prove that and we require no more.  Phi. 
Will that content you?  Theo. 
Yea verily. But you were best, beginning a fresh matter, to spit in your hand and take better hold than heretofore you have done.  Phi. 
My handfast is so sure that you shall not shake it off.  Theo. 
Your heart serveth you, what soever your handfast doth. Proceeding with the next part we shall see how sure you hold.  
The end of the third part.   

THE FOURTH PART SHOWETH THE REFORMATION OF THIS Realm to be warranted by the word of God and the ancient faith of Christ's Church, and the Jesuits for all their cracks to be nothing less than Catholics.  Phi. 
WHAT one point of our religion is not catholic?  Theo. 
No one point of that, which this Realm hath refused, is truly catholic. Your having and adoring of images in the church: your public service in a ●oung not understood of the people: your gazing on the Priest whiles he alone eateth & drinketh at the lords table: your barring the people from the lords cup: your sacrificing the son of God to his father for the sins of the world: your adoring the elements of bread and wine with divine honour in stead of Christ: your seven Sacraments: your Shrift: your releasing souls out of Purgatory by prayers and pardons: your compelling Priests to live single: your meritorious vowing and performing Pilgrimages: your invocation of Saints departed: your rules of perfection for Monks and Friars: your relying on the Pope as head of the church, and vicar general unto Christ: these with infinite other superstitions in action, and errors in doctrine we deny to have any foundation in the Scriptures, or confirmation in the general consent or use of the catholic church.  Phi. 
We stick not on your words, which you utter to your most advantage: but be not these things as we defend them, and you reject them, Catholic?  The. 
Nothing less.  Phi. 
What count you catholic?  Theo. 
You were best define that: 
Vincentius Lirinens▪ advers. haeres.  it toucheth you nearest.  Phi 
I mean catholic, as Vincentius doth, that wrote more than 1100. years ago.  Theo. 
So do I And in that sense no point of your religion, which this Realm hath refused, is catholic.  Phi. 
All.  Theo. 
None.  Phi. 
These are but brags.  Theo. 
Indeed they are so. Nothing is more common in your mouths than catholic: and in your faith nothing less.  Phi. 
Who proveth that?  Theo. 
Yourselves, who after you have made great s●urre for catholic, catholic, and all catholic, when you come to issue you return it with a non est inventus.  Phi. 
Will you lie a little?  Theo. 
I might use that sometimes, which is so often with you: but in this I do not.  Phi. 
I say you do.  Theo. 
That will appear, if you take any of those points which I have rehearsed.  Phi. 
Which you will.  Theo. 
Nay the choice shall be yours, because the proof must be yours.  Phi. 
Take them as they lie. Having and worshipping of Images in the church, is it not catholic?  Theo. 
It is not.  Phi. 
Eight hundred years ago the general council of Nice, the second, decreed it lawful and ever since it hath been used.  Theo. 
Catholic should have four conditions by Vincentius rule, & this hath not one of them. 
How Vincentius defineth Catholics.  There can nothing be catholic, unless it be confirmed two ways: first by the authority of God's law, and next by the tradition of the catholic Church, not 
* Vincens. advers. haeres.  that the canon of the Scripture is not perfect & sufficient enough for all points of faith, but because many men draw and stretch the Scriptures to their fancies, 
* Vincent. Ibidem.  therefore it is very needful that the line of the Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation should be directed by the rule of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense. 

Ibidem.  
Quod semper, ubique & ab omnibus creditum est.   Now in the catholic Church herself we must take heed we hold that, which hath been believed, at all times, in all places, of all persons, for that is truly and properly catholic.  
By this rule your erecting & adoring of images in the church is not catholic. 
Worshipping of Images is against the Scriptures.  For first it is prohibited by god's law: & where the text goeth against you, the gloze cannot hel● you. If there be no precept for it in the word of god, in vain do you seek in the church for the catholic sense and interpretation of that which is no where found in the Scriptures. If it be not Prophetical nor Apostolical, it cannot be catholic nor ecclesiastical.  
Again, 
It hath not been believed at all times.  how hath this been always in the church, which was first decreed 780. years after Christ? It is too young to be catholic that began so late, you must go nearer Christ & his Apostles, if you will have it catholic or ancient.  
Thirdly all places & persons did not admit the decrees of that council. For besides Africa & Asia the greater, 
Neither in all places nor of all persons.  which never received them, the churches of England, France & Germany did contradict & refute both their actions & reasons. And in Greece itself not long before, a Synod of 
* Sigebert. in anno 755.  330. Bishops at Constantinople condemned aswell the suffering as reverencing of images.  Phi. 
The most part of this that you say is false: the rest we little regard, so long as we be sure the church of Rome stood fast with us.  Theo. 
All that I said is true: & as for the church of Rome, she can make nothing catholic. That the church of England detested that 2. council of Nice: Roger Hoveden, that lived 400. years ago, witnesseth. Charles the king of France sent over into England, the Acts of a Synod sent him from Constantinople: Where, out alas, are found many unseemly things & contrary to the true faith, specially for that it is there confirmed with the general assent of all the East teachers, 
Continuationes Bedae anno 792. The Church of England against Images.  to wit, of 300. Bishops & more, that images ought to be adored, the which the church of God utterly detesteth. Against the which Albinus wrote an epistle marvelously grounded on the authority of the divine scriptures, & carried it with the said Synodical acts in the name of our (english) Bishops & princes to the K. of France.  
Charles two years after called a great Synod of the Bishops of France, 
The churches of France, Italy & Germany, condemned the second council of Nice.  Italy and Germany, at Frankford: where the 2. council of Nice was rejected and refuted.  Phi. 
Nay the council of Constantinople against images was there reversed and explosed.  Theo. 
Your friends have done what they could, to make that seem likely, and many of your stories run that way for life, but the worst is, the men that lived and wrote in that very age do mar your play. Regino saith: 
Regino, lib. 2. anno 794.  Pseudo synodus Graecorum, quam pro adorandis imaginibus fecerant, à Pontificibus reiecta est. The false Synod of the Grecians which they made for defence of the worshipping of images, was rejected by the Bishops (assembled at Frankford under Charles.) Hincmarus' Archbishop of Rheims, then living when these things were in fresh memory, saith thus of Charles his Council: 

Hin●mar. Remens'. contra Hincmar. jandunensem epist. cap. 20.  
The Council of Nice the second refuted by a general Synod of Germany.  
A whole book written in the refutation of the 2. Nicene Council by Charles and his Bishops.  
The Monks have razed our Nice, and put in Constantinople. Vrspergens. in anno 793.  
That Council was assembled at Nice and not at Constantinople.   The seventh general council so called by the Grecians (in deed a wicked council) touching images, which some would have to be broken in pieces, & some to be worshipped, was kept not long before my time by a number of Bishops gathered together at Nice and sent to Rome, which also the Bishop of Rome directed into France. Wherefore in the reign of Charles the great, (the Sea apostolic willing it so to be) a general Synod was kept in Germany by the convocation of the said Emperor, and there by the rule of the Scriptures & doctrine of the fathers the false council of the Grecians was confuted, & utterly rejected. Of whose confutation t●ere was a good big book sent to Rome by certain Bishops from Charles, which in my young years I read in the Palace.  
Vrspergensis hath been under the file of some monkish depraver, as many other writers & fathers have been. For in him you have razed out the name of the city of Nice & put in Constantinople, to make men believe the Synod of Frankford condemned, not the 2. Nicene council that settled adoration of images, but an other of Constantinople that banished images. Vrspergensis saith, The Synod, which not long before was assembled under Irene & Constantine her son in Constantinople called by them the seventh general council, was there (in the council of Frankford) rejected by them all as void, and not to be named the 7. or any thing else. Here some foolish forger hath added these words (in Constantinople) whereas it is evident, the council under Irene and Constantine her son, was kept at Nice, & not at Constantinople, & Hincmarus that lived in the time of Charles and read the book itself of the Synod of Frankford, when it was first made, saith the Bishops assembled in Germany by Charles utterly rejected & refuted the council of Nice, called the seventh general council.  
The very same words (at Constantinople) are in the acts of the council of Frankford, as Laurentius Surius 
* Tomo Council 3. admonit. Surij ad lector. de Synod. Francof. ●ol. 226.  saith, though very falsely; for though that I find in the book itself, & contrary to the plain words, in many places and namely in the 4. book, 13. chapter, where they are refelled from comparing themselves with the 1. Nicene council, because they were assembled in the same city, & so li. 4. ca 24. But if the words had been conveyed in, as they are not, (except Surius copy be framed by Surius himself to verify his own saying) what proof is this that the Synod of Frankford never de●reed against adoration of Images, but rather with it, as that mouthie Friar observeth, where the reasons and authorities of the 2. Nicene council for adoring images, are truly and fully refuted throughout those four books? And his conclusion, that we have forged those books, & conveyed them into the Pope's library, where they lie written in ancient characters, as the 
* Augu. Steuch. de Donat. Constant. lib. 2. numero 60.  keeper of the Pope's library confesseth, is like the rest and not unlike himself, who careth not what he writeth, so it serve his humour, and help his cause.  
For otherwise who that were master of himself, would suppose it easier for us to forge four whole books in Charles name, and to write them in ancient hands, and thrust them into the Pope's library and into many other churches and abbeys, and no man spy it, than for you having the books so many hundredth years in your keeping to put in this one word (Constantinople?) And if our luck were so good, to forge so near the Pope's nose, and not be descried, who forged Hin●marus, Regino, Hoveden, Vrspergensis, Adonis, Aventine and others that testify the Council of Frankford refuted the false Synod which the Grecians kept 
* Adon. aetase 6. Auent. lib. 4. saith, Scitae Graeco●um de adorandis Imaginibus rescissa sunt.  Pro odorandis imaginibus, For the adoring of images? If you were so negligent, as to suffer so many to be forged against you and laid in your libraries, & you not find it: how just cause have we to persuade ourselves that you would wink with both eyes, when others should be corrupted to make for your purpose?  Phi. 
Many, 
Their Monks and Friars being worshippers of Image● themselves, would not believe that the 2. Nicen Council was condemned for decreeing Images to b● worshipped.  you know, report for us, that Charles and his council condemned the breakers of images; and a number of your own side confess the same.  Theo. 
In stories we must not respect the number & vehemency, but the antiquity and sincerity of the authors. Two hundredth, that lived long after, & were not acquainted with the deeds themselves: can not countervail two that lived in the same age, and had the full perusing of their acts. Again your later writers were all addicted to images, and therefore they would not acknowledge that ever the council of Frankford condemned the council of Nice for adoring images. Lastly it is not altogether a lie when they say the council of Frankford refused the council of Constantinople. For where the council of Constantinople said it was idolatry to have them, and the council of Nice defined it lawful to worship them, 
The book extant agreeth with this report of Hincmarus.  the council of Frankford, as Hincmarus confesseth, liked neither, but held it a thing indifferent to have them, & adjudged it a mere impiety to worship them.  Phi 
Then having of images, 
The west Church 800. years after Christ suffered stories to be painted and carved in the Church, but not to be worshipped, as the second Council of Nice concluded.  you grant, was catholic, though the worshipping of them, in some places were not so taken.  Theo. 
The having of images was never catholic, and the worshipping of them was ever wicked, by the judgement of Christ's church.  Phi. 
At this time the West church did not gainsay the having of them  Theo. 
The West church at this time used them only as ornaments, and monuments for the ruder sort to learn the lives and deaths of ancient & undoubted Martyrs: but if you forget not yourself, you be 800. years too short of catholic; & even then by the churches of England, France, Spain, and Germany, was the worshipping of images detested and refuted as contrary to the christian faith.  Phi. 
By worshipping and adoring of images, we do not mean, that godly honour should be given to them, but only a kind of external duty & reverence with the gesture of the body, as kneeling, kissing, censing, religious holding up of eyes and hands before them, with such like signs of outward submission.  Theo. 

The Grecians were not so brutish as to decree divine honour to stocks.  Neither do I think that Adrian the Bishop of Rome, or the Grecians were so blasphemous & brutish idolaters, that they decreed divine honour to dead & senseless stocks: though your Schoolmen not long before our age came to that gross & filthy doctrine, & salved it with a vain translation of the honour that was done to the image, as passing from the image to the principal itself represented by the image: But the Grecians I think meant an external regard & reverence, such as is given to the sacred vessels, books, & elements that are used in baptism & at the Lords Supper. 
The west Church refused to give any external honour to images.  For those be their own comparisons though their words be adoration & veneration: & yet that external & corporal honour given to images the West Bishops abhorred as neither catholic, nor christian, and the church of Christ long before them condemned as heretical.  
Gregory the first, 200. years before Charles called the council of Frankford, thought it not amiss to have painted histories suffered in the church, but in no wise the pictures to be worshipped. 
Greg. lib. 7. epist. 109.  Your brotherhood, saith he to Serenus Bishop of Massilia; seeing certain worshippers of images, broke the said images and cast them out of the church. The zeal which you had that nothing made with hands should be worshipped, we praise: but we think you should not have broken those images. 
Stories painted in the Church, but no picture worshipped.  For painting is therefore used in churches, that they which are unlearned may by sight read that in the walls, which in books they cannot. Your brotherhood should therefore have spared the breaking of them, & yet restrained the people from worshipping them, that the rude might have had, how to come by the knowledge of the story, & yet the people not 
* Sin to worship pictures.  sin in worshipping the picture. Painted stories, Gregory thought might be tolerated in the church, for the simple to learn the deaths and martyrdoms of many Saints, which in books they could not: but as for worshipping them, he confesseth the people should sin in doing it, and the Bishop did well in keeping them from it. 

Gregor. lib. 9 epist. 9  
The scriptures prohibit the worshipping of pictures. Ambros. de obi●●● Theodos. Error & wickedness to worship the Cross that Christ died on.  
Aug. de moribus ecclesiae Catholicae. lib. ●. cap. 34.    
And treating in an other place of the same matter, he saith: The children of the church now disperse are to be called together, and taught by the testimonies of the sacred scriptures, that nothing made with hands may be worshipped. And so concludeth, adoration of images by all means avoid.  
S. Ambrose speaking of that cross, on which Christ was crucified, saith: Helena found the title, & worshipped the king, not the wood surely: for that is the error of the Gentiles, and vanity of the wicked. S. Augustine requiring the Manichees to show what one thing they could mislike in the catholic church: Bring me not, saith he, such christians as either know not or keep not the force of their profession. Rake not after the rude sort, which even in true religion are entangled with superstition. Myself know many that are worshippers of tombs and pictures. I warn you that you cease to speak evil of the catholic church, by carping (these) men's manners, whom the church herself condemneth, and seeketh every day to correct them as ungracious children.  
Marcellina is reckoned and detested as an heretic by Ireneus, Epiphanius and Augustine, 
Bowing and burning incense to the Image of Christ objected to heretik● as Idolatry. August. de haeresib. haeres. 7. Epipha. in 80. haeres. anaceph● Epipha. lib. 1. ●om. 2. haeres. 27.  for having the images of Christ and Paul in her closet, and setting garlands on their heads and burning incense to them. Marcellina, saith Austen, was of Carpocrates sect, and worshipped the images of jesus, Paul, Homer and Pythagoras with bowing herself & burning incense. So saith Epiphanius. Of this sect was Marcillina of Rome. She made secretly the images of jesus and Paul, and Homer and Pythagoras, and burned incense to them & worshipped them. And charging the whole sect of Carpocrates, with the same fault, he saith: The heretics called Gnostici, Besides all this, have images painted with colours, and some of gold and silver, which they say are the images of jesus, and made in the time of Pontius Pilate, when (Christ) was conversant amongst men. These they keep closely. And so doth Ireneus also witness, 
Iren. li. 1. ca 24.  they all restraining and adjudging it to be heresy and idolatry to cense & bow to the image of Christ or Paul, as well as to the image of Homer or Aristotle.  Phil. 
Not so neither.  Theo. 
yes even so. This in manifest words is reckoned by these three fathers for a special point & part of their wickedness as well as the worshipping of other Philosopher's images. 
The worshipping of Christ's Image is idolatry.   Phi. 
Put you no distinction between the images of Christ, & other profane persons?  Theo. 
The worshipping of either, is heathenism & idolatry.  Phi. 
Call you the image of Christ an Idol?  Theo. 
Not unless it be worshipped: but if it be, then is it an Idol, & incense burnt unto it, is idolatry.  Phi. 
How prove you that?  Theo. 
If the judgement of Christ's church in accounting them heretics for that act do not weigh heavy enough with you, the law of God confirmeth the same.  Phi. 
Where?  The. 
You be not I trust to seek of that which every child with us can say: 
Exod. 20. Deut. 5.  Thou shalt make thee no graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them.  Phi. 
Doth this precept touch the image of Christ?  Theo. 
It toucheth any thing made with hands, that is worshipped, be it the image of God, of Christ, or of whom you wil  Phi. 
No Sir, it toucheth the images of false Gods, but not of the true God: for they be Idols, that are nothing.  Theo. 
We speak not of the things themselves but of their images made with hands. A false God is an idol in the heart of man, and so are all things in heaven and earth, to the which we give any such ghostly or bodily honour as God hath prohibited. Saint Paul calleth the 
* Ephes. 5.  covetous man a worshipper of idols: of others he saith, 
* Phil 3.  whose God is their belly, teaching us, that, whatsoever we love, 
Bodily or ghostly honour given to any thing which God prohibiteth is Idolatry.  serve or obey against the commandment of God, we make it our God by preferring it before the will and precepts of the true God: & in that it is our god, which of itself is not God, it is an idol, & the love, service, and honour, that is so yielded to it, is idolatry by the law of god. For this cause, the bowing our knees, and holding up our hands to an image, though it be not all the honour we owe and yield to god, yet is it such honour as he hath prohibited to be given to any thing made with hands, and in that respect our advised and determined doing it against his commandment is idolatry, For his precept is resolute: Thou shalt not make thee the likeness of any thing in heaven or earth, 
Exod. 20.  thou shalt not bow thyself before them, nor serve them.  Phi. 
This may not be understood of the image of the true God. For if the images of Princes may be reverenced, & idolatry not committed, much more the image of God.  Theo. 
Earthly similitudes of your making, may not control the heavenly precepts of Gods own giving. The images of Princes may not well be despited or abused, lest it be taken as a sign of a malicious hart against the Prince, but bowing the knee or lifting up the hand to the image of a Prince is flat & inevitable idolatry.  Phi. 
The image of God deserveth more honour than the images of men in respect of the person that is resembled.  The. 
You heard the plain precept of God commanding no such honour to be given to any image made with hands, no not to the image of himself.  Phi. 

God prohibiteth the worshipping of his own Image.  I hear you so interpret, but I hear not him so command.  Theo. 
You may when you will, the scripture in that point is very clear. Moses the reporter of the law from Gods own mouth, laying forth the ground of the second precept, saith: 
Deut. 4.  The Lord spoke unto thee out of the midst of the fire: and ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude. Take therefore good heed to yourselves, for you saw no image (of God) in the day that the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: that ye corrupt not yourselves, and make you a graven image (of God) or likeness of any figure whether it be of male or female, or of any beast that is on earth: And so along pursuing the several branches of the second commandment. They saw no shape of God, lest they should make them any image of God, contrary to that which he had commanded them.  

isaiah. 40.  By this precept isaiah proveth that God should not be figured. To whom then will you liken God? or what similitude will you set up unto him? And sharply rebuking the people for not remembering that part of the law, wherein they were charged to make no likeness nor similitude unto God, 
Ibidem.  he saith; Know ye nothing? Have ye not heard it? hath it not been told you from the beginning? Not meaning any secret or private instruction of man, but the open & written law of God, which was then delivered them, when they first became the people of God. 
Moses & Esay refer the second precept to any Image made with hands and erected unto God.  So that aswell the writer, as the interpreter of the law yield this to be the sense of the second precept, that no similitude or likeness should be made unto God because no such image can resemble the brightness of his glory, but only demonstrate the baseness of our fancy.  Phi. 
We talk not of making similitudes unto God that be unlike him, but of worshipping those that be like him.  Theo. 
And since none can be made, that is like him, the bowing to any is not the honouring of him, but the serving of idols, which he ahhorreth. Again, the first part of this precept, Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, 
The later part of the 2. precept forbiddeth to worship that which the first did forbid to make.  nor the likeness of any thing, directly concerning the shapes and images that any man would or could make unto God, as Moses and isaiah do witness, the rest of the same precept: Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them, must needs be referred to the selfsame similitudes and figures which before were prohibited to be made. Thirdly if any graven Image of God might be worshipped, why might it not be made, since it cannot be worshipped until it be made? God therefore prohibiting it to be made, instructeth us that though it were made, it should not be worshipped. And to that end God himself protesteth, 
Esa. 42.  My glory will I not give to an other, nor my praise to graven Images; meaning no part of the honour and service that is due unto him, whether it be spiritual, as fear, love, faith, obedience, prayers and thanks: or corporal; as bowing the knee, lifting up the hand, burning incense, and such like, which are Idolatries when they are done to Images as well as the former kinds of inward and Ghostly worship.  Phi. 
Idolatries they be, when they be done to the Images of false Gods which are Idols; not otherwise.  Theo. 
False Gods by nature there are none: 
1. Cor. ●.  We know, saith the Apostle, that an Idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one, and he is wholly truth: But the shape or figure made with hands, to resemble the true God, whatsoever it be, is an Idol, prohibited by God's Law, as I have proved; and therefore bowing the knee, or holding up the hand to it, is Idolatry condemned by that precept which I last repeated, Thou shalt not bow thyself to them, nor serve them.  Phi. 
What? not to the Image of the true God?  Theo. 
The Image of the true God, 
An Image made by man unto God, is but a dishonour unto God. Deut. 27.  made with hands, is a false God, and no likeness of his, but a lewd imagination of yours, set up to feed your eyes with the contempt of his sacred will, dishonour of his holy name, and open injury to his divine nature. For what resemblance hath a dead and dumb stock, shapened like a man, to the glorious, invisible and infinite Majesty of the living and everlasting God? How are you not afraid to defend the worshipper, when God accurseth the maker of any such carved or molten Image; as being an abomination in his sight? Doth your cunning or conscience serve you to gainsay the manifest voice of God himself speaking by his Prophet? 
Esa. 40.  To whom now will you liken me, that I should be like (him) saith the holy one?  Phi. 
We be not so foolish as to think the shape of a mortal man resembleth the incomprehensible substance of the deity.  Theo 
God grant you be not. Do you then acknowledge, that every likeness made with hands to represent the God of heaven, 
Every Image erected unto God is an Idol.  is an Idol?  Phi. 
Every likeness: what mean you by that?  Theo. 
I mean the likeness of man, woman, or of any other creature in heaven or earth.  Phi. 
It is somewhat hard to call the Image of God an Idol.  Theo. 
To call that an Idol which man maketh for an Image unto God, since God himself refuseth every such likeness, and pronounceth it 
Deut. 27. Sapient. 14. Esa. 44.  accursed and abominable, is no hardness at al. Yea rather to give it a better name, were to make God a liar, and in spite of his spirit to save the jews and Gentiles from that Idolatry, wherewith they were charged, and for the which they be condemned in the scriptures. For the things which they worshipped, they thought to be the Images of God, and in that respect did they honour not them so much as God by them, supposing them to be his Images.  Phi. 
The Gentiles and jews that were Idolaters, worshipped false Gods and not the Image of the true God.  Theo. 
Their false Gods were the works of men's hands made to resemble in their conceit the true God. 
The Idolatrous jews pretended to worship the Image of God when they set up the calf.  The children of Israel did not think their golden Calf to be a God, but minding to have some monument of God always in their sight to stir them to devotion, they made choice of a calf, because they had seen such Images set up to God in Egypt, where the people serving God in that visible shape were wealthy and mighty, by which blessings they conjectured God was well pleased with the service of Egypt; and therefore to testify their thankfulness for their deliverance, they erected an Image unto god their deliverer, and proclaimed 
* Exod. 32. verse. ●.  an holy day, (not to the calf but) unto the Lord. The mother of Micheala 
* judic. 17.  vowed silver unto the Lord, to make a graven and molten Image. Which she after perfected and named Teraphim, building a chapel and entertaining a Levite for it, in the honour no doubt of him to whom the silver was first dedicated.  
The jews in all their generations knew there was no god but one, and yet seeing the Gentiles that served god in the shape of a man or likeness of other creatures, to prosper and live at hearts ease, and oftentimes to be Lords over them that were the people of god, 
judic. 2.  they fell to the manners of the nations round about them, and honoured as they thought the true god of Israel with bodily shapes and figures, whereas god by his prophets notwithstanding their good intentions rejected and reproved that their service as done to strange gods and Idols. 
Baal was set up, for the Image of god.  Yea Baal itself, which the Scripture detesteth as a most infamous Idol, was nothing else but a corporal Image erected unto god: by which the people dreamt they served and pleased god, as may be gathered by Osee where god promiseth to receive Israel unto favour and to cause them to cease from their Idolatrous dishonouring him with the name of Baal. 
* Ose. 2.  At that day saith the Lord, thou shalt call me no more Baal: and by Esay where god denieth the Images that were set up for him, to be 
* Esa. 40.46.  like unto him.  
The very heathens were not so blind as to believe the things which they made with their hands were gods, neither did they set them up as gods, but rather as Images unto god, whom they thought to be delighted with that kind of visible and voluntary service. 
Ambr. in Psal. 118. sermo. 10.  Saint Ambrose saith of them: Gentes lignum adorant, quia Dei Imaginem putant: The heathen worship their (pieces of) wood, because they think them to be the Images of God. Themselves could answer the Christians in that sort, as Celsus in Origen: 
Origen. contra Celsum, lib. 7. The Heathen did not take their Images for Gods.  Quod si vel lapidem negent, vel lignum, vel aes, vel aurum Deum esse, ridiculum profecto erit id sapere. Quis enim eà nisi stolidus quispiam pro Dijs habuerit? Sed Deorum sunt ista vel sacra vel effigies quaedam. If the (Christians) deny things made of wood▪ stone, brass or gold to be God, we grant that were a ridiculous opinion. Who but a stark fool did ever account them for Gods? Yet these are services unto the Gods, or else certain resemblances of the Gods. 
Lactant. de fals. religione, lib. 2. cap. 20.  So Lactantius witnesseth of them: Non ipsa, inquiunt, timemus, sed eos ad quorum Imaginem ficta & quorum nominibus consecrata sunt. (The heathen) use to say, we stand not in awe of these (Images) but of them after whose likeness they be figured, & in whose names they be dedicated. Their words in Clemens are: 
Clemen. recognitio. ad jac. lib. 5. Aug. in Psal. 113. concione 2.  Nos ad honorem invisibilis Dei visibiles Imagines adoramus: We worship the images which we may see, in the honour of that God which can not be seen: And in S. Austen, Nec simulachrum, nec Daemonium colo, sed per effigiem corporalem eius rei signum intueor quam colere debeo. I worship neither the Image, 
Mark well this shi●●, and tell me what the Papists lack of it. Rom. 1  nor the Devil: but by a corporal figure I behold the sign of that which I ought to worship. Saint Paul chargeth all the Gentiles not with having new Gods, or other Gods, but for turning the truth of God unto a lie (to wit,) the glory of the incorruptible GOD to the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man, which they made and honoured as the Images of the true GOD.  
Grosser idolatry than the which can not be committed. 
It is wickeder Idolatry to worship an Image than to worship a creature.  For if to worship the creatures themselves which are the works of God's hands, and wherein his eternal power and divinity do appear, were palpable Idolatry: how inexcusable is it to serve the works of our own hands and the shadows of those creatures prepared by art and applied by our vain conceit to resemble the creator? you must therefore either grant every likeness made with hands, and set up for an image unto God, to be an idol, or else excuse both jews and Gentiles from idolatry; which I trust you will not.  Phi. 
The gentiles knew not God, 
A greater sin for those that know God, to set up an Image unto him than for those that knew him not.  and for that cause could set up no Image unto God, but unto their own ignorant imagination of God.  Theo. 
And you that presume to know god, if you set up such images unto god as the gentiles did, which knew him not; you be ranker Idolaters than they were. The more knowledge you have of god, the more sure you be that those things made with hands be no way like unto god, and that he utterly detesteth and expressly forbiddeth both the making and the reverencing of all such Images as workmen could devise for him, were they Pagans, jews or Christians.  Phi. 
What if we grant you that god should not be figured? 
The figure of a man set up unto God is an Idol as well as the figure of a beast. Deut. 4. Rom. 1.   Theo. 
Then you must also grant that every image erected unto god is an idol.  Phi. 
The figures of beasts, birds, worms and other unreasonable creatures made to resemble god are idols.  Theo. 
And so is the figure of a man: Moses teaching the children of Israel so much in precise terms: Take heed that you corrupt not yourselves & make you a graven image or representation of any figure, whether it be of man or woman: And S. Paul affirming of the gentiles, that when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, but became vain by their discourses (of reason) & their foolish hart was full of darkness, in that they turned the glory of the incorruptible god to the likeness of the image of a corruptible man. The same you may see in 
* Psal. 115. Esa. 44.  David & Esay: where the shape of man set up for an Image unto God, is directly condemned for an Idol; as well in the jews that knew God, as in the Gentiles that knew him not. Whether it be therefore the likeness of man, beast, bird, worm, fish, or whatsoever creature in heaven or earth, if it be made or used as an image unto God, it is an Idol: & the submission of the knee, & devotion of the hands, that is, any reverent and religious gesture unto it, is Idolatry.  Phi. 
All this yet toucheth not us.  Theo. 
Doth it not? first what answer can you make for figuring the Image of the most blessed & glorious Trinity, sometimes with three faces, as in your common 
An horrible picture of the Trinity with three faces in the popish prayer books.  prayer books printed in the late reign of Queen Mary, & sometime like 
* Horae Mariae Impressae per johan. le priest. impens. Rob. Valen●. 1555.  an old man having a long grey beard and his son sitting by him with a dove between them: as in most of your Churches and Oratories: what answer I say can you make for these notorious and enormous impieties? Not only the adoring, but the very making of such pictures is abominable, and the selfsame frenzy that GOD revenged in jews and Gentiles with horrible plagues. Secondly if to worship the image of God made by art, with kneeling, censing, or holding up the hands be against the law of God, and condemned in the Scriptures for the service of Idols, how can your adoration of Images not only with corporal gestures, but with spiritual prayers and vows be Catholic, or that Council be Christian, which first decreed, 
Nicen. Synod. 2. actione 2.  the Images of all Saints, men and women, might perfectly & openly be adored?  Phi. 
We were not the makers of those pictures of the Trinity.  Theo. 
We know you be neither Printers nor Carvers: but you were the sufferers, allowers, proposers and commenders of these pictures unto the people: and in that respect your sin is far greater than theirs that were only the painters and gravers of them, 
Sapien. 14.  though there lie a curse even on them for their wicked labour & travel, to have God dishonoured by their art and industry.  Phi. 
The Images of the Trinity we will not 
* You do defend them in your Rhemish Testament, fol. 345.  defend, because your tongues are so bend against them: and yet the Catholics did not sin in doing their devotions to God by those or any other occasions.  Theo. 
The people are in good case to have such teachers as you be. The figuring of the trinity the most of you dare not defend (though your Rhemish observers have the faces to defend any thing) because the Law of God is direct against it, pronouncing all such resemblances of God to be 
* Esa. 44. Deut. 27.  an abomination unto him: and yet you closely encourage your Catholics to continue their former liking of those pictures, and by some smooth words would feign make them believe they serve God, when they honour that which God openly rejecteth as an Idol.  Phi. 

The artificial figure of Christ's human flesh may not be worshipped.  Against the Images of Christ and his saints you have no such exception; why then mislike you that those should be worshipped?  Theo. 
If the Image of Christ's divine nature may not be worshipped, much less may the figure of his human flesh framed of wood or stone be so highly reverenced. Secondly man himself is a perfecter and truer Image of Christ than any can be made with hands, and yet for all that you neither do, nor may offer to worship any mortal man. Thirdly if aught should be worshipped in the painted and carved Images of Christ, it must be the matter, or the form. The matter is wood, stone, brass, silver or some other metal: in which is no religion. The form is nothing but the skill and draft of the craftsman, proportioning a shape not like unto Christ whom he never saw, but as his own fancy leadeth him: and in that case you worship not the similitude of our Saviour, but the conceit of the maker. 
Lactant. de fals. religio. lib. 2. cap. 2.  Fourthly the workman is ever better than the work; for so much as there is no grace in the Image which came not from the Carver. And since no man boweth to the workman, why should you kneel to the work of his hands? Lastly see you not how absurd it is, that 
* Lactant. Ibidem.  men which have reason, sense and life should worship things that are void of reason, senseless & dead? 
* Lactant. li. 2. cap. 19  Wherefore doubt you not but there is no religion (or devotion) wheresoever there is an Image. Religion consisteth of divine things, and nothing is divine, but that which is heavenly: Images ergo are far from (devotion and) religion, since there is nothing in them that is heavenly, they consisting of earth.  Phi. 
You reason as though we worshipped the earthly matter or shape, and not rather the things represented by them.  Theo. 
If you talk of worshipping Christ and not his image, 
Christ must be worshipped with all humility, but not his Image, because that is not Christ.  we yield to you without any farther speech that you must worship him with all humility as the natural, true and only son of God: but what is that to the adoration of his image made with hands, which you defend to be Catholic?  Phi. 
May we not give some reverence to the Image of Christ, though he be in heaven: as well as you do to the thrones and letters of Princes, when themselves be not present?  Theo. 
Have you no surer ground of your catholic doctrine for adoring images, than a single similitude taken from the civil and external reverence that is yielded to Prince's seats and Seals?  Phi. 
yes we have surer: but first answer this.  Theo. 
This is not so sure as you think.  Phi. 
Sure or unsure, what say you to it?  Theo. 
First that painted and carved Images, 
Earthly similitudes are all the proofs that Papists have for adoration of Images.  be neither the Seats nor Seals of Christ, and so no sequel from those to these. Next that the civil honour which is due to Princes can be no precedent for any religious honour to be given to Images: Especially the same God, which commandeth each man to honour the King, forbiddeth all men to bow themselves to any Similitude of his made with hands.  Phi. 
Let them have some reverence yet, either religious or civil for his sake whom they represent.  Theo. 
If a man should make a seal like the Princes, or nail up cloth of Tissue where the Prince is not, and say it is a chair of state, would you be so foolish as to regard either of them, or should you not dishonour the king if you did reverence them, since they be not such things as the Prince accepteth or useth for his, but other men's counterfeits?  Phi. 
I speak of that Chair where the Prince did sit, and of that Seal which the Prince did send.  Theo. 
I know you did, and therefore I refused your similitude as unlike the matter in question betwixt us: because images are neither places of Christ's presence, 
The Seats & seals of princes make nothing, for adoration of Images.  nor witnesses of his will, as Seats and seals are unto Princes: no nor ordained, allowed or admitted by Christ to have any credit or use about his heavenly person or pleasure; but only proposed by men of a natural and kind affection as they thought towards Christ: though clean without warrant, and so without thanks from him. For he of purpose took his bodily presence from the eyes of men that he might dwell in their hearts by faith, 
An Image can teach us nothing of that we should behold in Christ.  and to teach us to honour him not by that proportion of face which the painter would draw, but by that abundance of love, grace and mercy, which he hath extended on us and laid in store for us, and which no corporal eyes can behold, nor colours express, but only the hearing of his word and working of his spirit can lighten and persuade the heart of man to conceive and believe.  Phi. 
Is it not thanks worthy with God to have always the shape of his son before our eyes, that we may honour him with our hearts?  Theo. 
To honour him with your hearts, and to have him at all times in your minds is religious and requisite: 
Christ hath left better & safer means to remember him, than by an Image: which papists leave & prefer their own devices before his.  but to make light of those means which he hath prescribed to nourish your faith and continue the memory of himself, & to seek out others of your own fit to please your senses, not to resemble his greatness or goodness, this is neither acceptable unto God, nor profitable for yourselves.  Phi. 
To remember Christ cannot be evil.  Theo. 
Not to remember him till you look on a picture can not be good. Your hearts ought always to be lifted up unto him, that 
* 1. Cor. 10.  whether you eat or drink, wake or sleep, or 
* Colos. 3.  whatsoever you do in word or deed, (you may) do all in the name of the Lord jesus, 
* Ephes. 5.  giving thanks always for all things unto God the father in the name of our Lord jesus Christ. You must not tarry for the execution of this precept till you see an Image. But all your actions, words and thoughts must be directed to the praise of his glory and honour of his name.  

By what means and ways the holy Ghost occasioneth us to remember the son of God.  This if you put in bre you shall need no painted nor carved Image to bring you in mind of his mercies. The benefits and blessings within you, without you, and on every side of you (which GOD for Christ's sake bestoweth on you) are so many that you can hardly forget him: unless you also forget the earth that beareth you, the heaven that covereth you, the day that guideth your feet, the night that giveth you rest, the meats that you feed on, and the breath that you live by: yea your own bodies which he wonderfully made, and souls which he preciously bought: All these things and all other things in heaven and earth you must drown in utter oblivion, before you can infer that Images be needful to put us in mind of our duties to GOD. 
He hath a dull heart that remembreth not Christ till he see an Image.  And since without Images you can and must remember the Father that created, and the Holy Ghost that sanctified you, why should you forget the son that redeemed you more than the other, except you have Images at your elbows to kindle you appetites?  
But this is nothing to the worshipping of Images, which you should prove to be Catholic. Though there were an historical use in painting the shape of our Saviour, yet is it no piety to worship the picture. Grant it might be used for remembrance, for religion it may not; and therefore you are all this while besides the mark.  Philand. 
You deny both the having and worshipping of Images to be Catholic. We prove the having of them to be necessary by the fruit and profit that cometh from them: 
What commodities the Papists say they suck out of Images.  namely the instruction of the ignorant in the story of their salvation, the putting us in often remembrance of our Saviour, and the stirring up our devotion with more fervency.  
The worshipping of them we prove with more facility: for if he that honoureth the Image honour the person himself thereby represented, as 
All these fathers are wrested by papists from their right meaning.  S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. chrysostom and S. Ambrose do affirm: then the worship which is done to the Image of Christ, passeth unto Christ himself: and by consequent if it be lawful to adore and honour Christ, it is not unlawful to do the like to his Image. Besides we can prove that adoration of Images is a tradition delivered from the Apostles, and observed in all Churches: and that the Scripture itself supporteth us in this point, as the learned epistle of Adrian the Bishop of Rome to Constantine and Irene doth largely show: and for the credit of the cause we have a general Council eight hundredth years old to say as much in every point as I affirm, and more.  Theo. 
We marvel not to see you so deeply deceived and strongly deluded as you be: 
2. Thes. 2.  such is the just judgement of God on all that admit not the love of the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness. You rest on the vanities & forgeries of such as were inclined to the same error before you, 
The Papists greedily embrace other men's forgeries & many of their own for adoration of Images.  not examining their proofs, nor considering their reports; but presuming their evident follies to be pregnant authorities for you, which is ever the next way to seduce others, and to be seduced yourselves. As touching the show which you make of Scriptures, apostolic Tradition, Churches, Fathers & Counsels, it is a childish and frivolous vaunt. The fathers which you quote, are abused, the Apostles and their Churches belied, the Scriptures depraved and wrested, the Council, which you call general, rejected as wicked, and diligently refuted in the same age by the West Bishops. Of these empty and unlucky Masks, the more you bring, the less you win.  Phi. 
We lose nothing so long as you load us only with words.  Theo. 
If your proofs be vain, my words be true: Look you therefore to the soundness of that which you allege: otherwise your own burden will overpress you.  Philand. 
The collection which I made out of Saint basil and others is very sure. Saint basil saith: Honos Imaginis in ipsum prototypum redit. The honour done to the Image redoundeth to the principal that is thereby represented. 
Nice. Council 2. act. 6. Ibidem.  S. Athanasius, Qui Imaginem adorat, in ipsa Imperatorem adorat. He that reverenceth the Image, honoureth therein the Emperor. And S. chrysostom▪ Knowest thou not, that he which hurteth the emperors Image, 
Ibidem. Ambros. in Psal. 118 Concio. 2.  defaceth the Imperial dignity itself? And so S. Ambrose, He that crowneth the emperors Image, honoureth surely him, whose Image he honoured: and he that despiseth the emperors Image, doth the injury to the Emperor whose Image he did spit at.  Theo. 
We doubt not of this similitude.  Phi. 
Then we infer: ergo he that worshippeth the Image of Christ worshippeth Christ himself: and so the adoration of Christ's Image is not Idolatry, but piety.  Theo. 
You mean that Image of Christ which is made with hands.  Phi. 
I do.  Theo. 
Then we deny the consequent.  Phi. 
Why so? Between the resemblances of Christ and others the proportion is good. 
Great difference between the services & Images of God & men.   Theo. 
Yea, but between the services of God and men, and also between their Images, the distinction is great. Prince's can expect no more but a sober reverence due to their states, expressed by some decent gestures of the body, that others may behold it; and that to be yielded chief to their persons, and secondly to their deputies, vicegerents and messengers, yea to their ensigns, arms and recognizances, such as they shall use or allow to represent their power or to notify their pleasures. In which case they that honour the Prince's throne, Sceptre, Seal, sword, token or Image, honour not the things which they see, but the power that sent them.  
Thus far your similitude is currant, marry from hence to adoring the carved and painted images of Christ can you draw no consequent.  

The Similitude of honouring the original by the Image answered.  First because Christ hath neither appointed nor allowed them to represent his person, as Princes have.  
Next for that our saviour as the son of God must have a divine honour in spirit and truth, fit for the creator whereof neither images nor any other creatures are capable: and is so jealous of it that he will part it with none, and namely not with graven or molten images, 
No Creature, nor Image capable of Christ's honour because it is divine.   
Thirdly the image of any Prince is then to be honoured when the Person is absent: but in the presence of the Emperor himself to turn to his image were 
* Lib. de falsa religio. cap. 2.  apparent madness as Lactantius teacheth. Since than the Lord jesus is by his divine majesty present in all places at all times to receive that honour and adoration of all men that is done unto him: it is no piety but frenzy to honour his image when he himself is not absent: 
The Fathers make Christ the Image of God, and not a piece of wood to be the Imgae of Christ.  and requireth as well the religious behaviour of the body as the inward motions of the mind to be yielded unto him.  
Lastly these fathers do not bring this similitude to prove that we should worship the image of Christ made with hands, but that we should adore Christ himself as being the express image of his father, proposed by God to have one and the same honour with him, and in that respect the honour done to him passeth unto God the father whose Image he is, even as the reverence given to the officers, arms or Images which Princes send to set up, unto themselves, is accepted as rendered to their own persons, when they can not otherwise be present in the place to receive it but by a Substitute, or a sign that shall represent their state.  Phi. 
You may quarrel with any conclusion if you be once minded to be froward.  Theo. 
Call you that quarreling, when you can not be suffered by a similitude stretched whither you list yourselves, 
If an Image must have Christ's honour, ergo it must be God.  to subvert the very groundwork of all religion and godliness? for if this sequel be sure, that the honour done to the painted or carved Image of Christ is transferred to Christ himself; then must you give to the Image of Christ no base, nor other honour than Christ is willing and worthy to receive: 
Mar. 4. Luke 4.  and that is the highest and divinest kind of adoration that may be, which the Scriptures reserve only unto God.  
And what is this but to set yourselves against heaven, and to cry defiance unto God, 
Images may have no divine honour, & Christ will hau● no civil salutations nor friendly greetings.  by giving his honour unto others: yea to the vilest and ignoblest things of all others; and to serve most abicet creatures in equal degree of glory with the most mighty creator and quickener of all? If you give them no religious nor divine honour but a loving aspect or a reverent behaviour, that single salutation or mannerly submission may not pass unto Christ, lest you seem to use him as your good familiar and old acquaintance, or else as some earthly Potentate rather than as the God of grace and second person in the blessed trinity. Less than divine honour Christ will not have: he that otherwise honoureth him, defaceth him, & that honour you can not impart to his Image without sacrilegious and damnable Idolatry: your conclusion therefore is not only vain but also wicked, if you refer it to the Image of Christ made with hands: and other acceptions of Christ's Image can do you no good.  Phi. 
S. Ambrose uttering the words which I last rehearsed, addeth farther, Vides quod inter multas Christi Imagines ambulamus: 
In Psal. 118. sermo. 10.  Thou seest we walk among many Images of Christ: and therefore all sorts of Images which pertain unto Christ must have their convenient honour.  Theo. 
But S. Ambrose the next words before utterly excludeth your wooden Images as not within the limits of his speech, and reproveth the Gentiles for thinking a piece of wood could be an image unto god: and then addeth as you say, 
Christ acknowledgeth the poor to be his Image, and yet it were wickedness to worship them.  that the church had many images of Christ: not, many kinds of Images, but many in number that Christ accepteth and reputeth for his Images; and those he maketh to be the poor and afflicted in whom Christ is relieved or despised, as he showeth by the words of Christ speaking of them as of himself in the twenty five of Saint Matthewes Gospel. And this rather hurteth than helpeth your conclusion. For if the honour which is due to Christ may not be given to men who are the living Images of Christ made by the workmanship of GOD himself, 
Men are the living Images of christ made by the hands of GOD himself.  much less may the same be derived to wood or stone fashioned by man's hand, and in no point answerable to the true proportion of Christ, but in this only that they be shaped like men. For which cause they resemble the son of God no more than they do any other of the just or unjust that did or do live, and cannot truly be called the Images of Christ, but only by the Painter's purpose, 
The Image which is made for Christ, is no more like him than it is to any other of the saints or wicked.  and the people's error, which have no power to appoint what Image shall stand for Christ, much less to prescribe what honour he shall be content to excommunicate to that Image, which they list to erect unto him. These be sufficient causes to stop your conclusion, if your antecedent were general as it is not, and similitudes you may not wrest farther than they, that made them, did intend them.  Phi. 

Making and worshipping of Images fal●ly fathered on the Apostles.  You said somewhat if the worshipping of Images were not delivered us by Tradition from the Apostles.  Theo. 
Were the Apostles makers or worshippers of Images?  Philand. 
Never read you that?  Theoph. 
yes I have read it often, but I was never so wise as to believe it.  Phi. 
Then I perceive you would hardly believe that Christ himself made the first likeness of his own face, and sent to king Abagarus, as Damascene and Nicephorus witness. 
Damasc. lib. 4. cap. 17. & Nicepho. lib. 2. cap. 7.   Theoph. 
You may well swear, I will neither believe you, nor Damascene, Damascene saith, Fertur quaedam historia: there is such a story spread abroad, 
A fable of Christ painting his own face.  but he neither telleth by whom it was made, nor of what credit it is, and Eusebius that first took this story of Abagarus, and that at large out of the monuments of the City Edessa, reporteth no such thing: yea the Church of Rome herself some hundreths before Damascene, 
Euseb. lib. 1. cap. 13.  repelled that 
* Distinct. 15. § S. Ro●ana.  Epistle of Christ to Abagarus then extant by name as Apocryphal. And therefore you bolster an error, and abuse the people of God with forgeries long before condemned, though since received by Nicephorus and other fablers among the Grecians, who wrote all they found without judgement, or without all shame feigned that they never found, except it were in some wicked and witless legend, 
Of such legends the Church of Rome hath plenty.  such as your Church of late days had good store.  Philand. 
And so the image of our Lady made by Saint Luke, you will say is a fable; and yet Simeon Methaphrastes doth confirm it.  Theoph. 
Leave these late and obscure Liars, and bring somewhat worth the answering.  Philand. 
Saint Basil saith the painting and adoring of Images is a tradition of the Apostles: and so doth 
a 
Damasc. lib. 4. cap. 17.  
Citatur ab Adriano in epist. sua Nicen●  
Synod. 2. act. 2.   Damascene. The words of S. Basil are, Quam ob causam & historias Imaginum illorum honoro & palam adoro. Hoc enim nobis traditum a sanctis Apostolis non est prohibendum, sed in omnibus eccle●ijs nostris eorum historias erigimus. For which cause I honour and 
* What shame have they left that make such places in the father's names?  openly adore the stories of their Images. And this being 
* What shame have they left that make such places in the father's names?  delivered us from the Apostles is not prohibited, but in 
* What shame have they left that make such places in the father's names?  all our Churches we erect their histories.  Theoph. 
Can you turn us to the place in Saint 
b This place is not found in all S. Basils' Epistles, & yet there are extant of his 180; and many of them not four lines a piece, so that all were preserved, saving this that was never wri●●●n.  basil?  Phi. 
The epistle is not extant, but Adrian the Bishop of Rome, whose credit is sufficient for a greater matter than this, doth allege i●●ut of his writings against julian the Apostata.  Theo. 
Adrian and you b●th shall pardon us for believing you, when we find no such words in all S. basil.  Phi. 
They might be then in Saint Basil, though they be not now.  Theo. 
If the words did agree with the spirit of Saint Basil, or with the s●a●e of those times, or with the rest of the fathers and ancient teachers in Christ's Church, we would not so much dislike them, though they were not found in Saint Basils' works: but now seeing the words to be sensibly false, if not utterly wicked, and to have no convenience with the doctrine of those that taught in the same time or near about his age: and knowing in the contention of the Grecians for images somewhat before Adrian, 
If that were adrian's Epistle he might soon be deceived: but it seemeth to be rather a late forgery in Adrian'S name.  what framing and ●●ling of fathers there was to bear out either side: we think it easier for the Bishop of Rome to be deceived in a Greek writer, that lived 450. years before him, by some false reporter, lewd translator, or cunning forger, than for Basil to be so great a stranger in the Church of Christ and so manifest a despiser of God's precepts, that he would openly defend, and himself use, adoration of saints Images without any scruple; as delivered from the Apostles; who were far from having, & farther from teaching the godly to worship the Images of Prophets, Apostles or Martyrs, as this deluder dreameth. And therefore either show us the Epistle where this is written, or else leave loading the learned father's names with such unlearned corruptions.  Philand. 
Were there not many things written by the Catholic Fathers that now are perished?  Theoph. 
And as many things forged in their names that were never written by them, as appeareth in all their works to this day by the judgement of your very friends. 

Infinite forgegeries have been committed in the father's names, as appeareth at this day in all their works.  
The west Bishops that refuted the 2. Nicene council & all authorities one after an other, never mentioned this place: & therefore it hath been put in since their time.    Phil. 
This is the next way to call all their writings, and so the whole Christian saith in question.  Theoph. 
You would feign have us swallow your monkish impieties under the colour of their authorities: but the wisdom of God hath better provided for his church than so. The rule of our faith is the voice of our Shepherd. By that we judge of the writings of all others be they f●ith●●ll or Infidels. If this were written in Basil, we would not receive it until we had tried it by that touchstone: finding no such thing in all his works, why should we regard it?  Philand. 
There it was, though now it be not.  Theophi. 
There it is not, wheresoever it was; and your alleager hath no su●h credit with us that we should trust him.  Philand. 
Trust no man I pray you, that is against you.  Theo. 
We trust not you to be your own carvers.  Phi. 
This authority was alleged and allowed to be S. Basils' in a general Council 800. years ago.  Theo. 
That Council was never received nor confessed to be general by the west Churches, but rejected and condemned as a wicked conjuration against the faith: and the 
* The Epistle hath neither truth, learning, reason nor sense.  letter there framed in adrian's name, besides that it savoureth altogether of your late forge at Rome, is a pestilent and shameless deprivation both of fathers and Scriptures.  Phi. 
You be very choice that can like nothing, except it be exquisite.  The. 
You be worse than gross, if you take such palpable lies to be the fortresses of your faith. Omit that fond and false report of Constantine's 
* Seven notorious lies repugnant to all the Church stories, touched in one corner of this Epistle.  leprosy purposing to be washed in a bath of infant's 
* Seven notorious lies repugnant to all the Church stories, touched in one corner of this Epistle.  blood, and dehorted from it in the night as he slept by some that appeared to him, whom he afterward 
* Seven notorious lies repugnant to all the Church stories, touched in one corner of this Epistle.  knew to be Peter and Paul by their 
* Seven notorious lies repugnant to all the Church stories, touched in one corner of this Epistle.  Images which Silvester Bishop of Rome showed him: and that thereupon Constantine being first a 
* Seven notorious lies repugnant to all the Church stories, touched in one corner of this Epistle.  persecuter of the Christians, was converted, and 
* Seven notorious lies repugnant to all the Church stories, touched in one corner of this Epistle.  baptised by Sylvester, and began to build Churches and 
* Seven notorious lies repugnant to all the Church stories, touched in one corner of this Epistle.  decked them with Images in every place; (lewder and viler fables than which your legend hath none:) the rest of adrian's allegations out of the scriptures and Fathers, what are they but open injuries and mockeries of GOD and man?  

The scriptures alleged in adrian's Epist.  The Scriptures which he bringeth to prove the making and adoring of Images be these: God made man of the slime of the earth after his own Image. Adam of his own free will 
* Genes. 1.  called all the beasts of the field and fowls of the air by their proper names. 
* Genes. 2.  Abel of his own accord presented a sacrifice unto God of the firstlings of his flock. 
* Genes. 4.  Noah after the flood of his own head built an altar unto the Lord and offered thereon. So Abraham of himself erected an altar in the honour and glory of God. 
* Genes. 8.  jacob also, 
* Genes. 28.  when he had in his sleep seen the Angels of GOD ascending & descending by the ladder, after he rose of his own motion set up a stone on the ground, where his head lay, and powered oil on it, and named the place Bethel, and we do not read that God for this cause was angry with him. Again the same jacob worshipped in the top of his staff. Not that he worshipped the staff, but him that held it in a sign of love.  

If the scriptures be not horribly abused, let Images on God's name be adored.  Then alleging the brazen Serpent, and the Cherubins made by Moses & Solomon, he descendeth to other testimonies of Esay and David, as sit for his purpose as salt for sore eyes. isaiah saith, 
a Esa. 19  In those days there shall be an altar unto the Lord in the midst of the Land of Egypt, and a pillar touching the ends thereof, and it shall be for a sign and a testimony to the Lord in the land of Egypt. And David the tuner of Psalms saith 
b Psal. 95.  confession and beauty before him. And again: 
c Psal. 25.  Lord, I have loved the comeliness of thine house. And again: 
d Psal. 26.  Thy face Lord will I seek. And again: 
e Psal. 44.  the rich among the people shall bow themselves before thy face. And again: 
f Psal. 4.  the light of thy countenance is signed upon us.  
These be the best proofs which Adrian or he that framed this letter in adrian's name could find in all the Scriptures for the making and adoring of images, 
Children would not thus play with Scriptures.  and these you see be very miserable. For what fellowship hath Adam's act, Abel's sacrifice, Noah's or Abraham's altar, jacob's stone and staff, Esaies' title or pillar with images: or when David spoke of the face and countenance of God, did he so much as dream of the graven and wooden figures, which you would erect unto God against his heavenly will and truth?  Phi. 
In deed these places be not altogether so pertinent as we could wish them: but the brazen serpent & the two Cherubins which Moses set up, directly make for Images. 
The brazen serpent made by Moses.   Theo. 
They do not warrant your erecting of Images: and your adoring of Images they utterly overthrow. For the Brazen serpent was a figure of Christ, as we find confirmed by his own words in the 
* john 3.  gospel of S. john: and yet though God 
* Numb. 21.  commanded Moses to make it, and healed the dreadful plague of the people by it, and the jews had kept it above 700. years as a monument of God's mercy toward them in the desert, when they began but 
* 1. King. 18.  to burn incense to it, Ezechiah the religious King of judah broke it in pieces and is commanded by the holy Ghost, namely for that act.  
This example we would have you advisedly to mark. 
And broken in pieces by by Ezechias when it was abused.  A figure of Christ erected by Gods own commandment, and serving to put all Israel's posterity in mind of the wonders which their fathers saw in the wilderness, when it was abused was defaced, and the fact allowed by Gods own mouth. Hence we conclude; that the painted and carved Images of Christ himself may not be adored, and if they be, they may be removed, though they were delivered even by the Apostles, as yours were not.  
The Cherubins were made by God's appointment, but not set in any place for the people to adore them, or so much as to see them: nay the Priests themselves were kept from the sight of them; 
* Hebr. 9  only the high-Priest, once every year, went into the second Tabernacle where they stood, the vail being closely drawn between that and the first Tabernacle, where the rest of the Priests served. And since God's care was so great that they should not be seen; we infer, his will was as clear that they should not be worshipped, for so much as they could not be worshipped unless they were seen.  Phi. 
Yet this showeth that God would have them made. 
The Cherubins not seen much less worshipped. Tertul. de Idolatria.   Theo. 
But not seen, much less worshipped. And as for the making of them, God's act above his Law is no warrant for you to break his Law. By his Law he restraineth you, not himself from the making of any such similitudes. And therefore though he might for causes to him known go against his Law, you may not. This rule Tertullian will teach you. It is no hurt that the same God by his Law forbade a similitude to be made, and by an extraordinary precept commanded the similitude of the brazen serpent to be made. If thou wilt obey God thou hast his law, make thee no similitude. If thou look to the precept that was given after for making a similitude, then see thou imitate Moses. Make no Image against the law, unless God bid thee (as he did Moses.)  Phi. 
The fathers who knew the Scriptures as well as you, were of an other mind, as you may see by adrian's letters, 
Fathers abused by Adrian, as well as scriptures.  avouching many and good authorities out of them.  Theo. 
Adrian dealeth with the fathers as he did with the Scriptures. Eight of them he allegeth and abuseth every one of them. Augustine saith, 
Nicen. Synod. 2. act. 2.  The Image of God what is it but the face of God in which the people of God are signed? And Ambrose; 
Eight fathers perverted in this one Eistle.  when we worship in Christ the divine Image and Cross, do we part him in sunder? The divine Image and countenance, which these fathers speak of, is the brightness of Christ's divine nature and glory: his cross is his death and humility: those Adrian grossly supposeth to be such as gravers & carvers do make with their hands. And where Cyril saith, Faith painteth (or lively describeth unto us) the word which was in the form of God: 
The fathers draw similitudes from profane things, and Adrian wresteth them unto divine things.  that evidence & clearness of the Gospel setting the son of God in his divine majesty before our eyes, your holy father lewdly misconstereth for painting with pencils and colours. Athanasius, chrysostom and Basil, drawing similitudes from the painter's art, and emperors Image, to other purposes, are violently wrested to make for that they never meant nor thought. Gregory Nissene confesseth he had often seen the story of the passion pictured, but he neither saith in Churches, nor alloweth it any worship.  
Hierom is brought in last and made to say that which not only no learned father ever uttered, 
Hierom made to speak open Impiety.  but no sober nor Christian man ever imagined. As (God) gave leave to the Gentiles to worship things made with hands, and to the jews (to worship) the carved works and two golden cherubins which Moses made, so hath he given to us Christians the Cross, and to paint and reverence the Images of good works, and so to get him to like of our labour. The two first points, that God gave leave to the Gentiles to worship things made with hands, and licensed the jews to adore the works and shapes of Cherubins which Moses made, are so directly against the truth of the Scriptures, and rule of our faith, that nothing can be more: the last may well be written by him that wrote the first, and as soon true as the rest. 
No such thing in all hierom's works.  And were it found in hierom's works, as it is not, it would but argue that other men's hands had been in hierom's books as well as his: which is no news in the most of the Father's Greek and Latin that you have left us at this day: But of that pains Adrian himself hath eased us by alleging that which is not in all S. Hieromes volumes.  


The place of basil is set amidst these depravations of Scriptures and fathers. The same place otherwise repeated in the same Council, and therefore the first or the last must needs be forged.  
Nicen Synod. act. 4 ex ep. Basil. ad julian. Imperator.   Amidst the rout of these follies and forgeries, cometh in that Bastard place of Basil, no where found in all his writings; which, besides the apparent slander there fastened on the Apostles and Churches of Christ against all truth, the legates of Adrian in this very Synod convince of a manifest and mighty corruption in the words that be most material for your purpose.  Phi. 
Did the legates of Adrian contradict their master's allegation?  Theo. 
The same place being rehearsed by Demetrius a Notary out of the book itself, which the legates of Rome offered in the council, sounded far otherwise than Adrian had cited it. For where Adrian in his letters alleged, Hoc enim traditum nobis ab Apostolis non est prohibendum: This being delivered us by the Apostles must not be prohibited: the book which they read, had Hoc enim nobis a sanctis Apostolis non est prohibitum: this is not forbidden us by the Apostles. It is one thing to say The Apostles did deliver it, & an other to say The Apostles did not prohibit it. Between these two reports, if you weigh them w●ll, you shall find good difference.  Phi. 
If you like not the former reading, 
The Apostles did not prohibit the making of Images in special words, because God had done it sufficiently before.  take the latter, and that in sight is true. For the Apostles in particular words did not prohibit the making and worshipping of holy Images.  Theo. 
They needed not. God by his Law long before had done it very sufficiently: and that standing in full force, there needed no new prohibition, since no authority could be greater than his, who had already forbidden it. And yet by your leave the Apostles did not only propose the whole Law of God, as 
* Rom. 7.  holy, just, and good, but they namely touch the second precept, which we reason of; Saint Paul confessing the jews did well according to the Law 
* Rom. 2.  to abhor Idols, and that the Gentiles 
* Rom. 1.  were given over to their vile affections for turning the glory of God to the Image of a man; and S. john requiring all christians to beware the like, 
* 1. joh. 5.  in saying, Babes, keep yourselves from Idols.  Phi. 
From idols: but not from images.  Theo. 
An Image made with hands if it be set up to God himself, & worshipped, is an idol, as I have proved; & therefore you must either renounce your adoring of images, which your forged Basil would establish, or else suffer them to stand for Idols, from which S. john deterreth us.  Phi. 
S. Augustine saith it is not an Idol except it b● Dei falsi & alieni simulachrum, 
August. quaest. super judic. li. 7. ●●p. 41.  the image of a false & strange God. And in that respect you do the Images of Christ & his Saints great wrong, to call them idols.  Theo. 
S. Augustine in that place disputeth how gedeon's Ephod should be said in the scripture to be fornication in the people, & the destruction of gedeon's house since it was (as he thought,) no likeness of any thing against the law, but an imitation of the Priest's apparel prescribed in the Law. 
gedeon's Ephod was an Idol, though it were not the Image, of a false God. August. Ibidem.  And albeit to interpret himself, what he meant, when he said it was no idol, he addeth by way of explication, (that is no shape of any false or strange God) yet doth he not limit the word to that continual use: but rather granteth, as his conclusion showeth, that there were more kinds of Idols, & that this, though it were a garment in the law, & not an Image against the law, yet was it in sort an Idol, & so his words import: Factum est Gedeon & domini eius in scandolum, quia & hoc quoddam genus Idoli quodammodo erat. This was the ruin of Gedeon & his house, because it was in some sense a kind of idol.  
Tertullian will tell you the word is general, 
Tertul. de Idolaetria.  & noteth the likeness or shape of any thing. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graecè, formam sonat, ab ●oper diminutionem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aequé apud nos formulam fecit: Igitur omnis forma vel formula Idolum se dici exposcit, This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek signifieth a shape, whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived as a diminutive, and with us signifieth any likeness: therefore every shape or likeness may well be called an Idol. Isidor repeating Tertullian'S words as worth the noting, addeth of his own; 
Isido. Originun lib. 5.  Idolum est simulachrum quod humana effigie factum & consecratum est. An Idol is an Image made after the shape of a man and dedicated (unto some religious use.)  Philand. 
Nay dedicated unto some false God, and then it is rightly an Idol.  Theoph. 
But Isidore saith generally that an image consecrated is an idol: and consecration is the addicting of any thing to holy and divine uses.  Phi. 
That is not Isidores meaning.  Theo. 
Those be Isidores words.  Phi. 
You heard S. Augustine say, it must be the Image of a false GOD.  Theo. 
S. Augustine doth not tie the word to that signification as you heard by his own confession: 
An Image worshipped is a false God, & consequently an Idol.  and yet if you take false and strange Gods, as S. Augustine doth, your adoration of painted and carved Images will prove them to be false Christ's, and yourselves to be worshippers of false Gods. For if you worship Christ not after his will, but after your conceit, you worship now not Christ, but the fiction and imagination of your own hearts; and that is a false Christ as Saint Augustine learnedly and truly teacheth. 
Quaest. super josua. lib. 6. cap. 29.  Quisquis talem cogitat Deum, qualis non est Deus, alienum Deum utique & falsum in cogitation portat. Whosoever supposeth God to be that he is not, beareth a strange and false GOD in his cogitation. This elsewhere he calleth the Idol of the heart, 
The Idol of the heart.  not only in Pagans but also in Christians. Of the false fancies that Pagans, had of GOD he saith: 
* August. de verbis Dom. secundum Mat. sermo. 6.  Prius id agimus ut Idola in eorum cordibus confringamus. The first thing that we labour is to break down those Idols in their hearts. Of the wrong imaginations of christians he saith, 
* Idem in joan. tract. 19  Quae omnia Idola cordis sunt: all which are Idols of the heart.  Phi. 
A false opinion of his essence is an Idol in the heart of man.  Theo. 
And so is a wrong persuasion of his will or worship. 
Hieron. in jere. cap. 32.  Hierom saith, Vsque hody in domo Dei, quae interpretatur ecclesia, sive in cord animaque credentium ponitur Idolum, quando nowm dogma constituitur. Even to this present day, an Idol is set up in the house of God, 

Every false opinion of God is an Idol.  
Hieron. in Esaiae cap. 2.   which is interpreted to be the Church, or else in the hearts and souls of the believers when a new point of Doctrine is devised. And therefore generally resolveth of all errors, Quod omne dogma contrarium veritati adoret opera manuum suarum, & constituat Idola in terra sua: that every opinion repugnant to truth worshippeth the works of his own hands, and erecteth an Idol in the land where it is.  
By the works of their own hands he meaneth the devices of their hearts, as else where he showeth. 
Hieron. in Ose. cap. 4.  Haeretici perdito mentis judicio adorant Idola quae de cord suo finxerunt. Heretics with their wicked resolution of mind, (or else void of sense and feeling of mind) adore the Idols which they have framed in their own hearts. S. Augustine citeth and commendeth the saying of Socrates. 
* 
August. de consens. Evangelist. li. 1. ca 18.  
To serve God as we list and not as he will, is idolatry.  
Why the serving of God otherwise than he willeth is Idolatry.   unumquemque Deum sic coli oportere, quomodo ipse se colendum esse praeceperit. Every God must be worshipped in such sort as he hath commanded himself to be worshipped. And thereupon inferreth, that if any would worship (the God of the Hebrews) otherwise than he himself had willed, non utique illum colerent, sed quod ipsi finxissent, they should not have worshipped him, but their own fiction.  
In this consisteth the chiefest ground of all religion. For God hath not charged us to be curious in searching his essence, but to be careful in observing his will. He neither taketh nor requireth any thing at our hands besides his worship. That if we yield him according to his will, we honour him as our God: if we altar that which he hath appointed for himself, or add any thing unto it, he rejecteth all our service as done not unto him but to the conceit of our hearts: which by nature is no God, & therefore an idol. For this cause God is every where so earnest with us that we should serve him not after our fancies, nor with our devices, but answerable to his will revealed in his word. You shall not do, every man what seemeth him good in his own eyes: whatsoever I command you, 
Deut. 12.  that take heed you do that (and nothing else). Thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take aught there from. And when the jews thought to be very forward in deserving God with their devotions and oblations, they were repelled with this demand, 
* Esa. 1.  who requireth this of your hands? Our Saviour himself assureth you that 
* Mat. 15.  you worship God in vain, if your fear (or service) towards him be taught (you) 
* Esa. 29.  by the precept of men.  Phi. 
All this we admit.  Theo. 
Then when we serve God besides his will, we serve not him, but the presumption of our own hearts which is an idol: & this devotion of ours, though we wholly intent it to him and earnestly urge it on him, yet is it the worship of idols, and not of God, since he utterly renounceth it as none of his, and being refused by him as injurious to his truth, though it be appointed for him as most ●●t in our fancies, it must of necessity be counted idolatry.  Phi. 
What is this to the image of Christ, whereof we were reasoning?  The. 
Unless you can prove that Christ will be served with material and artificial images, and is content to accept that honour as done to himself, which is yielded unto them, your adoring them maketh them idols and yourselves Idolaters. For they be things made with hands, which you cannot worship without apparent idolatry.  Phi. 
We worship not them, but him that is represented by them.  Theo. 
It lieth not in your power to divide adoration betwixt Christ and his image, 
The worshipping of Christ by an Image except himself command it, is Idolatry.  or with your inten●ion to assign that honour unto him, which you do to the works of your own hands without his warrant. You must know whether he will accept it as done to himself, before you may venture to convey it unto him by dead and dumb creatures.  Phi. 
We doubt not of that.  Theo. 
Your confidence will not help the matter till his commandment be showed.  Phi. 
All men, 
They must show where Christ commanded himself to be worshipped by an Image.  you know, think that done to themselves, which is done to their image.  Theo. 
But Christ, that is God as well as man, is not so content.  Phi. 
How prove you that?  Theo. 
Nay the proof must be yours, since the fact is yours. You must show that Christ alloweth of the honour done to a painted or carved image as done to himself. If you cannot, you convince yourselves of sacrilege, presumption and impiety when you give that honour which is due to Christ, unto a stock or a stone set up in his steed without his leave or liking. For this precept, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, excludeth as well images as creatures from being partakers of his divine honour: & the image which you make, be not so good as the creatures which God made: which yet in no wise may be worshipped.  Phi. 
You reason as 
And so you do, as shall appear by the confession of your fellows.  if we gave divine honour unto images, which we do not.  Theo. 
Your schools with one consent do give the same honour unto the image which is due to the original: that is divine honour to the image of Christ. If you be ashamed of that error, you rid yourselves of some danger, but you leave your church in the briers; which hath all this while professed and practised that idolatrous doctrine.  Phi. 
Our church never gave images any divine honour.  Theo. 
The fortress of your faith is direct against you: 
* 
Tortalicium sidei contra Iudae●s, Saracenos etc. lib. 3. Considerate. 4. argument. 24.  
Divine honour given to Images by the Church of Rome.   Crux Christi & eius imago venerari debent adoratione latriae. Et haec est opinio Thomae in 3. sententiarum distinctione 2. The cross and image of Christ ought to worshipped with such honour as is due unto God. And of this opinion is Thomas upon the third of the sentences, the second distinction.  Phi. 
Holcot was not of that mind as you find it testified in the same place.  Theo. 
But Holcots reward was to be repelled with his contradiction, because your church took part with Thomas. And so your fortress saith, 
* Fortalicium fidei Ibidem. jacob. Nanctan. in 1. cap. ad Roma.  Licet hoc rationabiliter videatur dictum, tamen loquendum est, ut plures & communis opinio tenet oppositum. Though this saying (of Holcot) seem reasonable, yet we must go with the multitude: and the common opinion holdeth the contrary. One of your Italian Bishops, who knew better than you what the church of Rome holdeth, saith: Ergo fatendum est fideles in Ecclesia adorare imaginem sine quo volveris scrupulo: qum & eo illam venerari cultu quo & prototypon eius. Propter quod, si illum habet adorari latria, & illa habet adorari latria. We must therefore confess, that the faithful in the church do without any qualification ADORE THE IMAGE (which they see) yea with the same kind of worship that is due to the original. Wherefore if that have divine honour, the image must HAVE THE LIKE DIVINE HONOUR.  Phi. 
We give not this honour to the image, but rather to the original.  Theo. 

They give Christ's honour to an Image, and then they say they do it in respect of Christ.  Your church in plain words giveth the same honour to the image that is due to the original, which in Christ must be divine honour: and when you be charged with it, you say you give it not to the image, but rather to the Original: and so by your later evasion you subvert your former assertion. For why dare you not give divine honour to the image of Christ, but only because it were manifest and apparent idolatry so to do? And if that be true, why then do you teach all men to give the same honour to the image of Christ that is due to Christ himself? You conclude it must be done: and yet you confess it can not be done without a sacrilegious injury to Christ, if his divine honour be given to an image made of earth and framed by Art.  Phi. 

The Papists think to shift off the art of Idolatry with a logical respect.  You understand us not. When we give divine honour to the image in respect of Christ, we give it to Christ and not to the image.  Theo. 
God grant you understand yourselves. You first dishonour the Son of God, by exhibiting the heavenly service, that is due to him, to an Image made with hands: and then with a shift of words you think to delude him in telling that he may not choose but like of your doings, because you meant it unto him, when you did it to a dumb creature for his sake. But awake out of your frenzy, God will not thus be mocked by your relations or intentions. He is zealous of his honour, he will not resign it to any other, and namely not to graven (or carved) images. 
Esa. 42. God respecteth the act if it be against his law, and not the intention.  If against his word, against his will, against his truth and glory, you impart it to any other, or take upon you to convey it to him by creatures or images, as if he were not present in all places with might and majesty to receive the service that is done unto him; you not only make new Gods, but you reject him as no GOD, who alone is the true GOD, and will be served without mate or mean of your devising.  Phi. 
Our Lord showing what account he maketh of such as represent his person, saith: 
Mat. 25. Christ will have charity showed to others for his sake, but not divine honour to any creature or Image.  In as much as you have done it to one of the least of these, you have done it unto me.  Theo. 
Did Christ speak that of images?  Phi. 
No● but thereby you see, it passeth ●●to Christ, whatsoever is done in his name or for his sake to others.  Theo. 
If you mean such charitable relief as Christ hath commanded us to yield to our brethren, in respect of his will, their need, and our duty: you say well: we have for that the manifest precept and promise of our Saviour accepting it as done to himself whatsoever is done to any of his brethren or servants: but if you leap from men to images, & from human comfort to divine honour, you leap too far to have the sequel good.  Philand. 
If divine adoration may not be given to Images, yet human reverence may without any danger. 
Whether civil reverence may be given to Images, can be no question of religion.   Theo. 
Religious honour may not: and as for external and civil reverence, whether that may be given to images, can be no doubt of Doctrine, nor point of faith. The one is impious to be defended, the other superfluous to be discussed.  Philand. 
So you give them either we care not.  Theophil. 
If you fly from adoration to salvation, and stand not on piety but on civility: then is it a question for Philosophers and not for Divines, and to be decided rather in the Schools than in the Church: neither can any man be praised or prejudiced for using or omitting that kind of courtesy, which neither the Gospel nor good manners convince to be necessary.  Philand. 
Should we not 
yes, but you honour not him when you honour an Image.  honour Christ and his Saints by all the means we can?  Theophil. 
Christ you must honour with all power, and all your strength, as being the Son of the living GOD: but you may not fasten his honour to any Image or creature, since he is always present to behold, and willing to receive as well the religions submission of knees, hands and eyes, as the inward sighs and groans of the heart, neither can you bestow the least of these gestures on an image in your prayers without open and evident wrong to him to whom you should yield them.  Phi. 
For adoring of images I am not so earnest, as for having them in the Church, that they may put us in remembrance of the bitter pains and death, which it peased our Lord to suffer for our sakes: and that I am sure is catholic, though adoration be not.  Theo. 
We do not gainsay, the remembering or honouring the death and bloodshedding of our Saviour: he is not only dull but wicked that intermitteth either: but this is the doubt betwixt us, whether we should content ourselves with such means as he hath devised for us and commended unto us; 
Christ hath appointed us be●ter means than an Image to reméber his death, & those the papists despise & prefer their own devices before them.  thereby daily to renew the memory of our redemption, or else invent others of our own heads fit perhaps to provoke us to a natural and human affection, but not fit to instruct our faith. The hearing of his word and partaking of his mysteries were appointed by him to lead us and use us to the continual meditation of his death and passion, a crucifix was not: he knowing that images, though they did entertain the eyes with some delight, yet might they snare the souls of many simple and silly persons: and preferring the least seed of sound faith beholding and adoring him in spirit and truth, before all the dumb shows and imagery that man's wit could furnish to win the eye and move the heart with a carryall kind of commiseration and pity, such as we find in ourselves, when we behold the torments and pangs of any miscreant or malefactor punished amongst us.  Phi. 
All 
* If they be not dangerous & withal superfluous.  means are good that bring us in mind of his death.  Theo. 
By sight you may learn the manner of his death, but neither the cause, nor the fruits, which are the chiefest things that the son of god would have us remember in his death: and you very perversely and wickedly keeping the people from those means which Christ ordained, as the hearing of the word, and right use of the sacraments (which you drowned in a strange tongue that the people understood not) set them to gaze on a Rood & taught them to give all possible honour both bodily and ghostly to that which they saw with their eyes, bearing them in hand it passed from the image, to the original: that is from a dead and senseless stock to the glorious and everliving Son of God: which in effect was nothing else but to worship and serve the creature, 
Rom. 1.  before the Creator which is blessed for ever.  Phi. 
You are now besides the matter. We speak of having images for remembrance, not of adoring them for religion: and that is catholic, if this be not.  Theo. 
Since the having of images being neither delivered nor allowed by Christ nor his Apostles, 
Neither Christ nor his Apostles delivered or allowed Images.  is superfluous, and the abusing of them is so dangerous and yet so frequent and often that in all ages and places it hath entrapped many Gentiles, jews and Christians, I see no reason why for a curious delight of the eyes, which the Apostles neglected and the primative Church of Christ wanted, we should scandalise the ignorant and exercise the learned, as for a necessary point of catholic doctrine.  Phi. 
Had the Apostles and their scholars no images?  Theo. 
Had they think you?  Phi. 
Remember you not the image which Nicodemus that came to Christ by night, made with his own hands and left to Gamaliel S. Paul's master: & he to james, and james to Simeon and Zacheus. This report you shall find written by 
* Libel. Athan. de passion. Imaginis Christi.  Athanasius 1300. years since: and besides that it is amongst his works at this day, it was repeated 800. years ago in the 
* Nicen. Synod. 2. act. ●. 4.  second Nicene council as Athanasius writing.  Theo. 
By this let the world judge both of your cause and cunning. A thing bone by the confession of your own stories above 760. years after Christ, 
* Sig●ber●. in anno 765.  under Constantine the 5. not long before the second Nicene council, is coloured with Athanasius name, as written by him, that was dead 400. years before the matter happened, 
Fortali●ium fidei, lib. 3. consid. 10. mirab. 5.  and not only published with his writings, but inserted into the second Nicene council as his work, whereas the Bishops then assembled were all alive when this outrage was attempted by the Jews not 24. years before the calling of that Synod. 
Vincent▪ speculi histor. lib. 24. cap. 160.  Such fables and forgeries do well become the quarrel you have in hand, but they will never prove your having of images to be catholic or apostolic.  Phi. 

* In deed they do; & therefore look to your 2. Nicene Council what gross forgeries are in it.  In deed our stories do mention such an accident at the time which you name: but if it be true, though it be not so old as Athanasius, we care not.  Theo. 
He that will forge must not stick to lie: lying is the very ground of forging: and of a liar we look for no truth. And yet this tale of Nicodemus, Gamaliel, james, Simeon and Zacheus, delivering an image from hand to hand, is not the assertion of the author, but the rude report of a poor ignorant man fathering his image on them that never were christians, as Gamaliel was not, and that 700. years after their deaths without any proof save only by hearsay. By such legends you may soon prove what you will: but he that hath any spark of christian courage or wisdom, will utterly abhor these lies as feeling the grossness of them with his fingers.  Phi. 
Since you so much dislike our proofs that the Apostles and the primative church had images, 
The Apostles & the Church succeeding for 400. years had no images & all that was suffered in the Church for 600. years, was the painting of stories.  can you prove they had none?  Theo. 
Doth your discretion serve you to put us to prove the negative?  Ph. 
You affirm they had none: our demand is how you know that.  Theo. 
You can not prove they had: and that is cause sufficient for us to avouch they had not.  Phi. 
Is that all you can say?  Theo. 
If it were, you can not void it: but we have evident proofs that the church of Christ succeeding the Apostles had none, and thence we conclude the Apostles delivered none: otherwise the church would not so soon have rejected the tradition of the Apostles.  Phi. 
You may be sure they would not.  Theo. 
And since they did reject Images, 
The Gentiles objected this to the first Christians that they had no Images. Arnob. advers. gentes lib. 8. Origen. contra Celsum lib. 7.  ergo it was no apostolic tradition.  Phil. 
How prove you they did reject them?  Theo. 
The christians were charged by the Pagans for having no images, and they not only confessed so much, but also defended it, as most agreeable with the law of God. In Arnobius the heathen say of the christians, Cur nullas aras habent, nulla tenepla, nulla nota simulachra? why have they no altars, no temples, no (open or) known images? In Origen Celsus saith, Hij non patiuntur vel templa, vel arras, vel sim●lachra & statuas intueri. The christians can not abide to behold temples, or altars, or images.  

What the Christians answered. Clemens Alexand●. orati● exhortatoria ad gentes.  In making their answer the Christians agnised they had none, and alleged the law of God to prove they should have none. Clemens saith, Nobis non est imago sensilis de materia sensili, sed quae percipitur intelligentia. We have no image that is material and seen with eyes, but (only) such as is conceived with understanding. And addeth this reason, 
* Ibidem.  We are plainly forbidden to use that deceitful art (of making images.) Thou shalt not make, saith the Prophet, the likeness of any thing. The 
* Orige●s ●●t●a Celsum lib. 7.  Christians and jews, saith Origen, when they hear (the law of God) thou shalt not make to thy sel●e any graven image nor the likeness of any thing: neither shalt thou bow down to them nor serve them, not only refuse these temples, Altars & images of God, but if need be, choose rather to die. And extending this as well to the image of the true God, as of those that were no gods, he saith, 
* Ibidem.  Nec simulachra quidem nos veneramur, quip qui Dei ut invisibilis ita & incorporei formam nullam effigiamus. We reverence not images, as making no figure to God who is invisible and without all bodily shape. 
Arnob. contra gentes. lib. 8. Lib. 2. cap. 19  So Arnobius, What image shall I make to God, whose image, if you rightfully judge, man himself is? And Lactantius as you heard before affirmed There could be no religion, wheresoever there was an image.  Phi. 
These spoke not of the christian images, but of the Pagans: such as in deed we may neither worship, nor have.  Theo. 
They speak namely of themselves which were christians: confessing they neither had nor might have any image of God.  Phi. 
Not of the Godhead, but of Christ & his Saints they might notwithstanding these words; & it is evident by Eusebius they had. For the woman that was cured by Christ of the bloody issue, erected an 
The woman that was cured of the bloody flux by Christ erected an Image unto him as unto her benefactor, herself being an heathen. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 18.  image of brass unto him in Cesaria where she dwelled, under the feet of which image grew a strange herb healing all diseases as soon as it touched the brazen skirt of his garment. This image remained together with the herb to the time of Eusebius, & after till julian the Apostata in spite of Christ broke it in pieces & set up his own image in place thereof, which God strake with fire from heaven in revenge of his son so dishonoured by julian, & threw the head of julian's image from the body, & pitching it with the face downward into the earth, & blasting the rest with lightning for a terror to all that ever after should offer the image of his Son any reproach or misuse: 
Sozomen. lib. 5. cap. 21.  as you may read in Sozomene. And this example is a fair warning for you that have beheaded & burned so many images of Christ & his Saints within this Realm.  Theo. 
This image the woman that was healed, erected in the city where she dwelled as a monument of the mighty power which our Saviour had showed on her: she being then an heathen & not instructed in religion, & thinking thereby to provoke others to hearken after him & seek for his help as she had done. And when many trusted not her words, it pleased God, not only to ratify her report as true, but to show the Gentiles by the wonderful event of the herb there growing what virtue was in his son to cure all their griefs thereby to lead them the rather to believe in him, that they might be saved by him. In this we dispraise not the woman's purpose minding to celebrate the benefit which she received at our saviours hands, the best way that she then knew: & we honour the goodness of God in preparing the hearts of unbelievers by means of this miracle to be ready to embrace his Son: 
julian overthrew this image in detestation of Christ his person and doctrine.  detesting the wickedness of julian that to discover his contempt of Christ and malice against Christ (whose faith he had openly renounced) amongst other villainies, which he offered, caused the Pagans in a triumph to draw this image about the streets, & breaking it in pieces to set up the image of himself: which God overthrew with fire from heaven, not in defence of the brazen shape: but of his holy name profaned and illuded by this Apostata.  Phi. 
This image the Apostles saw and suffered.  Theo. 
A memorial of their master's act not abused by the people, 
Eusebius judgement of the woman's making this Image.  and erected before they came to preach the Gospel to that place, they might suffer: but they never taught men to make the like, nor allowed any to worship that.  Phi. 
We think they learned the setting up of this image from the Apostles.  Theo. 
Eusebius saith, they did it of an heathenish custom, and not of an apostolic instruction. His words are, 
Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 18. This setting up of an image unto Christ is counted by Eusebius an heathenish custom.  And no marvel, that the Heathens which were healed of our Saviour did him this (honour,) for so much as we have seen the images of his Apostles Paul and Peter and of Christ himself drawn in colours and kept in tables, which kind of honour, antiquity of a custom which they used when they were heathens, was wont to yield to such as they counted (Benefactors &) saviours.  Phi. 
By that you see the images of Christ & his Apostles were expressed in colours and reserved by the ancient christians long before Eusebius.  Theo. 
Eusebius doth not report it as a thing either openly received in Churches, or generally used of all christians; but as a secret and seldom matter, rising from the persuasion and affection of some which whiles they were heathen, had yielded that honour to other of their friends & fautors, to whom they were most beholding.  
For had the Apostles delivered any such tradition, or the primative church of Christ used any public erection of images, 
Images rejected in Spain Concil. Eliber. canon. 36.  as you suppose, would the council of Eliberis in Spain assembled about the time of Constantine the great, in plain words have banished them out of their churches? Placuit picturas in ecclesiis esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus d● pingatur. We have decreed that pictures ought not to be in the churches, lest that which is worshipped or adored be painted on walls. 
August. de consent. Evangelist, lib. 1. cap. 20. Images rejected in Africa.  Would S. Augustine, think you, have pronounced them worthy to err which sought Christ & his Apostles in pictures & paintings, if the people had been taught that way to seek him? Sic omnino errare me●uerunt qui Christum & Apostolos eius non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt. So they deserved to err, which sought Christ and his Apostles not in the sacred Scriptures but in painted walls.  
Or would Epiphanius have rend the image, which he found hanging in the church by jerusalem, and pronounced such painted imagery, notwithstanding it represented Christ or one of his Saints to be contrary to the Scriptures, & to the religion of Christ. 
Epiph. in epist. ad johan. Hierosolymitan. Images erected as contrary to the Scriptures.  His words are, (When I entered the church to pray,) I found hanging there in the entrance of the said church, a stained and a painted cloth having the image as it were of Christ or one of the Saints. When I saw this, that against the authority of the Scriptures the image of a man was hanged up in the church, I did tear it in sunder. And I pray you hereafter to command, that such clothes repugnant to our religion, be not hanged in the church of Christ. It becometh your fatherhood rather to have this care to banish this superstition unfit for Christ's church, and for the people committed to your charge. By this you may see that images were not received, much less adored in the church of Christ, whiles these ancient fathers lived: and that to remove them and keep them out of the church was then adjudged a seemly care for Christian Bishops, agreeable with the Catholic profession, and public use of the church of Christ in those days.  Phi. 
Gregory the first, you know, was of an other mind: that images should be suffered and not defaced in the church. 
Gregory disliked not painting of stories in the church, but he condemned adoration of Images.   Theo. 
Gregory lived 300. years after the council of Eliberis, and 200. after Epiphanius, in which time the painting of stories was crept into the church, as an ornament for the naked walls, and a mean to set before the people's eyes the lives and labours of the Saints and Martyrs: but that pictures or images in the church should be worshipped or adored, Gregory did in most manifest words abhor, alleging the law of God which we do that nothing made with hands should be adored (or served). 
Greg. lib. 9 epi. 9   Phi. 
Not with divine honour.  Theo. 
You mean with no part of that honour, which God requireth of us.  Phi. 
What else? They must not have divine honour in whole, or in part.  Theo. 
Then must they have none at all. For God requireth bodily honour no less than ghostly, as due to him: and by his law excludeth all things made with hands from having either in saying, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them. 
Exod. 20.   Phi. 
Bowing the knee, is not divine honour, but such as we yield to Parents & Magistrates.  Theo. 
Bowing the knee is a part of God's honour, as also holding up the hands, 
Submission of knees, hands & eyes are parts of gods honour.  and lifting up the eyes: 
a Esa. 45.  To me, saith God, shall every knee bow. 
b Ephes. 3.  For this cause, saith Paul, do I know my knees unto the father of our Lord jesus Christ: showing that the bowing of our knees is an honour due to God, even as the lifting up of our hands and eyes belongeth likewise unto him. 
c Psal. 63.  As long as I live, sayeth David, I will magnify thee on this manner, and lift up my hands in thy name: 
d 1. Tim. 2.  I will, sayeth the Apostle, that the men pray every where, lifting up pure hands. And so for the rest. 
e Psal. 123.  Unto thee, saith David, do I lift up mine eyes, thou that dwellest in the heavens. And again, 
f Psal. 25.  Mine eyes are ever unto the Lord. And so of our Saviour when he prayed, S. john reporteth, 
g john 17.  He lift up his eyes to heaven and said. The outward honour therefore of eyes, hands, & kne●s God requireth of us as his due, though chief and principally the heart, which he will not suffer any man to have besides himself, 

Magistrates & Parents have pa●t of Gods external honour, because they present his person in judging and blessing.  
God hath prohibited that Images should have any part of his corporal honour.   howsoever he allow those that present his goodness and glory in blessing and judging, as Parents and Magistrates, to have some part of his corporal, but in no wise of his spiritual honour.  Phi. 
And so many images have part of his external, though not of his internal honour, which is the higher of the twain, and meeter for the divine majesty.  Theo. 
It is not in your hands to make allowance of God's honour to whom you list; and again God himself hath made a plain prohibition in this case that images shall have no part of his external honour. The words are as clear as day light; thou shalt not bow down to them.  Phi. 
Not to the images of false Gods.  Theo. 
It is but lost labour, to reason with such wranglars. Have not I mainly proved that this precept expressly forbiddeth the Image of the true God to be made or bowed unto? Why then take you up those shifts again, which be false and refuted?  Phi. 
If we may not bow to holy images as unto things that be superior and better than man, 
We must not bow but to that which is better than ourselves.  yet we may embrace and love them, as things which we like, and that both by the use of the Greek tongue and speech of the scripture is called adoration, as Tharasius the Patriarch of Constantinople in his 
Habetur Nicen. Synod. 2. act. 7. What cunning was used in the 2. Nicene Council to have Images adored.  epistle to Irene the Empress and her son doth largely confirm.  Theo. 
You put me in mind, what cunning was used in the second Nicene council to save your poppets upright, and to set a colour on their ungodly decree that images should be worshipped. When they saw themselves not able to prove by Scripture or father that images should be reverenced and adored, and they had pronounced him 
* Tharasius Ibidem.  accursed that doubted of the adoration of images, your wise & worthy Bishops thought it safest to shroud their wicked resolution under the doubtful & equivocate sense of the word adoration: because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in greek did signify not only to bow for devotion and religion, but also to embrace for love and affection, as friends and familyars when they happen to meet.  
So Tharasius and the whole Synod defend the conclusion which they made in that council. 
Nicen Synod. 2. act. 7. epist. Tharas. & totius Synodi ad Constant. & Irenem.  For showing whose images they would have to be received: they add, Sunt hae adorandae etiam, id est exosculandae & amandae. Idem enim haec significant juxta antiquam Graeciae dialecton. Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat. quod quis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: & quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id omnino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These images (of Christ and his Saints) are also to be adored, that is to kissed and loved. These words are all of one force. To adore doth signify both to embrace & to love. For that which a man 
* A man by this shift may adore his horse, and be no Idolater.  loveth, that he adoreth: & that which he adoreth, that he earnestly loveth. The natural affection and love which we bear toward our friends do witness this. For so two (friends) when they meet (embrace & salute each other.) And ●●ing some places of the scripture where adoration is taken for a reverent and lovely salutation: as when 
* Genes. 33.  jacob bowed himself before Esau, and 
* Genes. 23.  Abraham before the people of Heth, & 
* 1. Reg. 20.  David before 
* Luke. 14.  jonathan and the Pharisees were noted by our Saviour for * loving such magistral obeisance, they infer; Has quoque adorandas & salutandas putamus. We think images are (in like manner) to be adored and saluted: pretending it to be a matter of faith & christian piety to adore images: and when they come to the upshot concluding nothing but an external and civil kind of embracing or kissing, 
Were not these bishops well occupied to make this conclusion?  such as a man may give to the coat which he weareth, to the meat which he eateth, to every thing that he loveth, without respect of religion or thought of devotion.  Phi. 
Then you should the sooner grant, that images may be adored, since they mean that kind of adoration which is without all danger of idolatry.  Theo. 

A right Stratagem of Satan first to bring in adoration of Images with an ambiguity of words, then to set the people to adore them in plain deeds.  Then you be wise divines, to make adoration of images a point of catholic doctrine, since the Bishops of Nice, whose acts you would seem to follow, interpret adoration to be but a familiar and friendly kissing or saluting: such as men might yield to the manger where Christ lay swathed: to the howsen which he entered: to the waters on which he walked: to the hills, deserts, highways, and cities where he prayed, preached, journeyed or suffered: the adoration of which things and places I trust you will not make a part of the Catholic faith.  Phi. 
Compare you an image with a manger?  Theo. 
It is the comparison of your own council in the very same epistle: 
Nicenae Synodi 2. act. 7. epist. Tharasij & ●o●ius Concilij.  alleging these words of Gregory the divine, justify their adoration of images: Worship Bethleem, adore the manger. If the stable & manger where Christ lay must have the same adoration that images have; yea that the cross hath whereon Christ died: how shamefully is your church fallen not only from God, but even from her own counsels, in allowing the very same honour to images, that is due to Christ himself?  Phi. 
The cross they did flatly adore: as their own words witness, which presently ensue. 
Ibidem.  Crucem tuam adoramus Domine. We adore thy cross O Lord. And that, 
Ibidem.  as it should seem, was a part of the church service. For they say, Cunvinificam crucem salutamus, convenienter canimus: when we salute the cross that procured us life, 
Ibidem.  we do well to sing: thy cross, Lord, do we adore.  Theo. 

Ibidem.  So did they the spear which pierced his side. The next words are, The spear, 
To kiss was a sign of favour and love: to bow a sign of subjection. The popish Doctrine touching Images agreeth not with the Council which they would seem to follow.  which opened thy sacred and lifegiving side, we adore. But what they meant, by that adoration they straightway expound: which adoration is nothing else but a salutation, or an embracing, if you so rather like to call it, as is hereby declared, for that we touch those things with our lips.  Phi. 
Yet this is a kind of adoration.  Theo. 
But not such as your church and schools afterward defended and yielded unto material images, & crosses. For you in plain words require 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is divine honour for the wooden cross and image of Christ; whereas the second Nicene council in this epistle doth wholly renounce that, as a manifest and wicked error. And therefore you do nothing less than accord with that Council which is so much in your mouths, they decreeing but a reverent salutation, and you giving divine adoration to the image & cross of Christ: which be doctrines mightily repugning each to other, if you note them well, though the word adoration be used in both.  
And did you consent with them as you do not, neither their resolution, nor yours is catholic: 
Two sensible changes in the adoration of Images.  they venturing farther than either scriptures or fathers before did lead them, and that upon the doubtful acception of the word adoring, and blind presumption that external reverence (which they meant thereby) might be given for love, fear, favour or courtesy without impairing the honour due to God: and you being deceived by the heat of their speech, and taking adoration for a religious and devout submission of body and soul, such as belonged to the person himself represented by the image: and that in our Saviour is divine and heavenly honour.  Phi. 
Should not the cross of Christ have divine honour?  Theo. 
The cross being taken for his death and passion, as the scriptures use the word, 
Christ's Cross, that is his death must be adored, but not the wood on which he hung.  must be adored as the true and only mean of our redemption and salvation: but the wood, on which he hung, may not, much less the sign of it, as you now abuse it. You heard Saint Ambrose say, that to adore the wood, on which the Lord died, was an heathenish error, and vanity of the wicked: And before him Arnobius made this answer for all Christians: Cruces nec columus, 
Ambros. de obitu Theodosij. Arnob. adversgentes, lib. 8.  nec optamus: vos plane, qui ligneos Deos consecratis, cruces ligneas ut Deorum vestrorum parts, forsitan adoratis: Crosses we neither worship, nor wish for: you that dedicate wooden Gods, you happily adore wooden crosses, as parts of your Gods. But what need I farther refel that council as not catholic which was presently rejected and pithily confuted by the Bishops and churches of the West: whose labours are extant at this day, brought to light by men of your own religion, and saved from the moothes which you meant should consume them? Thither we send you, there you shall find both your adoration of images disclaimed as uncatholic, and the reasons and authorities of your second Nicene council, thoroughly scanned and scattered, almost 800. years before our time.  Phi. 
That book we receive not; as thinking it to be rather some late forgery of yours than a monument of that antiquity.  Theo. 
If you receive not the books that were safe in your own keeping, 
You reject the books that were in your own keeping, and will have us receive what you list at your hands though it be never so false.  and published by your nearest friends, how should we trust the corruptions that are framed to your purposes and no where found but in your own libraries?  Phi. 
Since you distrust our written records, why do you not believe the faithful report of the church, which is the pillar of truth, & can not be corrupted?  The. 
Nay since forgeries be so rise, that no father is free from them, & so gross that every child may discern them, why do not you believe the report of God himself, the founder and builder of the church; and that witnessed in his word, of which there is no suspicion, and against the which there is no exception?  Phi. 
As though we did not.  Theo. 
Then for adoration of images, which you defend, show what precedent you have in the word of God.  Phi. 
We need not.  Theo. 
We know you cannot.  Phi. 
And I reply that we need not.  The. 
Doth it concern the christian faith and Catholic religion which the godly must profess, or no?  Phi. 
It doth.  Theo. 

It can be no point of faith that may not be proved by the scriptures.  Then must you show some authority for it in the sacred scriptures, or else they must repel it as impious.  Phi. 
We have it by tradition from the Apostles.  Theo. 
You would have wrested so much out of S. basil, but that your cunning failed you.  Phi. 
From them we had it.  Theo. 
We say you had no such thing from them: and further we add, that if it be a matter of doctrine & belief, as you make it, you must have it testified in their writings, and not concealed among their traditions  Phi. 

They may soon be Catholic if they forge as fast as they have done, & then measure Catholicism by those forgeries.  No Sir, we believe many things (whereof this is one) that are not written, but were delivered us by secret succession.  Theo. 
The greater is your sin, and the unsounder is your Creed. In matters of faith you should believe nothing but that which is expressly warranted by the scriptures. And therefore in this and other points of your Romish devotion now brought to trial, if you want the foundation of true faith and religion, in vain do you seek to make a show of catholicism with such patches & pamslets, as Monks & Friars have forged & coloured with the names of fathers. The catholic church of Christ never received nor believed any point of faith upon tradition without the Scriptures.  Phi. 

The Rhemish Testament upon the 2. Thes. 2.  We have to the contrary plain Scriptures, all the fathers, most evident reasons, that we must either believe traditions, or nothing at all.  Theo. 
We know you can brag; but you have neither Scripture, father nor reason to impugn that which we affirm. 
How largely the word Tradition is taken amongst the fathers.   Phi. 
For traditions we have.  Theo. 
Tradition is any thing that hath been delivered or taught, by word or mouth or by writing, touching the grounds of faith, or circumstances and ceremonies of christian Religion. And therefore when you muster the fathers to disprove the scriptures, and to establish an unwritten faith under the credit of traditions, you corrupt the writers, and abuse the readers.  Phi. 
How can we do that, when we bring you the very words of the Authors themselves?  Theo. 
H●w can you choose but do it, when you force the fathers to speak against themselves?  Phi. 
Do we?  Theo. 

The Rhemish Test. fol. 559.  Your Rhemish translators, perceiving the weight of their whole cause to lie on this, have marshaled nine fathers in a rank, namely: S. Chrysostom, S. basil, S. Hierom, S. Augustine, S. Epiphanius, S. Ireneus, S. Tertullian, S. Cyprian, and Origen; but to what purpose, can you tell?  Phi. 
To prove that we must either believe traditions or nothing.  Theo. 
Believe them, as articles of our faith, or exercises of our profession?  Phi. 
Why make you that distinction?  Theo. 
Because the very same fathers, that say traditions must be received besides the Scriptures, avouch likewise, as I before have showed, that no matter of faith or of any moment to salvation must be received or believed without scriptures. 
This is their manner of alleging fathers throughout their Rhemish Testament.  Now choose whether you will grant a flat contradiction in them, or conclude with us, ergo the traditions which they mean, be no parts nor points of the christian faith. And so these nine fathers, on whose credits you thought to plant your late found faith, hold nothing with you, but rather against you.  Phi. 
How make you that appear?  Theo. 
View them once more. We have their plain confession that all things necessary to salvation are comprised in the scriptures. You produce them to witness that your traditions be not comprised in the scriptures: Ergo by your own deponents we conclude that your traditions be neither necessary to salvation, nor points of the catholic faith, without which we can not be saved. Look well to this issue they must either dissent from your religion, or from themselves.  Phi. 
Your mayor is not yet proved.  Theo. 
Yes, with firm & surer authorities, than those be which you bring; let the places be scanned, which I before rehearsed, & the matter left to the judgement of the reader; Or if you be loath to look so far back, examine shortly th●se that follow. 
a Athanas. contra gentes.  The holy Scriptures inspired from heaven, are sufficient for all instruction of truth, saith Athanasius. 
b Chrysost. homil. 1. ad Titum.  The Gospel, saith Chrysostom, containeth all things: 
c Idem opera imperfect in Mat. homil. 41.  whatsoever is requisite for salvation, all that is fully laid down in the Scriptures. In the two Testaments, saith Cyril, 
d Cyril. in Leuit. lib. 5.  every word (or thing) that pertaineth to God may be required & discussed. 
e Ambros. Hexamer. lib. 1. ca 6.  Sufficient to us for salvation is the truth of (Gods) precepts saith Ambrose. And Augustin, 
f August in joan. tract. 44.  There were chosen to be written, such things as seemed (to the holy ghost) sufficient for the salvation of the faithful. Vincentius Lirinensis; whom you greatly boast of, but without all cause, agreeth with the rest, that 
g Vincent, adverse haeret.  The Canon of the Scripture is perfect & sufficient & more than sufficient, to all things. And again, Not that, saith he, 
h Ibidem.  The canon alone is not sufficient for all things; as it were taking great heed lest he should seem to deny the fullness of the scriptures which you purposely impugn under a colour of catholicism by his writings.  
Now cite not only nine, 
All that the Jesuits can infer out of these fathers is this, that their own traditions be not necessary to salvation.  but nines kore fathers if you will, for traditions, & the more you stir, the worse you speed. For the traditions which they mention be either points of faith or not. If they be, then by the general confession of all antiquity, they must be warranted by the scriptures, or else we must reject them▪ If they be no parts nor consequents of the christian faith, then do not those fathers weaken our assertion, when we say that all points of faith must be proved by the scriptures, & this we gain besides, that the traditions which you make the groundwork of all your religion, as they be not written, so be they not necessary to salvation.  Phi. 
The faith itself is proved by tradition. 
Tradition is good if it consent with the scriptures.   Theo. 
That doctrine which the Apostles delivered by word of mouth, the very same they put afterward in writing that it might be the touchstone & trial of truth in times to come: but this is nothing to such unwritten verities as be different from the scriptures. Teach what you will by tradition, so it accord with the written word of God; we be not against it: but you may not build any point of faith upon tradition, except the scriptures confirm the same.  Phi. 
This is an error of yours, which you seek to bolster against the church.  The. 
You give us words, we give you proofs; 
The Jesuits doctrine dependeth on tradition of their own making.  this which you call an error of ours was taught & received in the primative church for a catholic truth; & except you can show some points of faith which the fathers believed upon tradition without scriptures, the world will suspect that you make traditions but a cloak for your heresies.  Phi. 

The Rhemish Testament. 2. Thes. 2.  S▪ Augustin often writeth that many of the articles of our religion & points of highest importance, are not so much to be proved by scriptures, as by tradition.  The. 
You belly so many, that it is no news for you to belly S. Austen. Where saith he so?  Phi. 

The Rhemish Test. Ibidem.  Namely avouching, that in no wise we could believe that children in their infancy should be baptized, if it were not an Apostolic tradition. De gen. ad lit. lib. 10 cap. 23.  Theo. 
But where doth S. Austen writ this often & that of many articles of religion & points of highest importance? 
The Rhemish Test. Ibidem.  Of so many high points you should have showed two at least.  Phi. 
Tradition caused him to believe, that the baptised of heretics should not be rebaptized, notwithstanding S. Cryprians authority & the manifold scriptures alleged by him, though they seemed never so pregnant. de bap. lib. 2. cap. 7.  Theo. 
Your heads be so full of traditions, that you can not report a father without corruptions. 
S. Augustine refuteth rebaptisation by Scripture. ●Aug. epi. 203.  It is not true that Tradition (& nothing else) caused him to believe this against Cyprians authority: he was armed with scriptures & reasons invincible as himself both showeth and saith. Provoking a Donatist to confer with him about this error, Ratione agamus, di●inarum scripturarum authoritatibus agamus, Let us discuss this matter, saith he, by argument, by the authorities of the divine scriptures. And repeating a reason that was expressed in the Prince's edict forbidding rebaptisation, he maketh the rebaptizers this offer: Faciant mill Concilia Episcopi vestri, 
Aug. epi. 166.  huic uni sententiae respondeant, & ad quod volueritis consentimus vobis. Let your Bishops assemble a thousand counsels, & answer but this one sentence, we yield to you at your pleasures. And therefore he doubted not to say of Cyprian, 
Contra Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31.  though otherwise he did honour him very much, Aliter sapi●t quam veritas diligentius considerata patefecit. He was of an other opinion than that which the truth upon more diligent consideration revealed And when Cyprians epistle in this case was objected, he replied: 
Contra Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 32. Augustine refused Cyp●. authority as dissident from the Scriptures.  Cyprians epistles I esteem not as canonical but I consider them by the canonical (scriptures:) & that which in them agreeth with the authority of the divine scriptures I receive with his praise: that which doth not agree, by his leave I refuse. The general custom of the c●u●ch revoked him from following Cypri●●s authority, though it were great, and brought him to the deeper debating of the question, but he which saith that S. Augustine in all his conferences and writings allegeth nothing against rebaptisation but tradition, may be rebaptized, if his christianity be no more than his cunning.  Phi. 

Aug. de Genes. ad literam, lib. 10. cap. 23. All the show the jes. have for this matter is one, t, too much in S. Austen.  For baptizing of infants his words be plain. It were not at all to be believed, if it were not an apostolic tradition.  Theo. 
I see the words well enough; but the meaning of the speaker in this place, and the likeness of the same speech in other places, make me to think, that a letter too much is crept into these words, as through the injuries of times, and variety of scribes many thousand depravations and diverse lections were and are yet in the works of S. Augustine, and other fathers not only by the judgement of the learned but by the very sight of their margins.  Phi. 
A letter to much? which is it?  Theo. 
You read Nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esset traditio: I think it should be Nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esse traditio. 
Esset for Esse.  Esset for esse is a scope in writing soon committed, but a matter of some moment in altering the sense.  Phi. 
And therefore you may not correct it without apparent proof.  Theo. 
I may suspect it, though I take not upon me to correct it, but leave it to the indifferent reader.  Phi. 
You must be led thereunto with very good reason.  Theo. 
First the very course of the sentence leadeth me so to think. 
Aug. de Genes. ad literam, lib. 10. cap. 23.  Saint Augustine in these three distunctives, Nequaquam spernenda, neque vllo modo superflua deputanda, nec omnino credenda, The custom of (our) mother the Church in baptizing (her) infants is neither to be despised, 
There is no Gradation in these words except you read Esse which Saint August●ment to make.  nor any way to be counted superfluous, nor at all to be believed, did not mean to contradict himselve, but by steps to increase the credit of this custom: and the third part, Nec omnino credenda, Not at all to be believed doth rather evert all that went before, than give you any farther commendation to that Tradition. For Not at all to be believed, is as much as to be despised and counted superfluous, which is repugnant to the words precedent. But reading Esse ●or Esset, the parts are consequent each after other in better order, and the last is the same that Saint Augustine in other places doth often utter in the very like manner and kind of speech that here is used. The custom of (our) mother the church in baptizing (her) infants, is neither to be despised, nor by any means to be accounted superfluous, nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esse traditio, nor at all to be thought to be any other than an apostolic tradition. So speaking elsewhere of the very same matter, he saith, 
a De Bapt. contrae Don●t. li. 4. cap. 24. The very same phrase in the very same matter is here used  Non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur. It is most rightly believed to be none other than a tradition of the Apostles. Where we find not only the same purpose, but the very same phrase and force of speech that were used before. And so again of that and such like: 
a De Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 2. cap. 7.  Many things are not found in the (Apostles) writings nor in the Counsels of those that came after them, and yet because they be observed of the universal Church, Non nisi ab ipsis tradita & commendata creduntur, they are thought to have been delivered and commended by none but by them.  Phi. 
This sense is not amiss, 

If the Jesuits read Esset, it is both against themselves & also against S. Austen.  
The Jesuits tradition, be not all Apostolical.   if the words would bear it, but the text is Esset as we translate it.  Theo. 
The sense which you urge is first against yourselves, next against S. Austen himself in other places, and lastly (which is it that you shoot at) it overthroweth not our assertion.  Phi. 
It requireth some pains to prove all this.  Theo. 
Not so much perhaps as you think. For will you confess that no custom of the church must be received or believed, except it be apostolic? Admit this, and see whether we will not presently cast off the most part of the precepts and customs of your Church, as not descending from the Apostles, and therefore not at all to be believed by your own verdict.  
And as for Saint Augustine, if you think he would say that The custom of the (universal) Church is not at all to be believed, except it be Apostolic, read this resolution better & you will leave that misconstruction of his words. 
c August. epist. 118.  Those things which we keep, saith he, not written but delivered by tradition, the which the whole world observeth, must be conceived to have been commended & ordained, vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenarijs concilijs quorum est in ecclesia saluberrima authoritas, either by the Apostles themselves, or else by general counsels, whose authority in the church is most wholesome. The custom of the church he saith must be retained, though it be not apostolic, but decreed by others of later age & mean●r credit than the Apostles, if their assemblies & synods were general. And again, 
d August. epist. 86.  In hijs rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit scriptura divina mos populi Dei, vel instituta Maiorum pro lege tenenda sunt. In those things where the divine scripture appointeth no certainty, the custom of the people of God & ordinances of forefathers must be held for a law. 
Esset, maketh S. Augustine contrary to himself.  If the custom of God's people & the ordinances of elders must be kept for a law, than the custom of the church in baptizing her infants might not be rejected though it were not apostolic, & so S. Austen with your esset clean crosseth himself.  


This place maketh least of all against us.  
A tradition may be written.   Lastly where you think to give us the foil with pressing this place, we easily grant you that The custom of the church in baptizing her infants were not to be believed, if it were not in apostolic tradition. You have your own reading, what are you the better?  Phi. 
Ergo some points of faith are believed without the scriptures & besides the scriptures.  The. 
Sir, I deny your argument.  Phi. 
This is believed by tradition, ergo not by scripture.  Theo. 
A tradition it may be & yet written in the scriptures. S. Paul calleth the Lord's supper a tradition, & yet it is written, 
1. Cor. 11.  Ego accepi à Domino quod & tradidi vobis, I received of the Lord, that which I delivered unto you. The death and resurrection of Christ he likewise called a tradition confirmed by the Scriptures. 
1. Cor. 15.  Tradidi vobis inprimis, quod & accepi: I delivered unto you first of all which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was buried and rose the third day according to the Scriptures. And in plainer, words to the Thessalonians. 
2. Thes. 2.  Hold fast, sayeth he, the traditions which you have learned, either by speech or Epistle of ours, calling those things that be written in his epistles his traditions.  Phi. 
But the father's use the word otherwise, for that which is not written.  Theo. 
Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. S. Cyprian saith, Whence is this tradition? 
Cyp. ad Pompei●●m contra epist. Stephani.  Whether doth it descend from the lords authority and the Gospel, or cometh it from the precepts and epistles of the Apostles? If it be commanded in the Gospel, or contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, let this holy tradition be observed. And so S. basil, Our baptism is according to the tradition of the Lord, 
Basil. contra E●nomium. li. 3.  in the name of the father▪ the Son and the holy Ghost. Ireneus, Tertullian, Hierom, Augustine and others call the short rehearsal of the christian faith, which is our common Creed, an old & Apostolic tradition, & yet no part of the creed is without or besides the warrant of the Scriptures.  Phi. 
I know it may be a tradition, and yet revokeable to the Scriptures and provable by the Scriptures, but the baptism of infant's Saint Augustine saith hath no witness in the scriptures.  Theo. 
Where saith he so?  Phi. 
In many places. 
August. de Bap. contra Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23.   Theo. 
Name but one.  Phi. 
There be many things which the universal Church observeth, and for that cause they be well thought to have been commanded by the Apostles, though they be not found written.  Theo. 
How prove you this to be one of those many?  Phi. 
Because we find it not written, but only delivered by tradition.  Theo. 
You say so: but where doth S. Augustine say so?  Phi. 
In the words which we first alleged It were not to be believed if it were not an apostolic tradition. If it were written it must be believed though it were no Tradition.  Theo. 
You deal with the fathers, as you do with the scriptures. S. Austen doth not say the baptism of infants were not to be believed, 
The custom of the church in baptizing her infants were not sufficient if the tradition were not apostolic.  but, The custom of the Church in (a matter of so great weight as) the baptizing of infants were not to be trusted if the tradition were not apostolic. The church might not have presumed to baptise infants if the Apostles had not begun it: what gain you by that? Thereby you may prove that the Apostles did it, and that the Church of herself and her own authority might not do it, more you cannot prove.  Phi. 
But doth S. Austen any where say that the baptism of Children is contained in the scriptures?  Theo. 
What if he went not so far in words, because the matter was not in question whiles he lived, is that any ground for you to conclude that it is not allowed by the Scriptures?  Phi. 
If he keep silence, 
S. Augustine proveth it needful for infants to be baptised: whether it were lawful was never doubted in his time.  it is a shrewd sign that it is not.  Theo. 
So long as no man did impugn it, there was no need he should defend it; the question in his time was not whether it were lawful for infants to be baptised, but whether it were needful for them or no. The Pelagians held it to be superfluous, for the infant's were void of original sin: which was their error. That he mightily reproveth by manifest Scriptures and showeth that infants as well as others be excluded from the kingdom of God, if they be not baptised. Farther he waded not, as being not farther urged, and troubled enough besides with refuting other heresies; and yet as occasion served he brought more than Tradition for the baptizing of children. 
* August. de baptism. contra D●n●t. li. 4. ca 24.  If any man, saith he, se●ke for divine authority in this matter, we may truly conjecture by circumcision, what effect the Sacrament of baptism hath in infants, using a very forcible argument in this case, that if children might receive the seal of the former covenant under Moses, why not of the later established in the blood of Christ?  Phi. 
He saith we may conjecture it, but he doth not say we may prove it.  Theo. 
He repeateth the reason with Veraciter conijcere possumus, We may very truly conjecture, and a true conjecture is no untrue persuasion: but as I said it was not then in doubt, and therefore no marvel if that Learned father laboured not that question to the depth. Had it been denied, as in our days it is, he would have found the same scriptures to confirm it that we do. And to say the truth his evident illations out of the Scriptures that baptism is needful for Infants, make sufficient demonstration that baptism is lawful for Infants, else it would follow that no child might be saved; which is an heinous and monstruous error, directly fight with the manifest scriptures. For where without baptism they cannot be saved, by reason original sin is not remitted but in baptism as S. Austen concludeth out of the words of our Saviour 
S Augustine urgeth Baptism to be needful against the Pelagians, who thought it superfluous, not against those that were prevented with inevitable necessity.  Except a man be borne of water and of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God; If children be excluded from baptism, they be consequently excluded from the kingdom of God; which is flatly repugnant to the word of God.  Phi. 
It is no meaning of ours to exclude children from baptism, but to let you understand that you cannot show by the Scriptures that children were baptised.  Theo. 
I grant we cannot, and add, we need not. The Scriptures we say contain all matters of faith, not of fact. That children were baptised we prove by the practice of Christ's Church and not by the scriptures. 
* 
john 3.  
The fact is not expressed in the Scriptures, the cause is.   That children may be baptised we prove not only by the Tradition of the Apostles, but also by the sequel of the Scriptures themselves.  
Our Saviour saith of Children, 
a Mat. 18.  It is not the will of your father, which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. Now choose you whether they shall be saved without baptism, or perish for lack of baptism. Again the Lord saith, 
b Mat. 19  Suffer the little children and forbidden them not to come unto me: for the kingdom of heaven belongeth unto such. They must enter the kingdom of God before they can possess it, and 
c john 3.  enter it they cannot until they be new borne of water and the holy Ghost. Now say, will you exclude them from that which God hath provided for them: or will admit them to be heirs with Christ before they be engrafted into Christ by Baptism? The Apostle saith to the great comfort of all Christian Parents; The 
d 1. Cor. 7.  unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife (that believeth,) and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband (that believeth:) else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. This is spoken not of the secret election of the faithful, which is neither common to all nor known to any, but of their Christian profession whereby they be 
e 1. Cor. 1. 2. Tim. 1.  called to be Saints, that is an 
f 1. Peter 2.  holy & peculiar people unto God. For all things be holy that be dedicated to his use, & this kind of holiness S. Paul deriveth from the root to the branches, 
g 
Rom. 11.  
If Children be holy because their parents are holy, than they have no better holiness than their parents: and in all Christian parents there is not inward sanctification.   If the root be holy so are the branches. If then Infants be partakers of the same vocation & holiness with their parents, & without baptism (which is the seal of God's covenant with us, in the blood of his son) neither we nor our children can be holy, surely the children of Saints if they be excluded from baptism, are as unholy and unclean as the children of Infidels which utterly subverteth saint Paul's Doctrine. If to avoid this place you suppose holiness to be meant of the inward satisfaction of God's spirit; besides that children draw inward corruption not holiness from their Christian Parents, yet this way we also conclude that Children must be Baptized: for where the spirit of God is precedent, the service of man must be consequent, as saint Peter teacheth. 
h Act. 8.  Can any man forbidden water that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy Ghost? So that, take which you will and say what you can, our conclusion is unmovable. And since children be defiled by Adam, if they may not be washed by Christ, the disobedience of man shall be mightier unto condemnation, than the grace of God and obedience of Christ unto justification, which the 
i Rom. 5. vers. 15.17.21.  Scriptures reject as a wicked absurdity.  
Wherefore the church absolutely and flatly may not assure salvation to children unbaptized, lest they seem naturally innocent or generally sanctified without baptism: albeit their Parents desiring and seeking it, if they be prevented by mortal necessity we must leave them to the goodness, 
August. de baptis. lib. 4 cap.  and secret election of God not without hope: because in their Parents 
a 22.  there wanted no will, but an extremity disappointed them: and in the children the let was 
b 23.  weakness of age, not wickedness of heart: and so the sacrament omitted, not for 
c 24.  any contempt of religion: but by strictness of time: in which cases S. Augustine confesseth the want of baptism may be supplied, if it so please God: marry they may not challenge it, nor we promise it.  
Much more might be said, but I content myself with the former reasons till you refute them. And having the certain practice of the Apostles in baptizing Infants witnessed by the Church of Ch●ist, and delivered unto the Church for the confirmation of those things which we allege, 
The scripture proveth that Children may be baptised & must be, if we will have them to be saved, tradition proveth they were Baptized.  we count them irrefutable.  Philand. 
Neither do I mislike the thing, but I muse why Saint Augustine claimed wholly by Tradition, if so much Scripture might be brought for the matter.  Theoph. 
Express precept to baptise infants or plain example where they were baptised, the scripture hath none: and therefore Saint Augustine did well to reverence the Tradition which he saw was apostolic, and if any man urge us to prove that children were baptised we must flee to the same Tradition with him: But if it be impugned as a thing unlawful and dissonant from the Scriptures, we must then lift the ground of that Tradition by the scriptures, because it toucheth the salvation or condemnation of Christian Infants: And so would S. Austen have exactly and learnedly done, we doubt not, if that point had been controversed in his time.  Philand. 
He would you say: but he did not we know, and that causeth us to take it for an unwritten Tradition.  Theoph. 
A tradition we grant, but agreeable to the Scriptures. And though Saint Austen do not say so, that is no reason for you to conclude it is not so; silence is no proof. Nay if he had called it an unwritten Tradition, as he doth not, that were no let but it might be confirmed by the scriptures, as it is: for the precept is not written, though the causes and consequents may be justified by that which is written. 
One and the same tradition both unwritten and yet warranted by the Scriptures.  And this is not strange with Saint Austen to call that an unwritten Tradition, which himself confesseth may be warranted by the scriptures.  Phi. 
What have we here? One and the same Tradition confessed by saint Augustine to be both written and unwritten?  Theoph. 
One and the same Tradition, I say confessed to be written, and yet warranted by the Scriptures.  Phi. 
That were news.  Theo. 
None at all. Go no farther than your second example of rebaptizing, and you shall see it to be true.  
S. Augustine calleth it an unwritten Tradition or Custom of the church in many places. 
De baptis. contra Donat. li. 2. c. 7.  He saith expressly of it, Quam consuetudinem credo ex Apostolica Traditione venientem, sicut multa non inveniuntur in Literis eorum etc. Which custom I think came from the apostles, as many (other) things (that) are not found in their writings. 
De baptis. contra D●nat. li. 5. ●. 23.  And again of the very same, Apostoli nihil quidem exinde praeceperunt. The Apostles in deed commanded nothing in that case: as also there be many things which the whole Church observeth though they be not found written.  Phi. 
That we know to be true, never spend more time about it, but let us hear where S. Austen saith this Custom is also warranted by the scriptures.  Theo. 
You can not miss it, if you read the very same books where the other is witnessed.  

* 
De baptis. li. 1. cap. 7.  
Rebaptisation against the Scriptures.   Now, saith he, lest I seem to dispute this matter by human reasons, because the darkness of this question drove great men, and men endued with great charity, the bishops that were in former ages of the church before the schism of Donatus to doubt and strive, but without breach of unity, ex evangelio profero certa Documenta quibus Domino adiuuante demonstro: Out of the Gospel I bring sure grounds by Gods help to make proof (thereof.) And having disputed it a while, We 
* De baptis. lib. 4. cap. 7.  follow that, saith he, which the custom of the church hath always observed, & a plenary council confirmed. And the reasons and testimonies of scriptures on both sides being thoroughly weighed I may say, we follow that which truth hath declared. 
De baptis. lib. 5. cap. 4.  And repeating the evidence of his side, he saith it may be understood by the former custom of the Church, by the strength of a general council that followed by so many & so weighty testimonies of the holy scriptures, by manifold instructions out of Cyprians own works and very plain arguments of truth. And therefore drawing to an end he saith, 
De baptis. lib. 6. cap. 1.  It might perhaps suffice that (our) reasons being so oft repeated and diversly debated and handled in disputing, and the Documents of the holy Scriptures being added, and so many testimonies of Cyprian himself concurring, iam etiam cord tardiores quantum existimo intelligunt, by this time the weaker and duller sort of men as I think understand that the baptism of Christ can not be violated, by no perverseness of the party that giveth it or taketh it, and therefore must not be iterated. Thus in one and the selfsame work you see S. Austen avouching it to be a Tradition not written, and yet confirmed by manifest scriptures.  Phi. 
I hear him say so, but I see not how it can be.  Theo. 
You will not, for fear you should see yourselves convinced of an error, it is otherwise plain enough. The thing itself is not written, but received by Tradition, marry the grounds of it be so laid in the scriptures, that it may thence be rightly concluded. The like we say for the baptism of infants, 
How the same thing may be written & yet unwritten.  the precept itself is not written, nor any example of it in the scriptures, but it was delivered unto the church by tradition from the Apostles: marry it so dependeth on those principles of faith, which be written, that it may be fairly deduced from them and fully proved by them.  Phi. 
By Tradition only, he and other condemned helvidius the heretic for denying the perpetual virginity of our Lady. 
The Rhemish Testament 2. Thes. 2.   Theo. 
Your store faileth you when you flee from faith and hope in GOD to examine joseph and Marie that you may pick out somewhat between them to impeach the perfection of the Scriptures. That Christ was borne of a virgin undefiled, is an high point of faith and plainly testified in the Scriptures. That after the birth of her Son she was not known of her husband, is a reverend and seemly truth preserved in the Church by witnesses worthy to be trusted, but no part of faith needful to be recorded in the Scriptures.  Phi. 
Saint Augustine saith it is. 

That Mary was not known of her husband after the birth of our Saviour is a reverend truth but no point of faith.  
De Eccl. dogmatibus cap. 69.   Integra fide credendum est, With an upright faith we must believe that blessed Mary the mother of God and Christ was a virgin in conceiving, a virgin when she was delivered, and remained a virgin after the birth of her son. And we must beware the blasphemy of helvidius which said, she was a virgin before, but not after the birth (of Christ)  Theo. 
Grate not on these things which were better to be honoured with silence, than discussed with diligence. The book which you bring is not S. Augustine's. It was found 
* Vide Erasmi censuram in eundem librum.  under Tertullian'S name as well as under Augustine's, though Tertullian himself be 
* Cap. 4. Ibidem, cap. 69.  twice there noted for an heretic, and challenged the first time for that very error which S. Augustine in his true book of heresies doth acquit him from. And yet these words, Credendum est Mariam virginem concepisse, virginem genuisse, & post partum virginem permansisse, We must believe that the mother of Christ was a pure virgin when she conceived, when she brought forth his son, and after she was delivered, do not touch your question as they are defended by S. Augustine in his undoubted works to be part of our faith, but only that she was a pure virgin after his birth, 
Enchirid. ad Laurens. ca 34.  notwithstanding his birth. And therefore he saith, Quisi velper nascentem corrumperetur eius integritas, iam non ille de virgine nasceretur. If Christ's birth even when he was borne should have violated the virginity of his mother, 
Christ's mother was a Virgin as well after his birth as after his conception.  than had he not been borne of a virgin. So that as she conceived the Lord, and was still a virgin, so she was delivered of him, and herself yet a virgin, that is, not only without the knowledge of man, but also without all hurt of her body: she remaining after she was delivered of her child as perfect a virgin in body, as she was before she conceived him. And this to be the right meaning of those words, Post partum virgo permansit, she remained a virgin after the birth of her child, when her virginity must be urged for a point of faith, the sermons extant under the name of S. Augustine do clearly confess. 
* 
De Tempore sermo. 123.  
How she forbore the company of her husband is no matter incomprehensible.  
Ibidem sermo. 10.15.17.18.25.   Nec dubites Mariam virginem mansisse post partum, quia qualiter hoc factum sit, non humanus sermo, neque sensus potest comprehendere. Never doubt but Marie remained a virgin after the birth of her child, although neither man's speech nor wit can comprehend how it was done. And again, Virgo cum parturit, virgo post partum. Vacuatur uterus, infans excipitur, nec tamen virginitas violatur. She was a virgin when she was delivered, and a virgin after. She was delivered, her child borne, and 
* If you list to conclude, and so remained to her death, you may for us; but that is no point of faith, whatsoever the former be.  she for all that a virgin. The like we find in sundry other of those sermons.  Phi. 
But helvidius was noted as an heretic by S. Augustine and others for saying that our Lady was known of joseph her husband after the birth of our Saviour.  Theo. 
The Fathers might reject him as an heretic for his impudent abusing the Scriptures to build a falsehood upon them which was not contained in them; and if they detested it as a rash and wicked slander for him against manifest truth to blemish that chosen vessel which the holy Ghost had overshadowed, and the son of God sanctified with his presence, we neither blame them, nor mislike their doings. But yet they never charged the Scriptures with imperfection as you do.  
S. Jerome purposely writing against helvidius useth the fullness of the Scriptures as his best argument to defend her virginity. Vt haec quae scripta sunt non negamus, 
Hieron. advers. Heluidium.  ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus. Natum esse Deum de Virgin, credimus, quia legimus. Mariam Nupsisse post partum non credimus, quia non legimus. As we deny not those things which are written, so we reject those things which are not written. That God was borne of a Virgin, we believe, because we read. That (the same virgin) Mary became a wife after the birth of her son, we believe it not, because we read it not. S. Augustine allegeth Scripture for it, 
August. de S. Virginit. cap 4.  with what success I will not judge. If neither of these quiet your contentious spirits; our answer shallbe that when you make just proof that this is a point, not of truth, which we grant; but of faith, which you urge; then will we not fail to show it consequent to that which is written.  

The Papists would have the holy ghost hold his divinity by tradition.  You were wont to object other points of Religion as proved by tradition and not by Scripture: amongst which you set the Godhead of the holy Ghost and his proceeding from the Father and the Son: But I trust by this time you be either stilled in them or ashamed of them.  Phi. 
Not so neither. For 
* Harding against the Apology of the English Church, part. 2. cap. 1.  As we acknowledge this article to be most true, so we are sure you have no express Scripture for it.  Theo. 
Are you well advised, when to spite us, you teach the people, that the highest mysteries of their faith cannot be warranted by the Scriptures? Perceive you not what a wrong it is to the spirit of GOD to hold his Divinity by Tradition, and not by the word of God? What ignorance is this, if it be no worse, to say that 
* Athanas. de communi essentia Patris, filii. & S●iritus sancti. Dydimus de spiritu sancto. Basil. contra Eunomium & de spiritu sancto. Nazianzen. orat. 5. de Theolog. Ambros. de spiritu sancto. Cyril. de Trinitate, lib. 7. & lib. de spiritu sancto. August. de Trinitate.  Athanasius, Dydimus, Basil, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Cyril and Augustine in their special Treaties of this very point have alleged no Scriptures to confirm the Godhead of the Holy Ghost?  Phi. 
We speak not of them but of you.  Theo. 
As if in a common case of faith the Scriptures were not common to us with them. If they had Scriptures for it, we have; if we have none, than had they none.  Phi. 
Express Scripture they had none.  Theo. 
Do you play with idle words in so weighty matters of Christian faith? 
The fathers assured themselves they had express Scripture for the godhead of the holy Ghost.  Evident and plain scriptures they had where the holy Ghost was called God: what is express Scripture if that be not?  Phi. 
They had no such scripture.  Theo. 
Had they not? Turn your book a little better, you shall find they had. 
a August. epist. 66.  Glorificate Deum & portate in corpore vestro. Quem Deum nisi spiritum sanctum cuius corpora nostra dixerat esse Templum? Glorify God, saith the Apostle, and bear him in your body. What God but the Holy ghost whose Temple before he called our bodies? And again, 
b Idem. qu. est. supra Exod. lib. 2. quaest. 59  When (Peter) had said, durst thou make a lie to the holy Ghost? (Ananias) thinking he had lied unto men, Peter showeth the Holy Ghost to be God by and by adding, thou hast not lied unto men but unto God. These two places the same father urgeth against the Arrians as very plain scriptures. 
c Contra Max. lib. 3. cap. 21.  Glorificate ergo Deum in corpore vestro. Vbi 
* What is Dilucide, but plain Scripture?  dilucidè ostendit Deum esse spiritum sanctum, glorificandum scilicet in corpore nostro. Et quod Ananiae dixit Petrus Apostolus: Ausus es mentiri spiritui sancto? Atque ostendens Deum esse spiritum sanctum, non es, inquit, hominibus mentitus, sed Deo. Glorify therefore God in your body, saith Paul. Where very manifestly he showeth the holy Ghost to be God which must be glorified in our body as in his Temple. And that which Peter the Apostle said to Ananias: Durst thou lie unto the holy Ghost? And declaring the holy Ghost to be God, thou hast not lied unto men, saith he, but unto God.  
Ambrose taketh them for evident scriptures. 
Ambros. de Spiritus Sancto, lib. 3. cap. 10.  Quod praemiserit Spiritum & addiderit, non es mentitus hominibus sed Deo, necesse est in spiritu sancto ut unitatem divinitatis esse intelligas. 
* 
Ibidem lib. 3. cap. 11.  
Is not evidenter evident Scripture?   Nec solum in hoc loco evidenter sancti spiritus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, divinitatem Scriptura testatur, sed etiam ipse Dominus dixit in evangelio quod Deus spiritus est. In that (Peter) first named the Spirit, and presently said, thou hast lied not unto men but unto God, we can not choose but understand the holy Ghost to be God. Neither in this place only doth the Scripture evidently witness the Godhead of the holy Ghost, but also in the Gospel the Lord himself saith that the spirit is God.  
Nazianzen saith these and such like be express scriptures, and that if you doubt thereof, you be very gross headed. 
Nazian. de Theolog. orat. 5.  They which knew the only blasphemy which is uttered against the Spirit to be irremissible, and gave Ananias and Saphira that horrible reproach for lying unto the holy Ghost, 
The spirit openly professed in the Scriptures to be God, and expressly so recorded.  what do they seem to thee, openly to profess the Spirit to be God or no? How dull headed art thou, and without all sense of the spirit, if thou doubt thereof or needest farther teaching? By so many names, so forcible and expressly recorded in the Scriptures the holy Ghost is called: Amongst those express names numbering this for one of the chiefest and clearest, that the holy Ghost was called God, as the words before directly witness.  Phi. 
His proceeding from the Father and the son cannot be proved by scripture, though his Godhead may.  Theo. 
How then came it first to be believed, by Tradition or by scripture?  Phi. 
Certainly not by scripture.  Theo. 
Your tongues be so used to untruths, that your certainties be little worth: the Church of Christ received her faith concerning the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from the father and the son, not by Tradition, but by scripture. Saint Augustine saith, 
* De fide ad Petrum, cap. 11.  Firmly believe and no whit doubt the same holy Ghost which is one Spirit of the Father and the Son, to proceed both from the Father and the Son. For the Son saith, when the spirit of truth cometh which proceedeth from the father. Where he teacheth us the spirit to be his also because himself is truth. And that the holy ghost proceedeth likewise from the son, the 
* Is this no Scripture?  doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles doth deliver unto us. For Esay saith of the son, He shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the spirit of his lips, he shall slay the wicked. Of whom the Apostle also saith, Whom the Lord jesus shall slay with the spirit of his mouth. Whom the only Son of God, declaring to be the Spirit of his mouth, breathing on his Disciples after his resurrection saith; receive ye the holy Ghost. And john in his Revelation saith that out of the mouth of the Lord jesus himself there proceeded a sharp two edged sword. He therefore is the Spirit of his mouth, he is the sword which proceedeth out of his mouth.  

Idem de Trinit. lib. 15. cap. 26.  And again: By many testimonies of the divine Scriptures it is proved that he is the spirit of the father and the son, which is properly called in the Trinity the holy ghost. And that he proceedeth from both it is thus proved: because the son himself saith (the spirit of truth) proceedeth from the father. And when he was risen from death and appeared to his disciples, he breathed on them and said, Receive ye the holy ghost, to show that the spirit proceeded from him also. And that (spirit) is the virtue which came from him, as we read in the gospel, and healed all men. What you think of these places we know not, but sure we are S. Augustine himself saith of these & the like, 
Idem de Trinit. lib. 15. cap. 27.  Cum per Scripturarum sanctarum testimonia docuissem, de utroque procedere Spiritum sanctum: When I had showed by the testimonies of the Holy scriptures that the holy ghost proceedeth from both, (the father & the son.) And if it be the natural and distinct propriety of the Spirit to proceed, as it is of the son to be begotten, which I win you will not deny, then is it as evident by the Scriptures that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the son, 
This reason may suffice any Christian man.  as it is that the son was begotten of the father. For as the second person in Trinity was begotten of him whose son he is, so the third Person proceeded from them whose spirit he is, but he is the Spirit of them both as the Scriptures expressly witness, Ergo he proceeded from them both.  Phi. 
The doctrine is true, but the scripture is not express.  Theo. 
What mean you by your express scripture?  Phi. 
Those very words, He proceedeth from them both are not found in the scriptures.  Theo. 
Alas good Sirs, is that your quarrel? Do the scriptures, I pray you, consist in spelling or in understanding? Never read you what S. Hierom saith? 
a Hierom. in epist. ad Gal. cap. 1.  Nec putemus in verbis Scripturarum evangelium esse, sed in sensu: non in superficie, sed in medulla: non in sermonum folijs, sed in radice rationis. 
The sense and consequents are scriptures as well as the words.  Let us not think the Gospel to lie in the words of the scriptures▪ but in the sense: not in the rind, but in the pith: not in the leaves of speech, but in the ground of reason (& truth.) If by express scripture you mean the plain & 〈◊〉 sense of the word of God, we have evident & infallible proofs thence for the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father & the son: But if you stick on the syllables & letters which we speak, you do but wrangle with us, as the Arias did with the Nicene fathers, Expostulating why the Bishops that met at Nice used these words, substance & consubstantial, which were nowhere found in the Scriptures 
b Athanas. in tract. quòd Nicen. Synod. congruis & pijs verbis usa sit.  & our answer to you shallbe the same that theirs was to them. 
c Ibidem.  These words though they be not found in the Scriptures, yet have they the same meaning and sense which the Scriptures contain. And that we count to be express scripture. For otherwise as Hilary saith, 
Hilar. ad Constant.  All (heretics) speak Scriptures without sense & 
Hierom adver. Luciferianos.  the devil himself, as Hierom noveth, hath spoken some things out of the scriptures, but that as they both witness in the very next words, 
f Ibi●em.  The scriptures consist, not in reading, but in understanding.  
And yet I see no cause why this point should be denied to be express Scripture, for so much as S. john describing the son of God with a sharp two edged sword 
g Reuel●t. 1.  proceeding out of his mouth (which is the 

See Esa. 11. & 2. Thes. 2. revelat. 1. & 19  
The spirit proceedeth from the son.   rod of his mouth wherewith he shall smite the earth, & the spirit of his lips wherewith he shall slay the wicked as Esay prophesied he should, and Paul declareth he would) useth the very same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice, which our Saviour before spoke of his father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the spirit, which proceedeth from the father. So that you were foully overseen, when you objected this point of our christian faith as wanting express scripture.  Phi. 
If you take not only the words but also the sense ●or scripture, we will not greatly gainsay but all points of faith may be derived out of these words, 
The Jesuits can show no point of faith th●t the fathers believed without scripture.  or out of the sense of that which is written.  The. 
Derived as you do pardons, pilgrimages, penances & purgatory? But we say that all points of faith must be plainly concluded, or necessarily collected by that which is written. And for our so saying we have not only the scriptures & fathers, but also yourselves, which being so often required & urged to show what one point of faith the primative church of Christ believed without the scriptures, could never show any.  Phi. 
We could show many if that needed & we were disposed.  The. 
I know not what account you make of it; but to our simple conceiving it is the groundwork of all religion, & crazeth the very heart of your unwritten verities. And if to satisfy the people of God & disburden yourselves of an error, you be not all this while disposed to do what you can, we must leave you for curious and dainty men, and think you can not.  Phi. 
Tertullian was of that mind that we are, when he willed the christians not to appeal to the scriptures for the trial of their faith. His words are, Ergo non est ad scripturas provocandum nec in ijs constituendum certamen, 
Tertul. de praescrips. advers. haeret.  in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est. We must therefore not appeal to the Scriptures, nor place the trial of our cause in those (writings) in which the victory is either none or not sure.  Theo. 
You do both the truth and Tertullian wrong. Tertullian doth not say that in matters of faith some things should be believed without the Scriptures; 
In vain to convince them by the scriptures, which receive not the scriptures.  no man is flatter against that than Tertullian in this very book which you bring: but he would not have the heretics of his time challenged nor brought to the Scriptures, because they received not the books as they lay, but with such additions, alterations & expositions as they listed. And this he maketh to be the very reason of his Rule, in the words that go next before it.  
The conference with them in the Scriptures can do no good: but either to stir a man's stomach, 
Tertull. de praescriptic. advers. haereticos. Tertullian speaketh of those sects which were in his time, as Valentinus, Martion and others, who either denied the scriptures or turned them all to monstruous allegories  or disquiet his brain. This brood (of heretics) receive not certain Scriptures, and if they receive any, they frame them to their purpose with adding and taking from them: & those that they receive, they receive them not whole, and if they suffer them to stand whole they mar them with their forged expositions. Their adulterating of the sense hurteth the truth as much as their maiming of the sentences. divers presumptions hold them from acknowledging the (places) by which they be convinced: they rest on those which they have falsely corrupted, & ambiguously wrested. Thou shalt lose nothing but thy voice in striving with them, thou shalt gain nothing but the moving of thy choler to hear them blaspheme. And showing that the hearers get less by such contentions, he inferreth, Ergo non ad scripturas provocandum est, we must therefore not provoke (them) to the scriptures nor appoint there the conflict (with them) where the victory is none, or not sure, or scant sure enough.  
Ireneus not long before him gave the like report of them, for they both had to do with the selfsame sorts & routs of heretics. 
Iren. ●ib. 3. ●ap. 2.  When they are reproved by the scriptures, they find fault with the scriptures themselves, as though many things were amiss in them, & the books of no authority & doubtfully written, & truth could not be had out of them if a man be ignorant of Tradition. And again when we urge them to come to that Tradition which is kept in the Churches down from the Apostles by the successions of Bishops, they use to say, that they, as wiser not only than the Priests, but also than the Apostles, have found out the sincere truth, and that the Apostles did mingle certain points of the law with the words of our Saviour, 
Of these men spoke Tertullian.  & not the Apostles alone but Christ himself speak (sometimes earthly, sometimes heavenly, sometimes mixely) but they undoubtedly, in defiledly & sincerely know the hidden mystery. The which is nothing else but most impudently to blaspheme their maker. And so it cometh to pass that they acknowledge neither the Scriptures, nor Tradition. Such they be with whom we deal.  
What marvel then if Tertullian gave counsel that such heretics should not be provoked to the Scriptures, 
The reasons of Tertullian'S speech.  not that the Scriptures be defective in matters of faith, but for that the sectaries of his time denied, corrupted and maimed the Scriptures: and in deed no victory can be hoped out of Scriptures where they be neither received nor reverenced as scriptures. And therefore Tetrullian had good cause to speak these words, in respect of the persons that were thus impudent, not in respect of the scriptures, as if they were unsufficient. That error of all others Tertullian was farthest from, & nowhere farther than in this very place which you quote. Aliunde scilicet loqui possent de rebus fidei nisi ex literis fidei. 
Tertull. de praescriptio. advers. Haeretices.  As though they could speak touching matters of faith out of any other than out of the books of faith. And objecting to them this very point which we now strive for: Sed credant sine scriptures, ut credant adversus scripturas, Let (heretics,) saith he, 
Ibidem.  believe without Scriptures, that they may believe against the scriptures. To believe without scriptures, is heretical as well as to believe against the scriptures, 
basil. de spiritu sanct. cap. 27. Basils' place for traditions examined.  & the next step unto it as Tertul. here placeth them: & therefore defend not the 1. lest you fall to the 2. which is the ruin of all religion.  Phil. 
S. basil is plain with us if Tertul. be not: Of the doctrines which are taught in the Church, we have some laid down in writing, some again we have received by tradition from the Apostles in a mystery, that is in secret. Whereof either hath like force to godliness, neither doth any man contradict them that is but meanly acquainted with the laws of the church. For if we go about to reject those customs which are not written as of no moment, before we be aware we shall condemn those things which 
* This very place granteth things necessary to salvation to be in the Gospel. Ibidem, cap. 29  are in the Gospel necessary to salvation, yea rather we shall bring the preaching of faith to a naked name. And not long after in the same book, If nothing else hath been received without scriptures, neither let this be received: but if we have received many secrets without writing, 
* 
Many things received with out scriptures but no matters of faith. The book shamefully corrupted.  
Erasmus censure upon this book.  
Epist. Erasm. dedicatoria ad episc. Culmens. praefixa. cap. 17.  
Erasm. calleth them Patches and dregs.  
This place of all others crieth corruption. basil. de spiritu sanct. cap. 27.   let us also receive this amongst those many. I think it apostolic to cleave to traditions not written.  Theo. 
The book which you allege hath S. Basils' name to it, but the later part thereof whence those patches are taken, have neither S. Basils' stile, learning, spirit, nor age; which Erasmus perceived and confessed when he translated the book. After I was passed half the work, saith he, without weariness, the phrase seemed to declare an other writer and to savour of an other spirit: sometimes the stile swelled as unto the loftiness of a tragedy, sometimes it calmed even unto a common kind of speech. Many times there appeared some vanity in the author, as it were showing that he had learned Aristotle's predicaments & Porphiries 5. predicables. Besides he digressed very often from the purpose & returned unhandsomly. Last of all many things seemed to be here & there added, which made little to the matter in question. And some things, such as by their face show their father, to wit, the same that hath interlaced the most learned books of Athan. concerning the holy ghost, with his babbling but trifling conceits.  Phi. 
We care not for Erasm. judgement.  The. 
You must care for Erasmus reasons, unless you can disprove them.  Phi. 
How prove you these places to be those that Erasm. meaneth?  The. 
If Erasmus had said nothing these places betray themselves. Look to the beginning & ending of your first allegation, & you shall see that the middle fitteth them as well as oatmeal doth oysters. The words next before are these, It remaineth that we speak of the syllable, with, whence it came, what force it hath, and how far it agreeth with the Scriptures. 
Mark the coherence of this place.  Then your forger as a man suddenly ravished & utterly forgetting what he purposed, entereth a vain discourse of thre●skore & fifteen lines clean besides the matter, not so much as once mentioning that which he first promised; and endeth in a worse maze than be began, with a conclusion more dissident from the middle, than the middle was from the preface: Dictum est igitur eandem esse vim utriusque proloquij. 
Ibidem, cap. 27.  So then we have showed that both propositions have the same sense: whereof he spoke not one word in all that large discourse that went before. And so he solemnly proposeth one thing, digresseth abruptly to an other, and concludeth absurdly with a third, which oversight in any bore were not sufferable. 
A very learned and witty discourse forsooth.   

* cap. 29.  Your later allegation is grounded on the former, & convinceth your author to be but a young father in respect of S. Basil. For where S. Basil died before Meletius, your bastard Basil rehearseth Meletius as a Bishop of ancient memory dead long before his time. 
Basil. de spiritu. sanct●, cap. 29. This place maketh basil alive some ages after he was dead.  In super & Meletium illum admirandum in eadem fuisse sententia narrant qui cum illo vixerunt. Sed quid opus est vetera commemorare? Immo nunc qui sunt Orientales, Moreover Meletius that admirable (Bishop) was of the same opinion, as they that lived with him report. But what need I repeat ancient times? The East Bishops which are at this day, etc. Now the true S. basil not only lived at the same time with Meletius, but was 
a Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 26.  made Deacon by him, and wrote 
b Basilij epist. 56 57.58.89.  many letters to him, and departed this life before him, as the church story witnesseth, affirming that Helladius, S. Basils' successor and Meletius were both present at the second general council at Constantinople under Theodosius, 
c Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 8.  and that must needs be when S. basil was dead.  Phi. 
You did well to discredit the place: it were otherwise able to overthrow all your new doctrine. 
This place, if it were Basils, doth the jesuits no good.   Theo. 
Then you do not well to build the antiquity of your religion on this and such other apparent forgeries; but were the places not forged, they could do you no such service as you spoke of, in the question which we now handle: yea rather they confirm that which we affirm, that Things necessary to salvation are (comprised) in the Gospel.  Phi. 
Many traditions were received from the Apostles without writing, which are not in the Gospel.  Theo. 
You must also prove those traditions to be necessary to salvation before you can conclude out of this place any thing against our assertion.  Phi. 
As though the Apostles delivered things which were not necessary to salvation.  Theo. 
The christian faith they delivered in writing: the rest they left unwritten, because those things which were no parts of faith, were delivered to the church of Christ for decency, not for necessity. 

Their forged basil speaketh of the ceremonies not of Doctrine.  
I hope these traditions be no points of faith.    Phi. 
For decency? what a cavil that is?  Theo. 
The Traditions which your counterfeit basil here rehearseth as descending from the Apostles are no such deep mysteries of religion as he pretendeth. That the people should every sunday and likewise between Easter and Whitsuntide pray standing, is that any point of faith or help to save their souls? The words of invocation at the Lords supper, & the prayers before & after, which the Greek church used, have you not long since left them, or to say the truth, did you ever accept them for catholic? Singing with the cross, turning to the East, thrice dipping him that is baptised, and anointing him after with oil, be these essential parts of Baptism, or rather external Rites declaring the power and virtue of that Sacrament? Your author himself will tell you, they be not within the compass of that faith which is common to all Christians, and must be rightly believed of all that will be saved. For showing the cause why they might not be written, 
Basil. de spirit. santi. cap. 27. Ibidem.  What things, saith he, such as were not baptised might not behold, how could it be fit they should be publicly carried about in writing? And again, The Apostles and fathers which prescribed certain rites in the first beginning of the church, reserved to these mysteries their dignity by silence and secrecy. For it is 
This ergo was no Doctrine nor point of faith, which must be open to all the people.  no mystery, which is open to the ears of the people and vulgar sort. Now things necessary to salvation must openly be preached to the people and be fully conceived of them, and steadfastly pro●essed by them before they can be saved. These things therefore be not of that sort, but are rather excluded from necessity, because they were delivered under secrecy.  Phi. 
But S. Basil or whosoever he be that wrote that book, saith, utraque parem vim habent ad pietatem: 
Ibidem, cap. 27.  Things unwritten have equal force to godliness with things written. 
And prayers of the Church and the creed have force to godliness: which are here reckoned amongst traditions.   Theo. 
He saith not that all things unwritten, but, utraque both sorts have like force to godliness, not that dumb ceremonies or outward gestures have equal force with the word of God to lighten the mind, convert the soul, and cleanse the heart, it were arrogant blasphemy so to say: but amongst things unwritten he numbereth the prayers of the church proportioned by the word▪ and having in them the very contents of the word, and also the Creed and profession of the faith itself, whereby we believe in the Father, the Son and the holy ghost, in truth & godliness equivalent with the scriptures and in substance the very same that is witnessed by the scriptures: Both these your Author in that place counteth for things unwritten, and these we grant have equal force to godliness with those things that are written. 

The papists when they want Scripture to prove any point of their Doctrine, run by and by to tradition: and tradition they prove by certain forgeries of their own.  
Our faith must depend on no man's word, but only on gods.    Phi. 
In effect they be all one with those things that are writte●.  Theo. 
That maketh his spe●ch the truer, which otherwise were absurd and ungodly.  Phi. 
Is it not a w●lie shift, that sometimes you will admit no traditions, and at other times when you be hardly pressed, faith, scriptures and all shall be traditions with you?  Theo. 
Is it not a wilier, that having framed to yourselves a religion without the scriptures, you would now fortify the same by tradition against the scriptures? But, you may not so prevail. We have the warrant of Saint Paul and the catholic consent of Christ's Church, that our faith should depend on the word of God: and since God speaketh not now but in his scriptures, it is evident that our faith in all points must be directed and ruled by the scriptures. Stand not brabbling with us about the word Tradition which is very doubtful, and diversely taken amongst the fathers: Bring some fair and true demonstration for that which you hold, as reason is you should, to counterpoise so many proofs in a matter of such importance, or else admit our assertion to be true.  Philand. 

If they could not boudly call themselves catholics, they could do ●●le.  That we can do, and yet not hurt our cause.  Theophil. 
We know you can do much. You can boldly call yourselves catholics, though you be unshamefast heretics: and tell the people you teach nothing but antiquity, when the chiefest points of your religion be mere novelties and barbarous absurdities.  Philand. 
You can exemplify a lie the best that ever I heard.  Theophil. 
Keep that praise as proper to yourself, I will not disturb your profession. Touching the matter in question whether I speak aught that is untrue, let the reader judge.  
You will have your religion and doctrine to be Catholic: that is, confirmed by the Scriptures, and professed in all places, of all persons, at all times, even from the first beginning wheresoever the Church of Christ hath been received. And when we come to see the specialties, we find you to serve not only from the sacred Scriptures and ancient Fathers, but even from those later ages and Churches which you would seem to follow; and to have gotten you a religion of your own without Council, Canon; antiquity, or Authority to witness the same.  
For example; the worshipping and adoring of Christ's Image with divine honour, 
Their adoration of Images never taught in the Church, but by themselves  concluded in your Schools and practised in your churches, is it not a wicked and blasphemous invention of your own, against all Synods and Fathers, Greek and Latin, old and new, that ever assembled or taught in the church of God, besides yourselves? The second Nicene Council, which first began that pernicious pastime of saluting and kissing Images, did they not in plain words condemn this error of yours, when they said: 
* Epist. Tharasij & Concilij ad Constantinum act. 7.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uni Deo tribuimus: divine honour we give to God alone, and not to images? And again, 
* 
Eiusdem Concilij, act. 3. Constantinus Constant. Episc.  
jonas Aurelianens. episc. de eultu Imaginum, lib. 1.  
Adoration of Images openly detested in the west Church by such as took upon them the defence of Images.   I receive and embrace reverent images: but the adoration which is done with divine honour, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I reserve to the supersubstantial and quickening Trinity only, and to no image. jonas Bishop of Orleans that wrote against Claudius' Bishop of Turin in the defence of images 50. years after the second Nicene council, did he not mightily detest your adoration of images, as a most heinous error, and was not the whole church of France by his report, of the same mind with him? Suffer, saith he, the images of the Saints & the histories of holy actions to be painted in the church, not that they should be worshipped, but that they may be an ornament (to the place) and bring the simple to the remembrance of things past. Creaturam verò adorari, etque aliquid divinae servitutis impendi, pro nefas ducimus, huiúsque scel●ris patratorem detestandum & anathematizandum libera voce proclamamus. But that any creature (or Image) should be adored, or have any part of divine honour we count it a wickedness, and with open voice proclaim the committer of that impiety (worthy) to be detested and accursed.  
And proving by manifold authorities of scriptures and fathers that neither image neither any thing made with hands should be adored, 
Ibidem.  he addeth: That which you say the worshippers of images answered you for the maintenance of their error; (we think no divinity to be in the image which we adore, but only in honour of the person whose image it is, we worship it with such veneration:) that (answer of theirs) we reprove & detest as well as you: & because they do know, there is no divine thing in the image, they be the more blame worthy for bestowing divine honour on a weak & beggarly Image, the self same answer many of the East (church) entangled with this heinous error give to such as rebuke them: 
* Inf●rmo & egeno simulachro.  the Lord of his mercy grant, that yet at length both these and those may be drawn from this superstition (of theirs.) France 
* See leratissimo mancipantio errors.  hath Images and suffereth them to stand for the causes which I before rehearsed: but they count it a 
* Ibidem.  great detestation & abomination to have them adored. 
* 
This was after your Nicene Council 50. years.  
The schoolmen kept the words of the 2. Nicene council and refelled their meaning with a far wickeder resolution than the former.    
In this opinion stood the west Churches a long time, till your schoolmen started up, and overruled Religion with their sophistical distinctions and solutions: and they keeping the words of the later Nicene Council, and not marking their drift, controlled that which they concluded and brought in a lewder and wickeder kind of adoring of Images with the same honour that is due to the Principal.  
The chief actor in this was your glorious Saint and Clerk, as you call him, Thomas Aquin, who rejecting all that was decreed at Nice inferred against them, that no reverence could be exhibited to the Image of Christ, in that it was a thing graven or painted, because reverence is due to none but to a reasonable creature: and alleging Aristotle's authority, that the motion to the Image and original is all one, he resolveth in these words, Cum Christus adoretur adoratione latriae, 
Thomas part. 3. quaest. 25. ari. 3.  consequens est quod eius imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda. Since than Christ is adored with divine honour, it followeth that his Image must likewise be adored with the selfsame 
* Here the Devil showed himself in his likeness.  divine honour.  
Bonaventure an other of your Romish Saints, canonised by Sixtus the fourth, goeth after Thomas with full sail. Quin Imago Christi introducta est ad repraesentandum eum, 
bonaven in. 3. lib. senten. dist. 9 quaest. 2.  qui pro nobis Crucifixus est, nec affert se nobis pro se sed pro illo, ideo omnis reverentia, quae ei offertur exhibitur Christo: & propterea Imagini Christi debet cultus latriae exhiberi. Whereas the Image of Christ representeth him that was crucified for us, and offereth itself unto us, not for itself, but for him; in that respect all the reverence which is given to it is done to Christ: and therefore the Image of Christ must be honoured with divine adoration. 
* Holcot. in lib. Sapientiae lect. 58.  Holcote and 
* Gerson. de probatione spirit. part operum 1  Gerson somewhat disliked this assertion and disputed against it, but the proneness of the people to follow such fancies, & the greediness of Priests and other religious persons to keep and increase their offerings, and the credit of Thomas, his learning, Sainctship and sectaries bore such a sway in the Church of Rome, that the rest could not be regarded nor heard; and so the common opinion and resolution of your Churches and schools, 

They say they make not Images their gods: but to whatsoever they give divine honour, that they make their God.  
To give Christ's honour to an Image in respect of the Original is a seely shift.   as the fortress of your faith confesseth, was that the image of Christ should be worshipped with divine honour, wh●ch you would feign shrink from in our days, the doctrine being both strange and wicked, if you could tell how, but that the words are so plain that no pretence can colour them.  
Your school doctrine therefore of adoring images with divine honour, not only prohibited by the law of God, and abhorred of all ancient and Catholic fathers; but even renounced in the second Nicene council, as repugnant to truth, and shunned in the West church for a thousand years after Christ and upward as a most wicked error, how could it on the sudden with a silly distinction of sundry respects become catholic? what greater wickedness can there be than to give the honour of God to stocks and stones, and to say you do it not in regard of the matter, but of the resemblance which the image hath to the original? as though it could be an image unless it had some resemblance, either in deed or in our opinion, to the thing itself? or man were not a truer & better image of God, and yet in no respect to be adored with divine honour? or as if God prohibiting all images made with hands to be adored, 
To adore the Image in respect of the Original, is in sum the very same answer that all the Pagans gave when they were reproved for their Idolatry.  had not included as well their resemblance as their matter? Why may not any Pagan by this evasion worship what creature he will, & say he beholdeth & honoureth in it not the matter, but the wisdom & power of the Creator? And what other conceit is this, than that which the jewish & heathenish Idolaters, when they were reproved, answered; that they adored not the things, which they saw but conveyed their adoration by the image to him that was invisible? If such profane speculations may be suffered in God's cause, we may soon delude all that GOD hath commanded with one respect or other.  
The determination of the second Nicene council that images were lovingly to be saluted, embraced & kissed (for so themselves expound the word Adoration which they use) was less pernicious than the former, as tending rather to superstitious folly, 
Adoration of Images never hard of in the church before the 2. Nicen Council, which was 790. years after Christ.  than to that sacrilegious impiety which after reigned in your schools: and yet that decision of theirs was nothing less than catholic; no council or father before them for the space of 790. years ever decreeing or defending any such thing in the church of God: and the Bishops of England, Germany, France and Spain forthwith contradicting & confuting their presumption as uncatholic: and your own schools reversing their assertion as void of all truth, for that no reasonless creature is capable of reverence, which yet that council had allowed unto images.  
Painting of stories in the church is somewhat ancient, 
Painting of stories in the Church is a matter somewhat ancient, but yet not catholic.  but neither Apostolic, nor catholic. It was received in some places, upon private men's affections, as an ornament for their churches, but used as altogether indifferent, that is, urged on no man as a matter of religion: & not only the whole church some hundredth years after Christ (which yet was catholic) wanted all such pictures: but learned and godly Bishops without any suspicion of error or innovation traduced and repelled such paintings, as things either superfluous or dangerous, or both.  
What account the council of Eliberis, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Augustine made of pictures, 

These fathers were Catholic, & yet repelled painting in Churches.  
Nicenae Synodi 2. actio 6.  
The 2. Council of Nice deluded the fathers that were alleged against them. Epiphanius pretended, to be forged, but without all cause.  
Ibidem.   you heard before: how Chrysostom, Amphilochius, Asterius, and others esteemed them, you may read in your own books of Counsels: where the wicked & superstitious upholders of Images refute the Council of Constantinople, but with shifting & lying most fit for the cause they took in hand.  
To Epiphanius exhorting the Emperor not to bring Images into the Church, no nor to tolerate them in private howsen, & adding this reason, non enim fas est Christianum per oculos suspensum teneri, sed per occupationem mentis, it is not lawful for a Christian to stand gazing with his eyes, but to have his mind occupied; they answer that this epistle was forged in Epiphanius name, and that Epiphanius himself would never have been so bitter against Images. The first is easily said, & the second is falsely supposed without any proof; this epistle was avouched to be his in a Synod of 330. Bishops not long before: and Epiphanius is sharper against Images in his epistle to john of Jerusalem which S. Hierom translated, than he was in this, which they disliked.  
Eusebius dissuading the Empress from regarding the painted Image of Christ with these words, 
Eusebius condemned by them for an heretic, but falsely.  Quis igitur gloriae eiusmodi & dignitatis splendores lucentes & fulgurantes, effigiare mortuis & inanimatis coloribus & umbratili pictura posset? who can resemble in deed and lifeless colours, & with the shadow of a picture the shining & glittering brightness (of Christ's) glory and dignity, is rejected as an heretic and condemned by those that lived many hundred years after him, 
Nicenae Synodi 2. act. 6.  and were in credit or learning no way comparable to him.  
Chrysostom's assertion, Nos per scripta sanctorum fruimur praesentia, non sane corporum ipsorum sed animarum Imagines habentes; we by writing enjoy the presence of the saints, not having any Images of their bodies, but of their minds: Amphilochius protestation, Non enim nobis sanctorum corporales vultus in tabulis coloribus effigiare curae est, 
Ibidem.  quoniam hijs opus non habemus: we have no care to resemble in colours the bodily visages of the saints, because we have no need of them: and Asterius admonition, Ne pingas Christum in vestibus, sed magis sumptu illo & impensis pauperibus subveni: paint not Christ in clothes (or colours) but rather relieve the poor with that expense & charge: 

Ibidem.  
Chrysost. Amphilochius & Asterius plainly shifted off by the Council of Nice. Contra Celsum, lib. 7.   they avoid as spoken by way of comparison, & not of illation, as if men in their comparisons did not speak truth, & affirm both parts as well as in their conclusions. This was the skill & esming of your late Nicene Synod to cry corruption on others when they themselves were most corrupt, and with a shift of words to decree that as Catholic which was repugnant to the plain precepts of God & general judgement of their forefathers in all ages and places before them.  
For our parts we say with Origen, 
Bowing to Images condemned.  Non igitur fieri id poterit ut & Deum quis noverit & simulachris ut supplicet. It can not be that a man should know God and bow himself to images: and with Austen, 
* August. de vera Religio. cap. 55.  Let it be no Religion of ours to worship the works of men's hands; because the workmen that make them are the better (of the twain) whom yet we may not worship. The Law of God is so direct, forbidding us to bow to any Image, similitude or likeness of any thing, that no distinction can help you. 
Hieron. in 6. cap. Daniel.  Notanda proprietas: Deos coli, Imaginem adorari; quorum utrumque, servis Dei non convenit. Note saith S. Hierom the propriety (of the speech,) Gods are worshipped, Images are adored (or bowed unto:) whereof neither is fit for the servants of God.  
If you trust not the ancient fathers, one of your own friends will tell you the same. 

Gerson. in compendio Theolog. de 10. praeceptis.  
Some of their own church have condemned bowing to Images as contrary to the law of God.   Non adorabis, neque coals. Inter quae distingue. Non adorabis scilicet veneratio ne corporis, ut inclinando eyes, vel genuslectendo. Non coals, scilicet affectione mentis. Ad adorandum igitur & colendum prohibitur Imagines fires. Thou shalt not adore them, nor worship them. Which are thus to be distiguished. Thou shalt not adore them, that is with any bodily reverence, as bowing or kneeling to them. Thou shalt not worship them with any devotion of mind. Images therefore are prohibited to be either adored or worshipped. Thus your own fellows were not so blind but they perceived the strength and force of God's commandment to be such, as we defend at this present against you.  
And though he labour to shift off the matter with a rule of S. Augustine, that the honour passeth from the sign to the thing signified: yet he both miss himself, 
Saint August. abused to make for Images.  and misconstred his author. For S. Augustine in that place putteth a manifest bar against Images, and precisely & purposely excludeth them out of the number of signs which he meant to treat of, when he gave this rule. His words are, Qui veneratur utile signum divinitus institutum, cuius vim significationemque intelligit, 
August. de doctrine. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9  non hoc veneratur quod videtur, sed illud potius quo talia cuncta referenda sunt. He that reverenceth a profitable sign ordained by God, the force and signification whereof he well understandeth, doth not reverence that which he seethe but rather that to which all such signs are to be referred.  

Things ordained by God must have their reverence though they be but creatures, marry adoration they must not have.  This rule reacheth to no signs, but to such as are ordained by Gods own institution, which Images are not, & therefore are clean without the compass of S. Augustine's speech. Again the veneration here touched, is not any worshipping or adoring the creatures which God useth for signs, but a reverent estimation & regard of them that they be not despised or abused although they be but signs. So that water in baptism and the creatures of bread and wine in the lords supper (which are the two examples here 
* August. lib. eodem, cap. 9 de doctina. christian. lib. 3. c. 5.  mentioned) are to be reverenced as things that be sacred by the word and ordinance of God, but not to be adored and honoured for the things themselves, whose signs they are; that were a miserable servitude, or rather the right death of the soul, as Austen noteth. And that the first teachers of truth removed all Images as unprofitable signs to serve God with, the words before do plainly show. For speaking of the difference between the jews and the Gentiles when they should be converted unto Christ, he saith, 
* cap. 8.  Christian liberty finding the jews under profitable signs (to wit the rites & Ceremonies of the Law) did interpret the meaning of them, and so by directing the people to the things themselves, delivered them from the servitude of the signs; but finding the Gentiles under 
Images unprofitable signs and not ordained of God.  unprofitable signs, (for that they 
* cap. 7.  worshipped Images either as Gods, or as the signs and resemblances of Gods) 
* cap. 8.  ipsa signa fru●trauit removitque omnia, she wholly removed and frustrated the signs themselves, that is she would not suffer them to serve the true God with any such signs as bodily shapes and Images were.  
Your honouring of Images is reproved as you see and not relieved by S. Augustine's Rule. 
The law of god condemneth bowing unto Images, which precept the Church must obey without all shifts or other respects  And since the Law of God expressly and ●treitly chargeth you not so much as to bow your bodies or knees to the likeness of any thing in heaven or earth, which is made with hands, consult your own consciences, whether you may with your respects frustrate, or with your routs ouerbeare the distinct and direct voice of God himself in his own Church. And if you be not given over into a reprobate sense, you will say no. Now that which is against the Law of God can neither be Christian, nor Catholic: Your Doctrine therefore of bowing and kneeling to Images is repugnant both to the precepts of God, and to the general & ancient resolution of Christ's church: your adoring them with divine honour is a sacrilegious and flagitious, as well novelty as impiety.  Phi. 
You must not look that we should defend the sayings & doings of all that have taken part with the church of Rome. If Thomas waded too far in worshipping Images, if Gerson mistook S. Augustine, if the later Council of Nice denied or strained some of the ancient Fathers, you must not challenge us for their ouer●ightes.  The. 
We challenge you for vaunting yourselves to be Catholics when in deed you do nothing but smooth and sleike the corruptions and inventions of later ages against the right & ancient faith of Christ's church.  
The descent of Images with their adoration, how late it began, how often it varied, how far at length it swerved from the primative & original profession of the christian & catholic faith; we have spent sometime to examine. Let us now approach to your prayers in a strange tongue, 
Praying in a strange tongue.  which have a great deal less show of catholicism than images had, & yet are as eagerly defended by you as images were.  Phi. 
In the Latin tongue we have prayers, in a strange tongue we have none: you rather that have turned scriptures, church service & secrets for your pleasures into the English tongue, make your prayers in a strange and unwonted speech to catholic eares●  The. 
To English men the English tongue is not strange.  Phi. 
I know they understand it, but I call it strange because they were not wont to have the public prayers of the Church in their mother tongue.  Theo. 
In cases of religion, 
Custom without truth is the rottenness of error.  we must respect, not what men have, but what they should have been used to. Cyprian saith well, 
* Cypr. ad Pompey. contra epist● Stephan.  Consuetudo sine veritate, vetustas erroris est. Custom without truth, is but the long continuance of error: & so Tertullian, 
* Tertull. de virgin. veland.  Quodcunque adversus veritatem sapit hoc erit haeresis, etiam vetus consuetudo. Whatsoever is against the truth, it must be counted heresy, though it be an old Custom. The Council of Carthage where Cyprian was, resolved thu●: 
* Ex sentent. Concil. Carthag. inter ●p●●a Cyprian.  The Lord saith in the Gospel, I am truth, he said not I am custom. Truth therefore appearing let custom yield to truth.  Phi. 
That council erred in neglecting the old custom which the church observed.  Theo. 
But yet their general assertion, which I allege, was so strong, that S. Augustine saith to those very words: 
* August. debap. contra Donat. lib. 3. cap. 6.  Plane respondeo, quis dubitet veritatis manifestae debere consuetudinem cedere? I plainly answer, who doubteth but that custom must yield to the truth appearing?  Phi. 
Neither do we doubt of that, but how prove you this to be a manifest truth, that the people of this Land must have their divine service in the English tongue?  Theo. 
It is the manifest precept of him that said, I am truth and witnessed in the Scripture which is the word of truth. 
john. 14. Ephes. 1.   Philan. 
In what place there?  Theo. 
Make not yourself so great a stranger in the Scriptures, as if you knew not the place.  Phi. 
You mean the 14. Chapter of the first epistle which S, Paul wrote to the Church of Corinth.  Theo. 
I do; what say you to it?  Phi. 
Marry this we say, 
The Rhemish Test. upon the 1. Cor. 14.  The reader may take a taste in this one point of your deceitful dealing, abusing the simplicity of the popular by perverse application of God's holy word, upon some small similitude & equivocation of certain terms, against the approved godly use and truth of the universal Church, for the service in the Latin or Greek tongue: which you ignorantly or rather wilfully pretend to be against this discourse of S. Paul touching strange tongues.  Theo. 
And he that marketh your shifting and facing in this one point, shall need no farther taste of your dealing.  Phi. 
If you like not that which we say, refel it.  Theo. 
Can yourselves tell what you say?  Phi. 
You shall well find that when we come to the matter.  Theo. 
First then hear what the Apostle saith, and after you shall have leave to say what you will.  


1. Cor. 14.  
The place of S. Paul to the Corinthians against praying in a strange tongue.   Instructing the Church of Corinth thus he saith, And now brethren if I come to you speaking with (strange) tongues what shall I profit you? If a trumpet give an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself to the battle? So likewise you by the tongue except you utter words of easy understanding, how shall it be known what is spoken? For you shall speak in the air. There are for example so many kinds of tongues in the world and none of them is without sound. Except I know the power (and signification) of the speech, I shall be to him that speaketh barbarous, and he that speaketh shall be barbarous to me. Wherefore let him that speaketh a (strange) tongue pray th●t he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue (not understood) my spirit prayeth, but mine understanding is without fruit. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou blessest with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest? Thou verily givest thanks well but the other is not edified. I had rather in the Church to speak five words with mine understanding tha● I might also instruct others, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. When ye come together, let all things be done to edification. If any man speak in an (unknown) tongue, let one interpret: but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church: God is not the author of confusion but of peace: so (I teach) in all the Churches of the saints. If any man seem to be a Prophet or to be spiritual, let him understand that the things which I writ unto you are the commandments of the Lord. Thus far S. Paul: which I rehearse at large, that it may lie for the ground of the whole dispute that shall follow. What answer you to this commandment of God and doctrine of his Apostle?  Phi. 
No one place of scripture, is more diversly or easily answered than this. First you & your translations corrupt this chapter by putting your own words to the Apostles text. For where he saith tongue, you add (strange, unknown, not understood) which are not in S. Paul. Secondly you 
The Jesuits labour tooth and nail to shift off this place.  misconstrue the whole passage of S. Paul: for by edifying the church, & understanding the power of the voice, he meaneth not the bare signification of the words only, but the 
* This is the sum of all their declaration upon the 1. Cor. 14. in their Remish Testament.  increase of faith, true knowledge & goodlife: & in that sense we say, Our forefathers were as much edified with the latin service that is, as w●se, as faithful, as devout, as fearful to break God's Laws, & as likely to be saved as we are (with) all our tongues, translations and English prayers. Thirdly by strange tongues the Apostle meaneth not the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew. Fourthly that he speaketh not of the Church's service is proved by invincible arguments. Fifthly the Catholic people are taught the contents of their prayers, and understand every Ceremony, & can behave themselves accordingly. Sixtly it is not necessary to understand our prayers. Lastly the service hath been always in Latin throughout the west Church. And to dispute thereof, as though it were not to be done, since the whole Church doth practise & observe it throughout the world, is most insolent madness, as S. Augustine saith in 118. epistle. I saw by your looks, you thought we could not answer it.  Theo. 
I knew you had store of answers, such as they be: but from such interpreters God defend us and all that be his.  Phi. 
Speak to the matter, let the men alone.  Theoph. 
Then to the matter; this is a right pattern of your Rhemish annotations stuffed with 
The two virtues of their Rhemish annotations.  impertinent allegations and 
The two virtues of their Rhemish annotations.  impudent sophistications, of purpose to defeat & frustrate the scriptures that are against you.  Phi. 
You fall to railing, when you faint in reasoning.  Theo. 
How can we but kindle when we see you fray the people of God from the sweet & wholesome food of their souls, and delude them with your husks and hogwash?  Phi. 
First discharge yourselves of your shameful adding to the Scriptures, 
The words strange or unknown put into the text in an other print for the opening of Saint. Paul's mind.  and then you may the better examine our answers.  Theoph. 
To the text of the holy Ghost we add not: only for the better conceiving of the sense, in an other print we interpose that special limitation of the word, tongue, which the drift of the whole chapter necessarily enforceth, which the Apostle himself directly expresseth, and the learned and ancient fathers expounding this place do everywhere insert as the right construction of the scripture.  
S. Paul did not speak either of tongues in general, or of such tongues as were known and well understood of the Corinthians; 
Saint Paul's words are most absurd, if they be understood of known toungs●  nothing can be more absurd nor more against sense and nature than so to apply the Apostles reasons, but of such tongues as were unknown and not understood of the hearers, and in that case his assertions are very true and his illations very strong, which otherwise are ridiculous, if not monstruous. For who well in his wits will make the Apostle speak so falsely and absurdly as to say, He that speaketh a (known) tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God: If I come to you, speaking with (known) tongues, what shall I profit you? He that speaketh a (known) language edifieth (but) himself: when thou blessest with the spirit (and in a known tongue) how shall he that is unlearned say, Amen? 
The text cannot stand, except you add the word (unknown) to it.  These speeches have neither rhyme nor reason in them; but turn them to the contrary and limit them to an unknown tongue, and then they be very substantial and sensible assertions.  
And so S. Paul in that chapter very often expoundeth himself. 
Saint Paul so expoundeth himself.  For these be his own additions, 
* Vers. 9  How shall it be understood what is spoken? 
* 11.  Except I know the power of the speech I shall be barbarous to him that speaketh. 
* 16.  He knoweth not what thou sayest. And citing a place of the Prophet Esay to confirm his intent he saith, by men of other tongues and of other languages will I speak to this people. What is an other tongue and another language but in manifest terms, a strange tongue and a strange language?  


another tongue is a strange tongue which is all one with an unknown tongue.  
Chrysost. in 1. Corinth. 14.   Chrysostom and Ambrose commenting upon this chapter deliver S. Paul's mind in those very words which we do. Si peregrina lingua gratias agas: If thou give thanks in a STRANGE tongue, saith chrysostom, the common man can not answer Amen. And speaking in S. Paul's person, 
The father's interpreting Saint Paul, add those words which we do.  Linguas inutiles esse dico, quantisper sint ignotae: I say tongues are unprofitable so long as they are UNKNOWN. 
* Ibidem.  Nam quae utilitas ex voce non intellecta potest esse? For what profit can there come by a speech that is NOT UNDERSTOOD? Ambrose like wise, Hoc est quod dicit, qui loquitur incognita lingua, Deo loquitur. This is it the Apostle saith, he that speaketh in AN UNKNOWN TONGUE, speaketh unto God and not unto men. And again, 
* Ibidem Ambros. in 1. Corinth. 14.  Docere nemo poterit, nisi intelligatur. No man can instruct, except he be understood. And therefore the Apostle 
* Ibidem.  warneth, saith he, that they should not seem barbarous each to other by AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 
* Ibidem.  Non competit fidelibus audire linguas quas non intelligunt, sed infidelibus. It is not for the faithful to hear tongues which they understand not, but for infidels. Qui loquitur linqua] subaudis incognita & peregrina. He that speaketh with a tongue) thou must understand, saith Haymo, an unknown and strange tongue. And again, 
Ibidem. Haymo in 1. Cor. 14.  Si orem lingua] subaudis incognita. If I pray with a tongue) to wit, an unknown tongue, the understanding of my soul is without any profit, because I understand not what I speak. And so S. Augustin disputing of this place saith, 
* Ibidem. August. de Genes. ad literam, lib. 12. cap. 8.  Quia lingua, id est membro corporis quod monemus in ore cum loquimur, signa utique rerum dantur, non res ipsae proferuntur, propterea translato verbo linguam appellavit quamlibet signorum prolationem priusquam intelligantur. Because by the tongue, I mean that part of the body which we move in our mouths when we speak, the signs of things are delivered & not the things themselves, therefore (the Apostle to the Corinth's) by a kind of translation calleth any uttering of signs (or words) 
Mark what a tongue is by Saint Austin's interpretation.  before they be understood, a tongue  Phi. 
In deed S. Paul speaketh of tongues not understood when he saith they neither profit nor edify: but he that thinketh S. Paul speaking of edification of man's mind or understanding, 
The Rhemish Test. 1. Corinth 14.  meaneth the understanding of the words only, is foully deceived. For what is a child of five or six years old edified or increased in knowledge by his Pater noster in english? It is the sense therefore which every man can not have neither in English nor latin, the knowledge whereof properly and rightly edifieth to instruction: and the knowledge of the words only often edifieth never a whit, & sometimes buildeth to error & destruction: as it is plain in all heretics & many curious pe●sons besides.  Phi. 
As we should show ourselves to be mad, if we should say that English prayers do edify children before they come to the years of discretion, 
He that knoweth not the sense is not edified, but he that knoweth not one word, as in a strange tongue is a thousand times l●sse edified.  or that the very hearing of their mother tongue doth sufficiently instruct English men, though the sense of that which is spoken be never so dark, obscure, parabolical, and mystical: for than we should cross the very Principles of nature and the whole discourse of the Apostle (who mainly teacheth, that no man is edified, except he understand: and meaneth by understanding both the knowledge of the words that enter our ears, & of the sense that affecteth our hearts: so are you worse than mad to defend that men may be edified by speech whereof they understand not so much as one word, to confute so shameful an absurdity, we need neither Scriptures nor Fathers: 
Speak to children in a strange tongue, and they will either fly from you for fear or laugh you to scorn.  Children of six years old will tell you, they be no whit the better for all your pains, if they understand not your words. What will you not say, that will say this? And when you that be masters in Israel, are so blind, how great must the blindness of others be, that take their light from you? You resist not only God, and his truth, but you force your own tongues to speak against your own hearts. For say yourselves; if a man speak Welch or Irish to you, that understand it not, what will it profit you, or which way can you be edified by it?  Phi. 
Welsh or Irish would do us no good, but Greek or Hebrew would. 
Hebrew doth edify no more than Irish if a man understand neither.   Theo. 
What difference between Hebrew and Irish to him that understandeth a word of neither? When the heart conceiveth not the sense of the words, nor so much as distinguisheth the tongue, whether it be Hebrew or Irish, for lack of knowledge, how can the Hebrew or greek tongue, though the one be sacred and the other learned, instruct the hearer, or help his understanding more than Welsh or Irish can?  
The Apostles Rule, 
De Gen. ad lit●. lib. 12. cap. 8.  If I come to you speaking with tongues (not understood) what shall I profit you? ●s generally true of all tongues. Nemo edificatur audiendo quod non intelligit: No man, 
Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 14.  saith Augustine, is edified with hearing that which he understandeth not. 
Ambros. in. 1. Cor. 14.  Linguas loquens seipsum edificat, quod quidem fieri non potest, nisi quae loquatur norit: He that speaketh with tongues edifieth himself: which is not possible, except he know what he saith, as chrysostom noteth. And Ambrose, Si utique ad edificandum Ecclesiam convenitis, ea dici debent, quae intelligant audientes; If you come together to edify the Church, those things must be spoken which the hearers may understand. If then there be no edification, where nothing is understood; 
Nothing doth edify except it be understood.  a strange tongue, be it Hebrew, Greek, Welsh or Irish, cannot edify the hearer that is ignorant of them; by reason the heart perceiveth not the words, much less the sense of that which is spoken.  Phi. 
We say, the simple people, and many one that think themselves some body, understand as little of the sense of divers Psalms, lessons and Orisons in the vulgar tongue as if they were in Latin. 
The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14.   Theo. 
And we say you do nothing now but cavil, 
A wretched cavil of the jesuits because the people understand not every mystery of the Psalms or lessons, to say they were as good not understand a word.  which in matters of truth is not tolerable. For what if the vulgar sort understand not the perfect sense of every verse or word that is read in the Church, will you thence infer; that the divine service in a known tongue doth not edify? Yourselves, step out the proudest of you, understand not every line & letter that is written in the old & New Testament; Do the Scriptures therefore not edify; or blame you the holy Ghost for writing them, because you do not every where reach to the depth of them? What teacher can be so plain; but in debating matters of faith and salvation he shall be many times forced to pass the capacity of rude & ignorant men? Will you therefore conclude against S. Paul, that neither Prophets, nor Preachers edify? In the epistles (and so no doubt sermons) of Paul himself there are (and were) some things hard to be understood. 
2. Peter 3.  Were the Preachings and writings therefore o● the Apostle unprofitable?  Phi. 

If the Psalms and lessons do not edify, the word of god doth not edify.  We reason against your service, not against the Scriptures.  Theo. 
As though the Psalms and lessons in our service, were not parts of the sacred Scriptures. If therefore our divine service do not edify in respect of the psalms and lessons there song and read, than the Scriptures themselves do not edify, and consequently S. Paul was overshot when he said, whatsoever things are written, were written for 
* Rom. 15.  our instruction; and the Holy Ghost deceived when he witnessed, that the whole Scripture is 
* 
2 Timoth. 3.  
The rest of our prayers are so plain that no man can pretend lack of understanding them except he be a natural.   profitable to teach, correct and instruct. Or if the spirit of God be truth, as there is no question he is, then are you void both of his spirit and of truth also to say that divers psalms and lessons do not edify.  Phi. 
You be very snappish: we speak of your prayers, as well as of the Psalms and lessons: Neither do we say the Psalms and lessons do not edify, but that the simple understand not divers of them no more than if they were in Latin.  Theo. 
They must be very simple that understand not our prayers. They contain nothing besides the confession of our sins to god, the rendering of thanks for his graces and mercies bestowed on us in Christ his son, 
They be mad Christians and of your making, that understand not these things.  and the ask of such things at his hands as his wisdom seethe to be needful and his goodness thinketh expedient for us and all mankind. And these things if any man understand not, being distinctly and daily pronounced in his mother tongue, you may beg him for a natural and do him no wrong.  
As for the Psalms and Lessons, since they be Gods not ours, the question must not be whether every lad or lass, prentice and ploughman exactly understand every word that is written, 
This is a wise jest of the jesuits because the people understand  but whether they edify the church of Christ or no; that is, whether they have in them many things fruitful to be known, and easy to be learned if the hearers will be diligent and delight in the law of God as they ought, & are bound to do. And in this case masters, you be not only snappish but very saucy with God himself, that will not suffer him to speak in his Church by the mouths of his Prophets and Apostles, if you find any sot or sim●le idiot in the company that happily understandeth not every word which the holy Ghost uttereth.  
Were you Surgeons of the body, and had some in cure, that could not see with one eye, to remedy that imperfection, would you put out both, and make them stark blind?  Phi. 
A wise similitude. 
Compare this similitude with the jesuits objection, and tell me what they differ.   Theo. 
As wise as your illation against our divine service. For where some be so dull and ignorant, that they conceive not diverse things in the Psalms, Lessons and prayers, to help that, you would take from them the rest which they do understand, and so fill their ears with the strangeness of an unknown tongue, that their hearts perceive just as much of your prayers, as blind men ●o of colours.  
And see you not that your assertion strangleth itself, and clearly convinceth the unfruitfulness of your latin prayers? For if the people be so simple that they understand not the sense of many things in their mother tongue, 
If service in ● known tongue do not edify, what doth service in an unknown?  how many think you among them understand the same or any thing else in the latin tongue? If the Scriptures must be enjoined silence in the Church because they speak some things which the ruder sort can not easily attain, what place can be left for your latin Mass, Matins and service, of which the people understand not one word: and the knowledge of so much, as one sentence thereof, before they can get, they must be not only Divines, which you say they are not, but good Grammarians, which in their education is not possible? 
The jesuits way to edify is to let the people not understand a word of their prayers.  What else is this but to put out both their eyes, & where before they understood many things that were both fruitful and needful for them, so to mure up their ears and choke up their hearts with a barbarous sound of unknown speech, that neither the simpler, nor wiser sort of them perceived any line or letter of your service?  Phi. 
Call you the latin tongue barbarous?  Theo. 
Not in itself, but in respect of the hearer, which is not acquainted with it. And so S. Paul calleth any language that is not understood, barbarous to him, 
Every tongue barbarous to him that understandeth it not.  that understandeth it not. 
* 
1 Corinth. 14.  
The Rhemish Testament  
1 Corinth. 14. Act. 2.   If I know not the power (or signification) of the speech, I shall be barbarous to him that speaketh, and he that speaketh shall be barbarous to me (that understand him not.)  Phi. 
You are deceived. There is here no word written or meant of any other tongues but such as men spoke in the primative Church by miracle.  Theo. 
Did not the twelve Apostles, that were Hebrews borne, speak Greek and Latin by the miraculous gift of the holy Ghost, descending on them in the likeness of cloven and fiery tongues, as it is specified in the second of the Acts?  Phi. 
I think they did: because the Romans are there named amongst those that heard, every man their own language at the Apostles mouths: 

The Rhemish Testament  
1. Corinth. 14.   Marry though the Hebrew, Greek and Latin might be given by miracle and without study, it being known to the jews, Romans or Greeks, in every place, they be not counted among the differences of barbarous and strange tongues here spoken of.  Theo. 

Barbarous, that is, which is not understood, what tongue soever it be.  S. Paul doth not here like a Rhetorician, as you would have him, distinguish the tongues which be most eloquent and oratorical in themselves: that was far from the Apostles mind or purpose: but only showeth that every tongue not understood, be it Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Persike, Arabike, or what language you list, seemeth not without just cause to be barbarous to him that knoweth not the force and signification of the speech. And so he limiteth the word barbarous; when he saith: If I know not the power of the voice, 
1. Cor. 14.  I shall be barbarous to him that speaketh (and he likewise to me.) 
* Hieron. in  Omnis sermo qui non intelligitur barbarus judicatur. Every tongue that is not understood, is deemed, saith Hierom, to be barbarous. 
1. Cor. 14.  And Chrysostom, 
* Chrysost. in 1. cor. 14. hom. 35.  He shallbe barbarous to me, and I to him. Non utique ob naturam vocis sed ob imperitiam, not by the nature of the tongue, but by the unskilfulness (of the hearer.) 
* Ibidem.  Non enim barbarus, inquit, ero: sed loquenti barbarus. Et rursus, non qui loquitur barbarus est, inquits sed mihi barbarous. For (S. Paul) saith not, I shall (simply be a barbarian, but barbarous to him that speaketh. And again, he that speaketh shall not be (absolutely) a barbarian, but barbarous unto me, saith the Apostle.  Phi. 
This we say was not meant of any of the three learned tongues, namely not of the Latin, Greek nor Hebrew.  The. 
That is one of your oracles in your Rhemish observations, but we would hear your reasons & not your fancies, why the Latin tongue, if it be not understood, may not be counted barbarous to the hearer.  Phi. 

The Rhemish Testament 1. Corinth. 14.  Know you that nothing (in this chapter) is meant of those tongues which were the common languages of the world, or of the faithful, understood of the learned and civil people in every great city, and in which the scriptures of the old and new Testament were written.  Theo. 
This is pride, to affirm what you will yourselves ● it is no reason to confirm that which is now in question betwixt us: And yet that which you affirm is either not true, or not much to the matter. For first in latin no Scriptures were written; but the Apostle writing to the Romans wrote in the Greek tongue & not in latin, 
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, were not understood of the civil people in every great City.  which argueth that the la●ine tongue was nothing so much esteemed, or so generally dispersed as the Greek. Next that the learned & civil people in every great city had the knowledge of the Hebrew, Greek & latin, is an other of your jesuitical truths, avouched by no man but by yourselves, & no way possible to be proved, but by your magistral surmises.  
The Hebrew was hard & neglected of all men saving of the jews, whose peculiar tongue it was; the greater cities despising as well the Nation as their language, till Christ was ascended; & between that & the preaching of the Gospel in the greater cities the people though they were civil had neither time, capacity nor means to learn a new tongue, and so difficult a tongue both to pronounce and understand as the Hebrew is.  
The Greek tongue was in high price and farther spread, before the birth of our Saviour, not only by reason of the Monarchy which was amongst the Grecians before it came to the Romans, but specially for that all liberal studies, arts and exercises were handled and perfited either wholly or chiefly by the Grecians, the Romans affecting rather the enlarging of their Empire with arms and triumphs than the furnishing of their city with scholastical & academical ornaments.  
The Latin tongue came in last, and though in the West parts between this and Rome it somewhat prevailed by reason of the Empire, and no better tongue nearer; yet in the East it was little regarded and seldom used, yea the Grecians in comparison of their tongue neglected it as barbarous.  Phi. 
Barbarous? 

The Grecians accounteth the Latin tongue to be barbarous in respect of then own.  
Plautus in prolog. Asinariae.  
Strabo Geographiae lib. 1. Rom. 1.   who ever called the Romans Barbarians, or the Latin tongue barbarous?  Theo. 
The Grecians disdained the Roman tongue as barbarous in respect of their own, and did not stick to number the Romans amongst the barbarians. Plautus the father of the latin tongue translating a Comedy out of the Greek into Latin, sayeth: Marcus vertit barbare: Plautus translated it into the barbarous tongue (of the Romans.) Strabo confesseth that many dividing the whole world into Greeks and Barbarians put the Romans in the second rank amongst the Barbarians; which partition dured to the Apostles time, and is inserted in the first beginning of his Epistle to the Romans. I am debtor to the Greeks and to the Barbarians, and therefore am ready to preach the Gospel to you also, that are at Rome. He is a debtor to both and by that means to the Romans: the Romans therefore by S. Paul's own mouth (since they were not Grecians) are numbered amongst the Barbarians.  
Marry this is not material to our purpose, 
We despise not these tongues as barbarous in themselves; but show what Saint Paul meaneth by this word.  the Grecians in their proud conceit thought every Nation barbarous that wanted any thing of the daintiness of their speech, & delicateness of their life; where in deed no Nation may justly be counted barbarous, except it be void of all human civility and society, which the Romans then were not, and infinite Nations now are not. But S. Paul in this place, which we reason of, useth barbarous for that which is not understood of the hearer, though the tongue in itself be never so learned, or eloquent. Those are his very words in this chapter uttered for the better declaration of his meaning: and the word beareth this sense even among profane writers as when the Poet that was a Roman, and vanished into Pontus, said, 
Tristium lib. 5. elegia. 11.  Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli. I am here a barbarian, because no man understandeth what I speak. 
* And you shall never prove he spoke not of them; in the mean time the Apostles words he indifferently for all tongues.  Even so the Grecians and Hebricians by Saint Paul's resolution are barbarians to him that knoweth not what they say.  Phi. 
You shall never induce me to think that S. Paul spoke of any of those three tongues, which were after a sort sanctified in our saviours cross.  Theo. 
What you will be led to we greatly pass not, the Scriptures depend not on your dreams, we search for the sense of Saint Paul's words, which being general may not be restrained to what you list without some surer authority than your own. There are, saith the Apostle, for example sake, so many kinds of tongues 
In the world) and none of them be general speeches extending to all the tongues that are.  in the world, and 
* Chrysost. in 1. Corinth. 14.  none of them is without sound (or signification.) Yet if I know not the virtue of the voice, I shall be barbarous to him that speaketh (in any of them) and he that speaketh shall be barbarous to me. 
* In all tongues he that is not understood, is barbarous to the hearer.  There are so many kinds of voices in the world. That is, saith Chrysostom, so many tongues & languages; to wit, the Scythian, Thracian, Roman, Persian, Mauritanian, Indian, Egyptian, and of thousand other nations besides these. Therefore if I know not the power of the voice, I shall be barbarous to him that speaketh. Neither would I have you think it to come to pass in us only, you may see the like in 
Chrysost. Ibidem  all. And concluding him that prayed in latin, if he understood not his own speech, to be barbarous to himself by this very rule of the Scripture, he saith: If a man should presently speak in the Persian tongue, or in any other strange tongue, and not understand what he speaketh, he shall be barbarous even to himself, not only to an other that knew not the power of the language. There were at the first many that prayed and gave a sound with the voice, using the Persian or Roman tongue, which understood not what they said. The Apostle therefore hence teacheth that our tongue ought to speak, and our mind withal understand the words. Which except we do, there must of 
Chrysostom exemplifieth Saint Paul's words twice together by the latin tongue.  necessity follow a confusion.  

Though we pray in latin or what tongue whatsoever.  S. Ambrose exemplifieth the Apostles discourse in none other tongues but in the Greek and Hebrew. 
Ambros. in 1. Corinth. 14.  If I pray with the tongue, my spirit prayeth, but mine understanding is without fruit. It is manifest that the mind of man is ignorant, when he speaketh with a tongue which he understandeth not, as latin men use to sing Greek, delighted with the sound of the words, but not knowing what they say. And showing who they were that the Apostle reproveth in this whole chapter, he saith: 
* Ibidem.  Hij ex Hebraeis erant, qui aliquando Syra lingua, plerumque Hebraea intractatibus aut oblationibus utebantur ad commendationem: They were Hebrews who to commend themselves used sometimes the Syrike, 
By Saint Ambrose judgement, the Apostles spoke principally of those that used the hebrew tongue in their Sermons and prayers, when the people understood ●hem not.  most times the Hebrew tongue in their Sermons and (prayers) at the oblation.  
Haymo likewise bringeth the Greek & Hebrew tongues to declare the Apostles meaning. If I know not the power] or understanding, [of the voice] which I hear [I shallbe barbarous to him that speaketh: & he that speaketh shall be barbarous to me]. For example, I am a Grecian, thou an Hebrew: if I speak to thee in Greek, I shall seem barbarous: Likewise if thou speak to me in Hebrew, thou shalt seem barbarous. And, that as well in praying as preaching. 
Haymo. in 1. Corinth. 14. Haymo. Ibidem  An idiot is he that knoweth that only tongue wherein he was borne and bred. If such an one therefore stand by thee, whiles thou dost solemnly celebrate the mystery of the Mass, or make a sermon, or give a blessing▪ how shall he say Amen at thy blessing, when he knoweth not what thou sayest? for so much as he understanding none but his mother tongue, can not tell what thou speakest in that (strange and) barbarous tongue (barbarous not in itself, but in respect of him that understandeth it not.)  
You say the Apostle by strange tongues meaneth not the latin, Greek or Hebrew: S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose do verify the Apostles words of those tongues namely and chief: yea S. Ambrose saith the occasion of all this offence, were certain jews that in their prayers at the Lords table, and exhortations to the people, (to show themselves) used for the most part the Hebrew tongue. They affirm that which you deny: and they deny that which you affirm. Surely you or they must needs be foully deceived.  Phi. 
That S. Paul speaketh not of the Church service, 
The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14.  is proved by invincible arguments. It is evident that the Corinthians had their service in Greek at this same time, and it was not done in these miraculous tongues. Nothing is meant then of the Church service. Again, the public Service had but one language: in this exercise they spoke in many tongues. 
That he speaketh not of Church service, is proved by invincible arguments.  In the the public Service every man had not his own special tongue, his special interpretation, special Revelation, proper Psalms: but in this they had. Again, the public Service had in it the ministration of the holy Sacrament principally: which was not done in this time of conference. For into this exercise were admitted Catechumens and Infidels and whosoever would: in this women, before S. Paul's order, did speak and prophesy: so did they never in the ministration of the Sacrament. With many other plain differences, that by no means the Apostles words can be rightly and truly applied to the Corinthians Service then, or ours now. Therefore it is either great ignorance of the Protestants, or great guilefulness, so untruly and perversely to apply them.  Theo. 
Before I reply, let me ask you a question.  Phi. 
With a good will.  Theo. 
Are you not a Priest?  Phi. 
I am, or I should be.  Theo. 
I will not oppose you after what order, Aaron's being abolished, & Melchisedec's not imparted to any mortal man: But by virtue of your priesthood are you not bound to catechise as well as to baptise, that is, to preach the word as well as to minister the sacraments?  Phi. 
So we do, as time and place require.  Theo. 
If I should urge you, that you & your fellows never preach, because every holiday & sunday you say Mass, & massing is apparently no preaching, what would you answer?  Phi. 
I would answer that you made a very childish & foolish argument. For though the one be not the other, yet we may do both at one time & in one place successively before we depart. And if you doubt of this, the meanest parish clerk in Christendom may be your master.  Theo. 
You pull not me, 
Saint Paul by preaching doth not exclude praying but severally mentioneth them both.  but yourself by the nose, Philander, and mark it not. Your invincible arguments, whereby you would prove, that S. Paul in this whole Chapter spoke nothing of the Church service in Corinth, are such ridiculous toys of all the world, as this, which I brought for example to try your patience with.  Phi. 
You shall not defeat the force of our reasons with such a jest.  Theo. 
Neither shall you delude the Apostles doctrine with such a shift. 

The Church in her divine service must have both preaching and praying.  
Roma. 10    
The Church of Corinth had then, as all other Churches now have, (or should have) both praying & preaching annexed and adjoined to the ministration of the Lords supper. Both these yet are, & ever were the means which God ordained to prepare us to be fit guests for that Table. How shall they, saith the Apostle, call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? & how shall they hear without a Preacher? Hearing is the nurse of faith, and faith is the fountain of prayer: & without prayer we may not approach to God, nor to the Sacrament of thanksgiving, which by the very name it beareth, putteth us in mind what duty we must yield to God when we are partakers of it.  


The word engendereth faith, and faith produceth prayer.  
Act 2.   By this it is evident that teaching in the church of God doth not exclude praying, but is rather the mean that God hath appointed to direct & incite the minds of the faithful to make their prayers unto him in such sort as they ought when they are gathered together in Christ's name, to serve God the father in the spirit of his son. And so the holy Ghost describeth the church that was at jerusalem upon the first spreading of the Gospel: from whence we must take the form of Apostolic churches. They continued, saith the Scripture, in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers; noting 
* These three were the public exercises of Christ's Church under the Apostles.  doctrine, prayers, & brotherly communion at the Lords table to be the public exercises of christians in their assemblies where the Apostles themselves were present in their persons to guide & govern those meetings.  Phi. 

If the Church service consisted of these three, than were they all three parts of the church service.  You come not yet to the point.  Theo. 
I will not long be from it. These prayers, exhortations and instructions which the faithful had in their assemblies, were they not parts of the service which they yielded to God?  Phi. 
Yees, but not of the church service.  Theo. 
What service was there in the church besides this that I mention?  Phi. 
The ministration of the Sacrament.  Theo. 
If you mean the order and fashion of administering the Sacrament, Saint Paul received that of the Lord and delivered it to the church of Corinth in such manner and form as we find expressed not many leaves before in the 11. of this Epistle. But there is no church service prescribed or named; only the elements and actions of the lords supper are particularly remembered and committed to the church as her chiefest jewel, in her husbands absence, until he come.  Phi. 

The Church in the Apostles time had no set order of public prayer as the Jesuits dream.  Think you they had no set Rites, collects, nor prayers delivered them from the Apostles for that holy action?  Theo. 
You presume they had: and upon that false imagination you ground the most part of your headless arguments, that the Apostle speaketh not of the Church service.  Phi. 
Had they no special form of prayer prescribed in their churches whiles the Apostles lived?  Theo. 
Had they say you?  Phi. 
Else they had nothing but confusion in their churches. 
In the primative Church the pastors and ministers prayed and gave thanks at the spirit directed their hearts & lips.   Theo. 
Blaspheme not so fast. The power of the holy Ghost miraculously supplying all wants, and inspiring the Pastors and Elders in every Church how to pray, was no confusion.  Phi. 
Do you think they changed their prayers in every place and at every meeting as pleased the minister?  Theo. 
You may well perceive by the Apostles words that they had neither Sermons nor Service prefixed nor limited in his time: but when the Church came together, the Elders and Ministers instructed the people and made their prayers by inspiration.  Phi. 
I know they did so, but this was not the Church Service.  Theo. 
This was all the church Service they had: to which they added the celebration of the lords supper, but without any settled or prefined order of prayer, except it were he Lords prayer which they observed in all places as coming from the mouth of Christ himself, their Sovereign Lord and Master.  Phi. 
Marry Sir that were even such service as you have at this day, where every blind Minister babbleth what he listeth.  Theo. 
jest not at God, except you will be julian.  Phi. 
I jest at your disorder, which you would seem to derive from the primative Church of the Apostles.  Theo. 
In deed we have not so many turns and touches, bowtes and becks as you have in your Masses: other disorder in our Service I know none, unless it be that we do not 
* God regardeth not these solemnities of the jesuits which they suppose to be the highest points of godliness.  swinge the Censers, rinse the chalice, toss the Mass-book, play with the host, and sleep at Memento, as you do, with a number of like toys throughout your service.  Phi. 
Do not you now jest at our Service?  Theo. 
At your stagelike gestures I may without offence, but you jested at the miraculous gift of the holy Ghost guiding the Pastors and prophets of the primative church in their public prayers and exhortations, and called it a confusion, and resembled it to our babbling in the church at this day, which you think to be very disordered.  Phi. 
I see no proof that the Pastors of the Church in the Apostles time made their public prayers as you say, 
All things were done in the first Church by the miraculous working of the holy Ghost.  by miraculous instinct of the spirit.  Theoph. 
Do but open your eyes when you read this chapter, and you can not choose but see it. Both this and the twelfth chapter treat wholly of the gifts of the spirit. Where you find that to one (was) given by the spirit the word of wisdom, to an other the word of knowledge: to an other faith: to an other gifts of healing by the same spirit: 

1. Corinth. 12.  
The gifts of gods spirit at the first erection of the Church.   to an other operation of wonders: to an other, prophesy: to an other, discerning of spirits: to an other, diversities of tongues: to an other interpretation of tongues.  Phi. 
Here is not the gift of prayer numbered amongst them.  Theo. 
But in the fourteenth it is, where showing them how they should behave themselves in the Church, when the congregation was assembled, he layeth this down as a rule for them to follow. 
1. Corinth. 14.  I will pray with thee spirit, but I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou blessest with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the simple (or common) person say Amen at the giving of thanks, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest?  
To pray, sing and bless, 

With the spirit] is with the miraculous gift of the spirit.  
The presence and consent of the people maketh the prayer public.   with the spirit in this place, can be nothing else but to be guided and led by the spirit in their prayers, Psalms & thanks as they were in their doctrines, interpretations & exhortations: which was by miracle on the sudden, not by learning or study. This was done in the church when all the faithful were present, & to these prayers, psalms, & thanksgivings, the people were to say Amen as the Apostle showeth, which is the end sign and proof of public prayer, among christians. What is church service, if this be not? or what other Service could the Church have besides hearing the word and offering their common supplications unto God by the mouth of one man, the rest understanding what he said, and confirming his prayer with saying Amen?  Phi. 

How shall the simple man say Amen, that is, any simple man?  The Apostle speaketh of one man (supplying the place of the vulgar) and you stretch it to the whole people.  Theo. 
If the prayers of the Church concerned some of the people, and not all, you might make that objection with some show: but now it hath no colour, when S. Paul asketh 
* 1. Corinth. 14. Rom. 4.  How shall the simple man say Amen: he meaneth not this or that man, but any or every. And so the indefinite signifieth generally, throughout the Scripture. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin: that is, Blessed is every man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin. 
* Deutero. 27.  Cursed be the man that observeth not all the works of the Law, to do them, that is, by S. Paul's own exposition, Cursed is 
* 
Galat. 3. Chrysost. in 1. Corinth. 14.  
By the common or vulgar person Saint Paul meaneth the people.   every man that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law, to do them. The whole Scripture is full of the like. And therefore chrysostom noteth, Indoctum, promiscuam plebem vocat, monstratque non leave incommodum esse, si Amen dicere non possit. The unlearned he calleth the vulgar people, and declareth it to be no small inconvenience if they cannot say Amen.  Phi. 
I see they did pray, sing and bless with the spirit, and that the people said Amen; 
The form of the Lords institution was certain, but the prayers made and thanks given at the Lords table, were left to the discretion of the minister.  but had they no special nor usual prayers reserved for the ministration of the Sacrament, which might not be varied?  Theo. 
You think belike they had your Introite, Grail, Tract, Sequence, Offertory, Secrets, Postcommunion, Pax, and Ite missa est.  Phi. 
Sure they had some precise form of service, though we know it not.  Theo. 
And since you know it not, why should you make it the anchor hold of all your exposition upon S. Paul?  Phi. 
Had they no order for their service?  Theo. 
What a stir here is for that which the Apostles never did? Had they set an order for the service of the Church, durst any man after have broken it?  Phi. 
S. james mass is yet extant.  Theo. 
And so are a number of other foolish forgeries as well as that. 

Mass forged in the Apostles names. jacobi Missa.  
jacobi Missa.    Phi. 
Do you think it forged?  Theo. 
Which of S. james masses do you mean?  Phi. 
There are not so many that you should ask which.  Theo. 
Two there are under his name, the one nothing like the other, & yet both fathered upon him.  Phi. 
We have but one, and that set in order of church service, with mutual prayers and answers for Priest and People very perfectly.  Theo. 
And the other you shall find in the 
* 
Constitut. Apost. lib. 8.  
a cap. 15. ad cap. 24.   eight book of Clemens apostolic constitutions, where 
* 
vide Constitut. Apost. lib. 6. cap. 14.  
lib. 8. cap. 15   the fourteen Apostles (for so you have increased their number as well as their constitutions) take precise order what prayers, answers and actions shall be used at the mystical sacrifice; their first prescription being this, that Two Deacons shall be on both sides of the altar, with tuffs of peacocks tails in their hands to drive away gnats, left they light in the Chalice: a grave consideration for Christ's Apostles to meet together to make flappes to catch flies.  Phi. 
That I grant, is a matter of small respect, but yet not enough to refute the book.  Theo. 
It is sufficiently refuted in that neither the Church of Christ nor yourselves ever esteemed it. 
Clemens book of apostolic constitutions never received in the Church.  Had this book been Authentik it must needs have been taken into the canon of the Scriptures. For if that which any one Apostle wrote be Canonical, much more that which all the Apostles, with common consent decreed and ordered. Again had the Apostles prescribed an exact form of divine service for the Lords table, what man would have, altered it, or what Church refused it? How would either basil or chrysostom have presumed to make new forms of Church service, if those liturgies be theirs, & not rather forced on them, as this is on the first & chief Apostles of Christ? Why did the Latin Church and the Church of Rome herself neglect that service if it were apostolic, and prefer the prayers of one 
* Grego. lib. 7. epi. 63.  Scholasticus as worthier to be said over the divine mysteries, the maker being so obscure a man, that his name is not known in the church of god? why were the Bishops of Rome 600. years & upward patching & piecing the mass before they brought it to any settled form, as your own fellows 
* Polidor. de invent. rerum lib. 5. cap. 10.  confess, and yet then Rome had one form of service, 
* Polidor. de invent. rerum lib. 5. cap. 10.  Milan an other which they keep at this day, France a third? Why did Gregory when he was consulted by Augustine the monk, what form of divine service he should commend to the Saxons, will him to bind himself neither 
* Gregorij responsio ad 3. interrogat. Augustini.  to Rome nor to any church else, but to take from every place that which he liked best, and deliver that unto the English?  
To cut off all ambiguities we have the plain testimony of Gregory the great, 
Gregor. lib. 7. epist. 63.  that the Church of Rome 600. years after Christ knew nothing of those constitutions and Church services which are now obtruded under the Apostles names. 
No prayers used by the Apostles at the Lords table but only the Lords prayer.  Mos Apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem (Dommicam) oblationis hostiam consecraret. This was, saith he, the manner of the Apostles to consecrate the sacrifice, with saying no more prayers but the Lord's prayer. In vain therefore do you dream of a settled form of prayer for the Lords supper, where as the Apostles have none, but left that to the direction and disposition of the holy Ghost inspiring the ministers and elders in every Church, when the faithful were assembled, to make their prayers unto god with the people; and to render him thanks for all his mercies, as the spirit gave them utterance. This chrysostom calleth 
* In 1. Cor. 14. Tertul. in apologet.  Precandi domum, the (miraculous) gift of prayers whereof S. Paul speaketh in this place, and Tertul. seemeth to mention the same in his Apology for the Christians as during in the Church unto his time. 
To pray by hart dured a while amongst the Christians.  We, saith he, looking up to heaven with our hands stretched out as being innocent, bareheaded, as not ashamed, sine monitore, quia de pectore, oramus, make our prayers without any prompter as coming from the (free) motion of our own hearts.  Phi. 
Our arguments convince that S. Paul spoke not of the Church's service: and till those be answered, we cannot change our minds. 
The jesuits will have the ordering of S. Paul's words whether he will or no.   Theo. 
That which I have already said, openeth your error, in mistaking or else perverting the words of S. Paul, choose you whether: if that content you not, repeat your reasons as they stand in rew, that we may see their force.  Phi. 
It is evident the Corinthians had their Service in Greek at this same time, and ●t was not done in these miraculous tongues. Nothing is meant then of the church service.  Theo. 

If Saint Paul in this place did not speak of the Church service, how can the Jesuits prove the Corinthians had their service at this time in Greek?  To us it is out of question that the Corinthians had their public prayers and exhortations in the Greek tongue: because the common people of that City understood none other: and the tongue which they understood not, might not be used in the Church by S. Paul's rule: but you that deny S. Paul to speak of the Church service in this place, how prove you the Corinthians had their Service in the Greek tongue?  Phi. 
Do you think they had not?  Theo. 
For our parts, as I told you, we are resolved: because S. Paul would neither have preaching nor praying in the Church but such as might edify: & addeth, that an unknown tongue profiteth nothing to edification: marry you are otherwise minded, and therefore I see not how you can prove that they had their service in the Greek tongue, which you affirm to be evident.  Phi. 
Had they their Service, trow you, in an unknown tongue?  Theo. 
In your opinion, that is no such absurdity. 
The Jesuits thwarted with their own principles.   Phi. 
They could not understand it, except it were in Greek.  Theo. 
This is contrary to your own Principles. For the Hebrew, Greek and Latin as you told us even now were understood of the civil people in every great City: and were that untrue, as I know it is, though you avouched it for an advantage, yet is it not necessary to understand our prayers, as yourselves defend in this your declaration upon S. Paul, and following the path that you lead us in your Rhemish observations, 

Except they take hold of Saint Paul's reasons here used in this chapter, they shall never prove the service at Corinth in Saint Paul's time was in Greek.  
It is true they had their service in greek, but the ●esuits cannot prove it but by overthrowing their own conclusion which they would infer: and so their an●cedent choketh their consequent.   we say you can not prove the Corinthians had their service in the Greek tongue.  Philand. 
In what tongue else could they have it?  Theoph. 
Rather in Hebrew than in Greek, for that tongue was sacred, and natural to the jews who first spread the Gospel, and planted the Churches.  Phi. 
The Apostle requireth the people should understand the prayers of the Church, otherwise they reap no profit by them; and to speak Hebrew in the Church to them that understood nothing but Greek, were no reason.  Theo. 
Are you there at host now? Can you plea thus on both sides when you be urged? You are making invincible arguments, that the Apostle speaketh nothing in this place of the Church's service, & before you can justify the first proposition which you bring, you be feign to take hold of this very place to prove, the Corinthians had their Church service in Greek.  Phi. 
Nay without this place it is evident they had their service in greek.  The. 
Set this chapter aside, and if you prove the Corinthians had their service in Greek at this very time when the Apostle wrote, we give you the cause.  Phi. 
You be resolved they had, and yet you put us to prove it, as if it were in doubt.  Theo. 
I tell the reason. It is evident they had their service in a known tongue by that which the Apostle here writeth, otherwise it is not evident by any other proof that you can make. And since you will have the Apostle to speak nothing of the Church Service in this chapter, why should we not put you to prove that which you lay for the ground of your misconstring Saint Paul's text?  Phi. 
A truth it is, 

Their antecedent being granted their consequent doth not follow.  
A wise reason, because Saint Paul had set an order to have their service in the tongue which they knew, therefore some might not invert that order.   what proof soever may, or may not be brought for it.  Theo. 
Let it stand for truth, what will you conclude?  Phi. 
Nothing is meant then of their Church Service.  Theo. 
Why so?  Phi. 
That was in Greek, and well understood of all the people.  Theo. 
A worthy sequel. As if it were not possible for some vain men to disturb the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the Apostle had left general direction that all things should be done in the church unto edification. The lords supper was rightly delivered them: was it therefore not abused by some amongst them? The like say we for their prayers in the church. No doubt Paul ordained at Corinth as he did in all other churches of the Saints, that the people should say Amen to every blessing and thanksgiving that was used in the Church. Might not therefore some of their Elders and ministers, to venditate themselves and the gift which they had of God, sometimes bless and make their prayers at the Lords table in a tongue not understood of the whole multitude?  Phi. 
Were they strangers or inhabitants?  Theo. 
It skilleth not whether; they might be either.  Phi. 
Inhabitants there would use none other tongue than their own, and strangers might not minister Sacraments in other men's Churches. 
This disorder might come either by strangers, or by such as were fastened to their cures.   Theo. 
Some of their own might be so vain glorious, as in making their prayers at the lords table, (which was then done by hart and not after any prescribed order or form) to show the gift of tongues, which they received of the holy Ghost, to an other end, and not to commend themselves without edifying the hearer. Strangers also if they were in place were suffered both to teach and bless in the Church, as well as others that were tied to their Cures by reason that many were sent by the Apostles and by the holy Ghost to visit the Churches and comfort the Christians as they traveled, and such were, according to their knowledge and gift, not only permitted, but also desired to exhort the people and give thanks to God in other men's charges.  Philand. 
This might be: but how prove you this was the fault which the Apostle reproved?  Theo. 
I need not prove that. If this which I speak might easily come to pass, than your invincible arguments be sensible follies, & corelude utterly 
Yet was it some cunning to set a good face on the matter.  no such thing as you imagine. Your argument cannot be impregnable till your consequent be inevitable: & since so many cases may be put, though your antecedent be admitted to repel your consequent, what wisdom was it to make such vaunt of your forces not only before the victory, but when you see yourselves so void of all good artillery? 

The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14.  
Neither antecedent nor consequent true.    Phi. 
Again the public service had but one language: in this exercise they speak with many tongues.  Theo. 
Again you can neither verify your antecedent, nor justify your consequent. Set order of public service they had none in the Apostles time; the Pastors and ministers prayed by heart, as the spirit of God guided them. This gift of prayer some turned to their own praise and ostentation, when they were admitted to give thanks to God in the congregation of the faithful, and made their prayers in such tongues as they preferred, or would seem endued with, though the people understood them not, for which attempt the Apostle controlleth them.  Phi. 
These are your conceivements.  Theo. 
Were they no man's but mine, your reasons are weak and even contemptible, which you proclaimed for invincible: but as you heard, S. Ambrose did inform you, 
Ambros. in 1. Corinth. 14.  that these men, whom S. Paul here toucheth, used sometimes the Syrian, and most times the Hebrew tongue, in tractatibus aut oblationibus, in their discourses (to the people) or ministration of the Sacrament, as they pleased.  Phi. 

The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14.  In the public service every man had not his own special tongue, his special interpretation, special revelation, proper Psalms: but in this they had.  Theophil. 
In the public service of the church, the ministers and Elders which were many both travelers and there dwellers, 
And why might not every pastor and minister have his Psalms, his thanks giving as well in praying as in preaching?  had every man his Psalm, his instruction, his tongue, revelation, or interpretation as the spirit of grace thought it most expedient, for the setting forth of God's glory and the edifying of their faiths that were present, and other order of divine service in the apostolic and primative church we read for certainty of none, besides the action of the lords supper, which the Apostles, and so no doubt their churches always used in the end of their public meetings, but with not set prayers save only the lords prayer as Gregory confesseth; the rest of their prayers, blessings and thanksgivinge were in every place made by the gift of the holy Ghost inspiring such, as were set to teach and govern the church. And though you have long since their time framed a Liturgy in james name, whereon you seem to ground all the cavils, that here are urged as invincible arguments: yet for so much as the church of Christ did not acknowledge it, and the words of Gregory directly impugn it: we return that home to the forge whence it came, & your arguments back to you as wanting both truth & strength to bear out your cause.  Phi. 

The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14. Why may not doctrine, prayer, and the lords supper follow each other in one continual action though they be things different in themselves?  The public service had in it the administration of the holy Sacrament principally, which was not done in the time of this conference.  Theo. 
Though the lords supper was not ministered at that instant when the Pastors & people were intending for doctrine, yet did it follow immediately upon this exercise finished, and due thanks offered to God by the whole church for the redemption of the world in the blood of his son: neither besides your bold and bare negative do we see any cause why the singing, blessing, and thanksgiving which S. Paul speaketh of, should not be understood, to be the prayers and Psalms that were used before, after, and at the lords table: this I am sure, S. Paul willeth 
* Cor. 14. All must be done to edification, e●go Church service.  all things to be done to edification, and all must contain the church service & ministration of the Sacrament, as well as Psalms or any other exercises of the church. So that if the special discourse did not touch the ministration of the Lords supper, the general direction doth comprise it: & so much the more, because the whole church as well the people as the Preachers, as well women as men have equal interest in the Lord's supper, to be thereat fed, and thereby stirred to give thanks to God for the richesse of his mercy in the death of Christ. And if you think that understanding and consenting is more needful for the people in any other prayers than in those, that are made at the lords Table, you err not of ignorance, but of wilfulness; and care not what you say, so you may entertain the simple with somewhat for the saving of your credit.  Phi 
Into this exercise were admitted the Catechumens' and Infidels, 
The Rhemish Testament 1 Corinth. 14.  and whosoever would: in this women, before S. Paul's order, did speak and prophesy: so did they never in the ministration of the Sacrament. With many other plain differences, that by no means the Apostles words can be rightly and truly applied to the Corinthians Service then, or ours now.  Theo. 
You should close up the matter with the strongest argument you have; 
Saint Paul in this chapter speaketh both of the sermons where Infidels might be, and of the prayers and blessings where they might not be.  and this is the weakest. At their prophecies that was at their sermons and exhortations Infidels and novices not yet baptised might be; at their mysteries they might not be, but were sent away, and the doors shut, when the faithful approached to the lords Table. Hence you may conclude that every hearer of the word may not be partaker of the divine mysteries; but that the one did not presently follow the other in the Service of the Church, or that S. Paul did not mean them both, you shall never conclude: yea rather the sending them away that might not be present, argueth that the rest which were left did forthwith address themselves to the participation of the lords Table, and that all which was done in the Church before, both exhorting and praying, was referred to this end, to make them meet comers to that heavenly banquet.  Phi. 
That may be: but S. Paul speaketh of the one, and not of the other.  Theo. 
That you should prove, if you could tell how.  Phi. 
We have already proved it by invincible arguments.  Theo. 
Marry that you have; if blind surmises and lose sequeles may stand for arguments; otherwise what have you said, that hath any show of proof, I will not say, of invincible proof?  
Your main foundation is a dream of your own, 
The jesuits invincible arguments are grounded upon nothing but their own false surmises.  that the Church of Corinth had a prescribed number and order of prayers pronounced by some one chaplain, that said his lesson within book, and might not go one line besides his Missale for any good. This you imagine was their Church Service; all other prayers, Psalms, blessings, and thankes-givings though they were used openly in the congregation, and the whole people bound to say Amen, you will not have to be called Church Service. And where S. Paul by precept from God commanded all things in the Church, both praying and preaching to be done in such sort as the people might understand, say Amen, and be edified thereby: you construe that of certain voluntary prayers which some private men made in the Church without commission; and of the public and necessary prayers of the Church you hold opinion, the people need not understand them, nor say Amen, nor look to be edified by them. And because S. Paul speaketh of preaching as well as of praying, you use the one as an argument to exclude the other, which is very bad logic, and worse divinity. You were as good make this for a reason as I warned you in the beginning; Christians in their Churches have sermons, ergo they have neither prayers, nor Sacraments, which yourself censured for a very childish and foolish argument. 
The looseness of their last argument.   Phi. 
That is no conclusion of ours.  Theo. 
Weigh it well and you shall find it the very same that you make. For where the Christians under the Apostles had in their assemblies, first prophesying, that is the declaring of Gods will and revealing of his word, at the which Infidels, and new converts not y●t baptised might be present, and next prayers and Psalms to celebrate the goodness and kindness of God, and to prepare their minds for the lords table, to the which all the faithful came with one consent of heart and voice, giu●ng thanks to God for their redemption in Christ, and blessing his holy name for all the rest of his graces, mercies and compassions on them; and this was done by the mouths of such Pastors and ministers as it pleased the holy ghost to direct & inspire for that function and action: 

One part of the church's exercise doth not exclude but rather employ the other.  
Church prayer is Church service; and that Saint Paul speaketh of. Saint Paul speaketh of all the words that were to be used in the Church, either at the Lords table or otherwise, but not of the actions because they are not performed with the tongue. Divine service is properly that which is done with the mouth, and not h●nds or gestures.   the people hearing, understanding and confirming their prayers and thanks with saying Amen, and other divine Service than this they had none: you take one part of the Church's exercise whereat Infidels might be, which was preaching and declaring the word of God; as a strong inference that Saint Paul in that whole chapter, though he expressly name the public prayers, psalms, blessings & thanksgivings of the Church, meaneth no part of the Church service: which if you well consider, you shall perceive to be captious, if not ridiculous sophistry.  Philand. 
Though Saint Paul speak of many things, yet he speaketh not one word of church-service, which is the point that we stand on.  Theo. 
I pray you what is church-service but Church prayers, Psalms and lessons: which because Saint Paul so distinctly reciteth, he can not choose we say, but mean the church-service, unless you can show, what service the church had or hath, besides these which he nameth.  Phi. 
The ministration of the sacraments is none of these which you specify, and yet the chiefest part of the church-service: and so are other rites which you omit.  Theo. 
In the church-service actions may be necessary, and Rites may be seemly: of which Saint Paul speaketh not, because the abuse, which he reproved, was in their tongues and not in their hands: but the church-service is properly that which is done with the mouth; for GOD is not served with moving or using the hands, but our lips show forth his praise, and with our voices we call upon him, and this is more rightly termed divine service, which is all one with church-service, than any corporal action's or outward gestures though they be lawful, and some of them needful, as those for example which Christ commanded.  
And even in the ministration of the lords supper, words are essential as well as elements or actions, and without words it is both a dumb action, and a dead element. In all sacraments the word that is spoken, is far superior to the creature that is seen: and in this Sacrament by the first institution of our saviour, 

Words in the Lord's supper as essential as elements; or actions, and those the people must understand.  
All things must come to edification and therefore Church service.   thanksgiving is as requisite, as eating or drinking. Wherefore if S. Paul took order for the prayers, psalms, blessings, and thanksgiving used in the Church, that they should be understood of the people, as well as the Doctrines, Revelations, and expositions of scriptures, which were an other and a necessary part of the Church's exercise. S. Paul, we conclude, required that all Church service should be pronounced in such ●ort and with such speech, as the hearers might be edified and say Amen, which they can not to a tongue that they know not. Or if that illation seem not strong enough, S. Paul in plain words commandeth as authorized from God, that all things, and therefore Church service, should be done to edification: and no man is edified by that he understandeth not, which is the fault that we find with your Latin Service in our Churches, where the people understand no tongue but English.  Phi. 
yes sir, 
The Rhemish T●st. ●. Cor. 14. O miserable understanding.  the people in every Country understandeth our service. For by the diligence of parents, Masters and Curates, every Catholic of age almost, can tell the sense of every Ceremony of the Mass, what to answer, when to say Amen at the Priest's Benediction, when to confess, when to adore, when to stand, when to kneel, when to receive, what to receive, when to come, when to departed, and all other duties of praying and serving, sufficient to salvation.  Theo. 
He that hath no better stay must leave to a broken staff, 
The Jesuits as men in a maze defend sometimes that the people need not understand their prayers: sometimes that they do understand them though they can neither spell nor speak one word of Latin.  or lie in the ground. You feared to be convinced as withstanders of S. Paul's Doctrine, and therefore you bethought yourselves of an other shift, which is as bad as the former. The Apostle proveth the prayers of the Church must be understood of the people, because they must say Amen: thereby teaching us, that no man may say Amen, except he both perceive what is said, and also confess it to be true: for otherwise Amen is both a mock and a lie, to no worse person than to God himself. He that sweareth or affirmeth any man's speech to be true, when he knoweth not what he said, is a liar: And he that giveth a sound with his mouth, his hart not knowing what he asketh, maketh a jest of prayer, and forgetteth himself to be a man. And for that cause S. Paul urgeth it as a manifest absurdity for the people to say Amen to that, which they understand not, though the ministers speech in itself be never so good and godly.  
This you saw was so apparent, that though you caviled about Church service, and craked of your invincible arguments: Yet the clearness of saint Paul's words would reach home to the unfruitfulness of your Latin service in this Realm. For his words are, How shall (the vulgar man) say, 
1. Cor. 14. Nothing so absurd which the Jesuits will not defend.  Amen at thy thanksgiving (in the Church) seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest? And therefore you resolved since you were over the shoes in absurdities, to go up to the shoulders, and south●astly to say that in every Country every Catholic, of age, (almost) can tell the sense of every ceremony of the Mass, what to answer, where to say Amen at the Priest's benediction, and all other duties of praying and serving sufficient to salvation.  
Your memory did not serve you to join Matins, Evensong and Dirges to your Mass, 
A new kind of Grammar for the simple to understand the latin tongue in one half hour.  (which you might have done with as good reason and as much truth:) otherwise, we had had all the Papists in Christendom promoted by one sentence of your Testament, to so sudden and perfect knowledge, that they were able to understand all your Latin service. That you found would seem a wonder in the eyes of all men learned and unlearned: and therefore you restrain the understanding, first to the Mass, then to the ceremonies of the mass, then to the sense of these ceremonies, 
* This is perfect ware.  as when to stand, when to kneel, when to confess, when to adore, when to come, when to departed; and all this no farther than may suffice for salvation, and not in all of them, but almost, in every Catholic; or to say the truth, you know not in whom.  
Surely this is a deep insight that all your Catholik● (if they be not learned) have in your mass: to confess (if they could tell what) when they see the Clerk kneel by the Priest's side; to adore, when they see the host and chalice over the Priest's head; to stand, when the Priest changeth his desk from one end of the altar to an other (if they chance too see him,) to kneel, 

A noble kind of understanding how unwise was Saint Paul not to foresee this method to edify with all.  
Is this all the understanding that priest or clerk for the most part had?  
1. Corinth. 14.   when the sans bell ringeth; once a year to come to receive, when mass is done and the priest in his Albe: & at other tunes to departed, when he whippeth off his vestiment. This is the best cunning that your formallest and forwardest Catholics have, if they be not learned in the Latin tongue: The rude & simple people of your side, they do as they see their neighbours, and that is all the skill they have in your ceremonies; as for answering and saying Amen, they must pray for those that can, your parish Clerk can keep his kewe by often use, otherwise neither he, nor the most of your Priests understand what they say. This is all the edification, your mass bringeth to the unlearned hearers, & if this suffice for salvation, S. Paul was out of the way to prefer five words spoken in the church with understanding before ten thousand in a (strange and unknown) language.  Phi. 
If the people say Amen, it is enough,  Theo. 
If they know not what is said, they may not say Amen.  Phi. 
That is your error.  Theo. 
We are content to hold that error, 
1. Corinth. 14. Amen to the saunceb●l, is even as good as to that they understand not.  so long as we have the precise words of S. Paul for it. How shall he that supplieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayst? It is not enough to mark the gestures of him that saith mass, nor to hear the sans bell ring, nor to follow the Choir when they sing Amen, the people must know what is said, before they may give their consents; and therefore, except they understand the prayers of the Church, well they may kneel, and stand, come and go as often as they li●t, but Amen by S. Paul's Rule they may not answer.  Phi. 
They could not in those days answer Amen so well as our hearers can, for that they had no such rites to direct them, 
The heart must understand and consent before the lips say Amen  when to say Amen; as we have.  Theo. 
As though it had been an hard matter for the Apostle to have willed the speaker to hold up his finger, or give some other sign at the end of his prayer, and all the people to say Amen: save that the holy Ghost would prescribe not gestures for men to gaze at, as on stages; but words for them to hear, and understand, that the heart might be joined with the lips in praying unto God, and perceive the truth of that which was spoken afore the tongue pronounced Amen.  Phi. 
I tell you, 
A position of the jesuits which I think the Turk● themselves would be ashamed to defend.  it is not necessary to understand our prayers.  Theo. 
I tell you, that if Satan himself were clothed in a friars weed, he could not lay a fairer foundation for impiety and Apostasy than this is.  Phi. 
Never think to fray us with words, we be no children, nor fools.  Theo. 
If you were, your sin were the less, but now you are without excuse. It is the commandment of God, it is the Apostles Doctrine, it is our Christian duty; without it, the prayers, which we make, be fruitless, vain and barbarous; and yet you say; it is not necessary.  
S. Paul having prescribed this Rule to the Churches of Corinth that nothing should be done at their meetings, 
The heart doth not pray without understanding 1. Cor. 14. Ephes. 5.  neither in preaching, nor praying, but that which might profit & edify even the vulgar and simpler sort, addeth, If any man think himself to be spiritual, let him acknowledge, that the things which I writ unto you, are the commandments of the Lord. The Ephesians he teacheth to be filled with the spirit, and to sing and tune Psalms in (their) hearts to the Lord. Now the heart doth not sing, except it understand. For the sound (or voice) of the hart is understanding as S. Augustine very well observeth commenting upon the psalms of David. 
Aug. in Psal. 99  Beatus populus qui intelligit iubilationem, Curramus ergo ad hanc beàtitudinem, intelligamus iubilationem, non eam sine intellectu fundamus. Blessed is the people that understand what they sing. Let us hasten to this blessedness, let us understand what we sing, let us not pour forth songs that we understand not. To 
* To great purpose the jesuits say.  what purpose is it, to sing and not to understand what we sing; that our voice should chant it, & not our heart? Sonus enim cordis est intellectus. The sound (or tune) of the heart is understanding.  
And showing that this is not only a Christian duty, which is a sufficient necessity, but even the plain condition of our Creation, 
Aug. in Psal. 18. exposis. 1.  that we be not like the beasts which sing they know not what, he saith: 
* And therefore duty. The jesuits prayer is like the chattering of bird● in S Austen● judgement.  Having besought the Lord (by this Psalm) that he would cleanse us from our secret (faults,) We ought to understand what this meaneth, Vt humana ratione, non quasi avium voce cantemus; that we may sing with reason as men, and not chatter, like birds. For Owsels, Parrots, Crows, Pies, and such other birds are often taught by men to sound that they know not marry to know what they sing, is by Gods will given not to birds but unto men. Therefore dear brethren that which we have sung with one consent of voice, we ought to know & perceive with a clear heart. So chrysostom, 
Chryso●t. in 1. Corinth. 14  I will pray with the spirit saith (Paul) but I will pray also with understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with understanding. Hereby the Apostle 
* Is that necessary or no?  teacheth that we ought (in our prayers) to speak with our tongue, and with all to have our minds understand what is spoken. And Ambrose, If (the end of) your meaning be to edify the Church, such things 
Ambros. in 1. Corinth. 14.  ought to be spoken (in your prayers and blessings) as the hearers may understand. For what profit cometh by this● that any man should speak in a language which he alone understandeth, 
* Aught and must do not set us at liberty.  and he that heareth, is no whit the better for it? Therefore such an one must keep silence in the church, and let them speak, that may profit the hearers.  

Cassiodor. in Psal. 46.  Idly is that spoken, which is not understood, saith Cassiodorus. Non solum cantantes, sed etiam intelligentes Psallere debemus, Nemo enim Sapienter quicquam facit quod non intelligit. We ought to sing the psalms not only with tune of voice, but also with understanding (of heart▪). For no man doth any thing wifely, which he understandeth not. The Bishops of France and Germany assembled in Council at Aquisgraine 816 years after Christ under Ludovike the Godly confess the words of S. Paul bind us to understand the Psalms which we sing in the Church. 
Concil. Aquisgranens sub Ludouico pio cap. 123.  Those that sing to the Lord in (his) Church ought to have their understanding go with their voice, that the words of the Apostle may be verified, I will sing with the spirit, but I will also sing with understanding. And, 
* Ibide, ca 133.  Let such be appointed in the Church to read & sing, that with the sweetness of their reading and singing can affect the learned, and instruct the unlearned; and let them seek rather the edification of the people, than the popular and vain ostentation (of their voices.)  

If they ought then had they need so to do.  These Catholic fathers affirm the people ought to understand the psalms and prayers of the church, you say they need not. Between these two doctrines there is as much difference as between daylight and darkness, and yet you will be catholics whosoever say nay: yea God himself commandeth that neither exhortation nor supplication be made in the church, but such as may edify the hearers, and be understood of the people: you both do and teach the contrary, and yet you would be christians.  Phi. 

The Rhemish Testament 1 Corinth. 14.  The simple sort can not understand all Psalms, nor scarce the learned, no though they be translated or read in known tongues men must not cease to use them for all that, when they are known to contain Gods holy praises.  Theo. 
Are you hired to betray your own folly, or is the force of truth so great, that minding to convince us, 
The jesuits overthrow their own positions.  you confute yourselves? The simple understand not all Psalms, nor scarce the learned: we think you speak right: yet must not men cease to use them, since they contain the praises of God; as true as the Gospel; but now Sirs, if the learned must use them, when they scarce understand them, why may not the simple hear them, though they conceive not all the mysteries of them?  Phi. 
As good not hear them, as not understand them.  Theo. 
All parts of the Psalms they do not understand; yet some they do. Why then do you bar them from all, since you dare not avouch them to be ignorant of all? Again by continual hearing them read, 
The people barred by the jesuits from that they know, & from the means to 〈…〉.  alleged and expounded in the Church, they that are willing may easily increase their knowledge: why then do you cut the people not only from that they know, but also from that they might know, & from the means whereby to learn which is the high way to keep them in ignorance, the mother of all errors?  Phi. 
They will learn but little, 
Were they not better let the fault be in others and not in themselves as now it is?  God knoweth.  Theo. 
Grant they would learn nothing▪ yet are you bound to follow that means which God hath left to instruct them if their dullness and perverseness of heart be such that they will not learn, the fault is theirs; not yours, their blood shall be on their own heads, you are discharged: where now by taking the comfort and instruction of their prayers from them, you force them to neglect all as never likely to come by the knowledge of any one word, and confirm them in their blindness to your own destruction, and their imminent danger, if God be not the more gracious to them.  Phi. 
Prayers are not made to teach, 
The Rhemish Testament 1. Corinth. 14. How do our mouths offer our hearts to God when we understand not what we say?  or increase knowledge, but their special use is to offer our hearts, desires and wants to God and this every catholic doth for his condition, whether he understand the words of his prayers or no.  Theoph. 
Who told you that prayers are not made to teach, or increase our knowledge? The Psalms of David, what are they but prayers and praises offered unto God, and yet what Christian was ever so void of sense as to say, they do not teach nor increase knowledge, or that they were not left us to this end and purpose, that they should teach and instruct us in things pertaining to our salvation? The prayers of the Godly throughout the scriptures, though they were uttered in their wants and necessities, yet were they 
Prayers are very needful instructions especially for the simple that cannot direct themselves in making their prayers to God.  written for our instruction. And if you were not as destitute of grace, as you be of truth, you would soon perceive that religious and Godly prayers do mightily teach both learned & unlearned their duties to God, and his mercies to them.  Phi. 
In our prayers we speak to God and not to men: and that leadeth us to ●ay they were not made to teach or increase knowledge.  Theo. 
The end of prayer in him that maketh it, is to ask at God's hands that he lacketh, and to render thanks unto God, 
* 
Rom. 15. Do not the Fathers often draw their arguments to persuade the people from the very prayers of the Church? See S. Aug. ad Bonifac. li. 4. ca 9  
They be no prayers when the tongue speaketh with out the hart and the voice of the hart is understanding.   for that he hath received; but that the public prayers of the Church do not first teach us how to pray, and next instruct us in many and most points of truth, what to believe and confess unto God, were meeter for Turks and Infidels to defend, than for such as you would seem to be, I mean both learned and Christian men.  
Howbeit the pitch of our question is this, whether they may be called prayers which we make with our mouths and not with our hearts: and if they may not, whether our hearts can pray without understanding. These be the matters that here we strive for; and of these, the first is proved by the whole course of the Scriptures: the second as well by the nature of man, as by the word of God.  
That God rejecteth the mouth without the heart, as hypocrisy and no piety, our Saviour telleth you when he saith: 
* Mat. 25. Mark. 7.  O hypocrites Esay prophesied well of you in saying, this people draweth near to me with their mouth, and honoureth me with the lips, but their heart is far from me.  
That our heart joineth not with our mouth, when our understanding wanteth is evident, not only by the scriptures which take the heart of man for his understanding, but by the education of our nature David resembling those men, that have not understanding, (what they say or do,) to the 
Psal. 31.  horse and Mule: and ●usten allowing them, when they pray they know not what, no better place than among 
* Aug. in Psal. 18. Where understanding wanteth man differeth not from a beast.  parrots and pies, which is no place for men, much less for those that would seem to serve and honour God. And what can be plainer than that understanding is the proper action and first motion of man's heart, which wanting in any thing that he doth or sayeth, his heart is also wanting, since not an heart but an understanding heart doth make the difference betwixt man and beast.  Philand. 
That is if they understand not their own words when they pray; but they may be ignorant of the priests words, and not be parrots.  Theo. 
You defend both; as well the private prayers of rude and simple men in the Latin tongue, as the public prayers of the Church in the same language, though the people understand not a word, either what themselves, or what the Priest speaketh.  Philand. 


The Rhemish Testament, 1. Corinth. 14.  
It skilleth not in what tongue the service of the Church was, so the people understood it.  
The Rhemish Test. 1. Cor. 14. Gregor. moral. lib. 27. cap. 6.   The West Church hath always had her service in the latin tongue.  Theo. 
It forceth not in what tongue she had or have her service, so the people understand it.  Philand. 
In Latin, we be sure, she had it.  Theo. 
Then may you be sure, the people understood it.  Phi. 
The one we can prove, and so can not you the other.  Theo. 
Prove you the one, and we will not miss much of the other.  Phi. 
It is well near a thousand years, that our people which could nothing else, but barbarum frendere, did sing Alleluia, and not praise ye the Lord. And longer ago since the poor husbandman sang the same at the plough in other Countries. Hieron. tom. 1. epist. 58. And Sursumcorda, and kyrie eleyson, and the Psalms of David sung in Latin in the service of the primative Church have the ancient and flat testimonies of Saint Cyprian, Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, and others. Gregor. lib. 7. cap. 63. Cyprian. exposit. oratio. Dominica●, num. 13. August. ca 13. de bono perseverant. & de bono viduitat. cap. 16. and epistola. 178. Hieron. praefat. in Psalm. ad Sophron. August. de Catechiz. rud. cap. 9 the Doctrine. Christia. lib. 2. cap. 13. See epist. 10. August of Saint hierom's Latin translation read in the Churches of Africa.  Theo. 
Are you not out of breath with alleging so much?  Phi. 
Not a whit. You buzz in the people's ears that our service in Latin is not ancient: and that in the primative Church the people always understood the tongue, wherein the Priest spoke: look here to your utter shame, how we reprove you, and convince you for liars.  Theo. 
Will you not sit down with us, and take such part as you bring?  Phi. 
Keep your courtesy till we need it.  Theo. 
You well deserve it, though you will not have it, as shall appear before you depart.  
You bring us eleven fathers to prove that divine Service hath been always in the latin tongue throughout the West Church: 
Eleven fathers abused by the jesuits at one clap.  if not one of them all prove any such thing, are you not worthy to have the whetstone?  Phi. 
I say they do.  Theo. 
I say they do not: and did they prove it, as they do not, the greatest doubt is yet behind, & that is, the people might understand the Latin tongue, and if that were true, you are farther off, for all these allegations, than ever you were.  Phi. 
To save yourselves you will imagine any thing, be it never so unlikely or incredible. 
Nine of those fathers speak of such countri●s as understood the latin tongue and the other two speak not one word of the latin service.  For trow you that all the West parts understood the Latin tongue?  Theoph. 
In those places, where the Fathers whom you name, lived and preached, the people understood the Latin tongue very well.  Philand. 
Some perhaps, that were travelers or merchants.  Theo. 
The common people of those Countries I say understood it.  Philand. 
The civiler sort might have a taste of it.  Theoph. 
The basest and rudest that were amongst them understood the Latin tongue as well as their own, if not better.  Phi. 
I thought you would have some such miraculous if not monstruous refuge.  Theo. 
It is neither miracle nor monster, but a plain and certain truth. In Italy where Hierom and Gregory were you doubt not but the vulgar people spoke Latin, as we do English.  Phi. 
It was their mother tongue.  Theoph. 
Then might ploughmen, craftsmen, yea women and children well sing the Psalms, and hear the Scriptures read in the Latin tongue because it was their native tongue, which they could not choose but understand.  Philand. 
But Africa, where Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustine were, had an other tongue of their own, and therefore they could not do the like.  Theo. 
It was the Romans policy to bring the barbarous Countries which they subdued, and were near them, as much as was possible to use the same Laws and speak the same tongue which themselves did, that they might the better like of their regiment. 
The latin tongue was understood in Africa where Cyprian and Augustine preached.  And so had they done in Africa before S. Austen was borne: and the people of those parts about Carthage and Hippo, where Cyprian and Augustine were Bishops, though they were not so exquisite in accents, declinations and constructions, as the Italians were, yet understood they the Latin tongue better than they did their own, by reason their own was little used, and the other wholly taken up to be spoken, as well as understood, by the meanest and youngest, amongst them, yea to be taught their Infants even in the nurses arms.  
Of himself, Saint Augustine confesseth that he learned the Latin tongue in Africa where he was borne, 
August. cofess. lib. 1. cap. 14.  when he was dandled of his nurse, and among the pastimes of those that played with him, and laughed at him, whiles as yet he was learning to speak: and that the common people which never went to school to learn, perfectly understood Latin, not only his sermons made to them, 
Aug. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 20. The rudest among the people in Africa understood the Latin tongue.  and his Psalms made for them against the Donatists in the Latin tongue do clearly convince, but very often in teaching the people he giveth testimony that they all understood the Latin better than the Punic tongue. Minding, saith he, to have the cause of the Donatists known to the basest, most ignorant, and the simplest among the people and by our means to stick in their memories I made a Psalm, according to the number and order of the Latin letters to be sung by them, beginning thus, Omnes qui gaudetis. And showing that they understood Latin better than their own Country speech, which was Punic, he saith: There is a known proverb in the Punic tongue, which I will utter to you in Latin, because you do not all understand Punic, 
August. de verbis Apost. sermo. 26.  thereby noting that they all understood the Latin, but not the Punic, which yet was their Country language.  Phi. 
We will deal liberally with you for once: we grant you this; what gain you by it?  Theo. 
We gain nothing, but you lose more than you think, 
The jesuits heap up fathers in their Rhemish Testament to no purpose but only to amaze the simple.  and as much as we would wish.  Phi. 
The loss is so great that I feel it not.  Theo. 
You will time enough. Your Rhemish Testament to astonish the simple citeth nine authorities in a cluster that the service was always in Latin throughout the West Church. Gregory, li. 7. epi. 63. Cyprian. exposit. oratio. Dom. Hieron. praefat. in Psalm. ad Sophro. and six places of Augustine. Will it please you to take these nine back again, as no way material or pertinent to that purpose, for which you bring them.  Phi. 
You cast them back in heaps, which is no course to answer them.  Theo. 
In heaps they came, and in heaps let them go: they need no farther answering. Gregory speaketh of the City of Rome, Hierom of the 
* Linguae meae hominibus.  men of his tongue, Cyprian and Austen of the service in Africa where the people perfectly understood the Latin tongue: or else of those places and Churches where the Latin tongue was understood, not naming any nor including all the West parts, as you misreport them: but indefinitely speaking of such as used and understood the Roman language.  Phi. 

None of these Fathers which they allege speak of all the west Countries or Churches.  That is it which we say, the Roman language was used throughout the West Church.  Theoph. 
But none of these Fathers say so besides you. They do not specify in what Countries or parts of the West it was used: but speak indistinctly of such as used it.  Phi. 
That, we say, was throughout the West Church.  Theo. 
If you were as able to prove it as you be to say it, you might do yourselves some good.  Phi. 
We are.  Theoph. 
You are not.  Phi. 
Gregory said of 
* Greg. moral. in job lib. 27. cap. 6.  our people which could nothing else but barbarum frendere, that a thousand years afore out days, they did sing Alleluia, and not praise ye the Lord. And longer ago the poor husbandmen 
* Hieron. to. 1. epist. 58.  sang the same at the plough in other Countries.  Theoph. 
Is Alleluia latin?  Philand. 
No, it is Hebrew, and signifieth in English as much as, Praise ye the Lord: but yet in this Realm at that time they sang Alleluia, 
Alleluia is no proof for the Latin service. Alleluia is a better argument for the Hebrew than for the Latin service.  and not Praise ye the Lord.  Theo. 
That hath some show of an argument for the Hebrew service, to have been then used in this, and other Countries, but not for the Latin.  Phi. 
As though the Saxons understood Hebrew.  Theo. 
Even as well as they did Latin, and in Gregory's words there is some appearance of proof for the Hebrew, for the Latin there is none; except you will reason thus, they sang Alleluia, ergo all the rest of their service was in Latin.  Phi. 
Alleluia is no English: ergo they had not their Service in the English tongue.  Theo. 
And Alleluia is no Latin, ergo, by your own logic, they had not their service in Latin.  Phi. 
You err of ignorance. The Latin Church retained Amen, and Alleluia, notwithstanding they were Hebrew, in her divine service.  Theo. 
God grant you err not of malice. Did no Church else besides the Latin retain those Hebrew words in their public Psalms and service?  Phi. 
None but Greek and Latin. And since those whom Gregory sent to convert the Saxons could themselves no Greek, we conclude they delivered the Saxons their church-service in Latin.  Theo. 
Your conclusion is like your antecedent, that is not one true word in either. Did not all Nations in their divine service keep those two words Amen, and Alleluia?  Phil. 
They did; for so Saint 
* Epist. 178.  Augustine avoucheth, but all nations besides the Hebrews had their church-service in Greek or in Latin.  Theoph. 
Doth Saint Augustine avouch that?  Phi. 
That is apparent without any proof.  Theoph. 
It is apparent folly, to presume that which you should prove, to be manifest without any proof.  Phi. 
Can you show the contrary?  Theo. 
Who taught you that order of reasoning, when you fa●le in proving your premises, to cast the burden upon others to disprove that, which you should prove?  
And yet go no farther than this very place of Saint Augustine which yourselves allege; 
August. epist. 178. The Barbarians in their tongues used Alleluia, as well as the Romans or Grecians.  and you shall see that all other Nations preserved these two words in their barbarous languages, as well as the Romans did in theirs. Saint Austin's report is this, Sciendum est, Amen & Alleluia, quod nec latino, nec barbaro licet in suam linguam transfer, Hebraeo cunctas gentes vocabulo decantare. We must understand that all Nations do sing Amen and Alleluia in the Hebrew tongue, which (words) neither the Latin, nor the Barbarian may change into their tongues, If the Barbarians might have no part nor word of the divine Service in their several tongues, as you say, what needed a special exemption of these two words (and no more) as unlawful to be translated into their languages? In that these might not, it importeth the rest might and were: and also that each Country, (in what tongue so ever, Roman, or barbarous, they had their Service,) kept these two Hebrew words Amen and Alleluia untouched & 
* Why these two words were not translated into any tongue. See Hieron. Ma●cel. epist. 137.  untranslated for a certain significance in the words themselves, and a reverence to the tongue whence they were taken.  Philand. 
That the Saxons sang Alleluia we be sure by this report of Gregory, but that they had their service in the Saxon tongue, you shall never prove. 
Alleluia used in this land by the Saxons that could no Latin. Grego. moral. in job lib. 27. cap. 8.   Theoph. 
Much less can you prove by this place of Gregory, which is your intent, that they had their Service in the Latin tongue: for thus he saith, not in the sixth chapter as you note, but in the eighth of his seven and twentieth book upon job. Ecce lingua Britanniae quae nihil aliud noverat quam barbarum frendere, ●amdudum in divinis laudibus He●raeum caepit Alleluia resonare. Behold the tongue of Britanny, which could do nothing but ye all out a barbarous noise, now of late hath begun in the praises of God to sing the Hebrew Halleluia.  
If you take the tongue of Brittany for the speech of the Saxons, then inhabiting this land, as it may well signify, since there is good difference between the tongue of Britanny, 
The Britan's that could speak no Latin, sung the praises of god: in what tongue then if not in their own?  and the tongues of the Britanes; and lingua Britanniae is very hard latin for linguae Britannorum: than it is clear by Gregory's confession that the British tongue was used of the people even at that time to sing the praises of God in their Churches: the Hebrew Hallelu jam (and not the Latin service) being preserved amongst them in their barbarous language, as it was amongst all other Nations by Saint Augustine's testimony, were they Grecians, Romans, or Barbarians. If you will have it stand not for the speech of the country but for the mouths and lips of the men themselves, Hallelu jam, they learned, because it might not be changed; the rest of the Latin service, neither they could learn, as knowing no tongue but their own: nor the Romans could teach, as having no skill in the Saxon tongue: and therefore if the people sang any praises at all unto God, as Gregory saith they did, they must sing them in their mother tongue, for other tongue they had none.  Philand. 
Could they not learn Latin, as well as Hebrew?  Theoph. 
Both a like; but that one word, as Amen, or Hallelu jam, is soon learned, the Latin Psalms and service are no way possible for them to learn or remember. 
Hieron. tom. 1. epist. 58. Hierom misconstered by the Jesuits.   Philand. 
Saint Hierom saith the poor husbandmen sang it at the plough in other Countries.  Theoph. 
What are his words?  Philand. 
Quocunque te verteris, arator stivam tenens Allelu jam decantat. Whither soever thou turn thyself, the husbandman holding his plough, singeth Allelu jam. Why did you doubt of them?  Theo. 
Because I find them not tom. 1. epi. 58. as you quote them, except you have quotations, as you have religions, by yourselves.  Philand. 
Well, these be Saint hierom's words.  Theoph. 
I know they are, but you are as wide from the true constering as you were from the true quoting of them, if you be not wider.  Phi. 
How can that be?  Theoph. 
What Countries spoke Saint Hierom of when he said, Quocunque te verteris, whither soever thou turn thyself?  Philand. 
Of other Countries.  Theoph. 
Of what other Countries?  Philand. 
Of all other Countries, and specially of the West parts, where the latin service was.  Theoph. 
So you would enforce his words, but you do him the more wrong.  Philand. 
Are not his words plain, Quocunque te verteris, turn whither thou wilt, the husbandman holding his plough, singeth Allelu jam?  Theoph. 
In deed his words are plainly perverted by you. For Hierom speaketh not of the West, but of the East; not of Countries, but of a poor village; not of Latinists, but of such as were borne and bred in jury, where the natural speech of the place was Hebrew.  Phi. 
Prove that to be S. hierom's meaning.  Theoph. 
They be his words both before and after, and those so plain, that I marvel you could miss them. 
Hieron. in 1. Epist. 17 ad Marcel. Hierom speaketh of the plough men in Bethleem where Christ was borne.  In Christi vero (ut supra diximus) villula, tota rusticitas, & extra Psalmos silentium est. Quocunque te veteris arator stivam tenens decantat Aallelu jam. Sudans messor Psalmis se avocat, & curua attondens vite falce vinitor aliquid Davidicum canit. Haec sunt in hac provincia carmina. In the village of Christ (as we have said before) there is nothing but rusticity, & silence, except it be in singing of psalms. Turn whither you will (in this village) the husbandman holding his plough (continually) singeth Allelu jam. The mower when he sweateth (and is weary) refresheth himself with psalms. The Gardener as he dresseth his vine with his hook, hath some piece of David in his mouth. These are the songs of this province (or place.) What word or title is here for the service in the latin tongue, except you think that as the Pope claimeth to be Lord of the whole world, so every Country throughout the world spoke then nothing but Latin; which were a merry conceit to make sport with, if there were nothing looked for at your hands but laughter.  Phi. 
In sifting our authorities you take hold of every nice and curious point, which with good conscience we did and may despise.  Theo. 
Call you that a good conscience to muster out eleven authorities (as ancient and flat testimonies) for defence of your error against the woordr of God, and the church of Christ, and not one of them any way respecting that which you should & would seem to prove? That no Nation in the primative church, East, West, North nor South, had their divine service in a tongue not understood of themselves, is our assertion. 
It is easy to allege nine score fathers in any matter to no purpose.  You show that in Italy and Africa (where the people perfectly understood the Roman tongue) they had their service in Latin, and that the barbarous of this Realm, and husbandmen of Bethleem sang Allelu jam, which S. Augustine saith, all nations did, yea the Barbarians as well as the Romans, without translating that, or Amen, into their barbarous languages. Hence you collect, the service always in Latin throughout the West church, and paint that note by the side of your book to make the simple believe, those places which are found in your text to prove it to be true, though not one of them whom you cite, affirm or mention any such thing. 
God grant it be but ignorance in the jesuits to cite fathers in this sort.  Whether this be (to use your own words) great ignorance (of Jesuits) or greater guilefulness, so untruly and perversely to wrest the fathers, and whether you can be catholics, that have no better ground for your Latin and unknown service within this Ream, let the Reader judge.  Phi. 
Augustine our Apostle brought into (this Realm) the service in the Latin tongue: 
The Rhemish Testament 1 Corinth. 14.  and there are well near a thousand years past since he came. And therefore S. Bede saith, (lib. 1. hist. Ang. cap. 1.) that being four diverse vulgar languages in our Country, the Latin was made common to them all.  Theo. 
You thought it long belike before you made up the full dozen of perverted and misconstered authorities. You abuse Bede as you do the rest, and no marvel to see you so bold with him when you have ventured on so many.  Phi. 
Doth he not say this Island had four diverse languages of their own, and the Latin (which was the fift) was made common to them all? 
The Latin tongue was common not to all, but to such as could meditate the Scriptures in this Land.   Theo. 
Not by having their service in Latin, but by meditating, and searching the Scriptures, a number in every of those four Nations had gotten the knowledge of the Latin tongue.  Phi. 
Then the Scriptures were not in any of those languages, and consequently neither the Psalms, nor Lessons which are necessary parts of the Church Service.  Theo. 
Reason better or hold your peace, you do but waste time about trifles. Bedes words are: 
Beda. Histor. Angl. li. 1. ca 1.  Haec in praesenti, quinque gentium linguis unam eandemque summae ver●tatis, & verae sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur & confitetur, Anglorum videlicet, Britonum, Scotorum, Pictorum & Latinorum, quae meditatione Scripturarum caeteris omnibus est facta communis: This Island at this present searcheth and confesseth one and the very same knowledge of the highest verity and truest sublimity with the tongues of five Nations, to wit, the Saxons, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latins, whose tongue by the meditation of the scriptures, is become common to all the rest.  

Meditation of Scriptures doth not signify the prayers of the Church.  Meditation of the scriptures in all men's ears save yours, is the diligent and often perusing of them to get the right understanding of them, and not the Church Service as you would secretly infer: neither doth Bede deny that the Scriptures were heard or read in the other four tongues, which were proper to the four Nations of this Island, but rather affirmeth it when he saith this Country searched and confessed one and the very same knowledge of the highest truth, with the tongues of five Nations: four of them being the British, Saxon, Scottish and Pictish tongue, 
If they searched the truth with five tongues, than did they read or hear the scriptures in four tongues besides the Latin.  in which also they searched & confessed the knowledge of the true God, though the deeper and better learned of them in every of those Nations, for an exacter kind of meditating and studying the Scriptures, gate them some skill in the Latin tongue: wherein the Scriptures were more sincerely written, and more substantially handled than they could be in any of the other tongues amongst the Saxons, Scots or Britons in that raw and rude world, so soon upon their conversion to the faith, and long desolation before of learning, religion and good manners.  Phi. 
The Latin tongue was common to them all. 

The Latin tongue was common to those that were learned in those four Nations.  
Let them take Bede how they will, he maketh nothing for their Latin service in the words which they bring. The Italian Monks, which understood not the Saxon tongue, might have the Latin service in their Abbey, but that the people had it in their parish Churches cannot be proved by any place of Bede.    Theo. 
Not to every particular man amongst them, but to some special men in those four Nations that were willing and able to meditate the Scriptures. And had it been common to them all, that is to every one of them, as you would press it, that construction helpeth you nothing at al. For then the people of this land, being able to meditate the Scriptures in the latin tongue, might very well have their service in the latin tongue, because it was a known tongue and such as they readily understood: but I think the other of the twain the more likely, and therefore I rest on it as on the truer, though neither damnify us, as touching this question, the worth of a dodkin.  Phi. 
It were absurd to think that every of the vulgar sort understood the Latin tongue.  Theo. 
Then is it more absurd, when Bede saith The Latin tongue was made common to all the other (four) tongues (of this Land) by the meditation of the Scriptures: to interpret that of the vulgar sort, and to refer it to the church service as you do.  Phi. 
You have scanned our proofs at your pleasure: but where all this while are yours, that any christian Nation had their public Service in a barbarous tongue? I count all tongues barbarous besides the three learned tongues, which are Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.  Theo. 
In what tongue each Nation had their Service, is now hard to be known so many hundrethes years after, and needless to be discussed. For when we once found it a rule laid down by Saint Paul that All things (in the Church) should be done to edification, as well praying, singing, and thanksgiving, as preaching & expounding the word, which he calleth prophesying; and that no man is edified by that he understandeth not: 
Having Saint Paul's Rule that the people should understand the prayers that are made in the church we need not search in what tongue each Nation had their service.  and also that the service in those two places and churches, whereof we have any records left, was common to Priest and people, and parted between them, by verses and respondes, the whole people, men, women, and children, singing the Psalms, answering to every part of the service, and saying Amen to the prayers that were made in all their names: & lastly that the catholic fathers in their several times and cures taught the people should, and witness the people did understand the public prayers of the church; what need we seek further for barbarous Nations and tongues, whereof we have no monuments, & wherein no famous or learned men wrote, whose labours are come to our age or knowledge?  Phi. 
I thought you would shrink when we came to the quick: you love to pick holes in other men's coats, but not to show your own. Belike it is so rotten it will not endure the handling.  Theo. 
Let the coat alone and come to the case. We have the flat commandment of God that all things (in the Church) should be done to edification: and the Apostles inferment that the simple man is not edified, when he understandeth not what is said. Your shifts were, that S. Paul spoke not of the church prayers, nor of the learned tongues. Those we have refelled, and are now come to the practice of Christ's church: which taking her direction from S. Paul's doctrine in this place, 
These shifs of the jesuits being refelled Saint Paul's text is clear for us.  framed her public prayers in such order that the Pastor and people with jointly and interchangeably blessed and prayed each with other and either for other: not holding it enough for the simple to say Amen they knew not to what, but requiring and appointing their devout, distinct and intelligent answers, confessions, blessings and thanksgivings as well in the ministration of the lords supper, as in other parts of their public service. 
The service of the primative Church manifestly confirmeth our construction of Saint Paul.   
The manner of their service, where the whole church did with one heart and one voice, sing praises to God, and make their common supplications unto him, is the best exposition that may be brought for the true construction of Saint Paul's words: and therein the ancient and Catholic church of Christ, goeth expressly with us and directly against you, as appeareth by all the fathers that ever wrote of these things, by the very sight and view of their liturgies, by your own authorities which here you abuse, yea by the parts and prayers of your Mass-book prescribed for the people to requi●e the priest with, and yet remaining in force and daily use amongst you.  
In your apostolic constitutions, written by no worse man, as you say, than by Clemens successor to Peter and fellow labourer in the Gospel with h●m; 

What order the Apostles took for Church service, as the books which they most esteem, do testify.  
Constit. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 16. The Church service divided between the bishop & the whole congregation.   this order of service at the Lords table was prefixed to the whole Church, were they Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Barbarians or whatsoever if they were Christians. The Bishop shall say, the grace of almighty God, the love of our Lord jesus Christ, and the communion of the holy spirit be with you al. And all (the people) shall answer with one voice, And with the spirit. Again let the Bishop say, Lift up your hearts, & all let answer, We lift them up unto the Lord. And again the Bishop: Let us give thanks unto the Lord, and all shall answer, It is meet and right so to do. And at the end of that prayer it followeth, Et omnis populus simul dicat, and let all the people with one voice say, holy, holy, holy, Lord of hosts: The heaven and earth are full of thy glory: blessed art thou for ever, Amen. And 
* Cap. 18.  so after. Let the Bishop say, the peace of God be with you all. Let all the people answer, and with the spirit. 
* Cap. 20. The people could not make these answers except they understood the tongue that the Bishop spoke in.  Let the Bishop admonish the people with these words, holy things for holy persons. And let the people answer, one holy, one Lord, one Christ be blessed for ever to the glory of God the father. Osanna to the son of David. Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: the Lord (our) God & hath appeared unto us. Osanna in the highest. If in every Church the people were to know when and what to answer in their divine service, and with many full and whole sentences to confirm and requite the Bishop's prayers and blessings: it is evident they were to understand their own and the bishops speech: which in a strange and unknown tongue, such as is used in your churches, it is not possible for simple men and women to do.  Phi. 
You impugned these constitutions but even now, as none of the Apostles.  Theo. 
But you receive them & urge them as apostolic, and therefore against you such proofs are pregnant.  


The liturgies of james, Basil, and chrysostom prescribe like answers for the people in the prayers of the Church.  
That which we allege out of these liturgies hath the true and undoubted testimonies of the Fathers.   And so are the Liturgies, that is, the church prayers which are under the names of james, basil, and Chrysostom: in which the like order of praying and blessing, by course is appointed both for Priest and people. Let the places be seen; if they be not obvious to every man's eyes, let me be rebuked of a bold untruth.  Phi. 
Yourselves admit not those Liturgies.  Theo. 
We do not think that either Basil or Chrysostom would take upon them to make a new form of church service, if S. james the Apostle had done it before them: neither● was the Greek church to seek of her service till their times, or to● change it at their pleasures: yet the things which we allege out of these Liturgies have the manifest testimonies as well of basil and Chrysostom, as of other catholic Fathers, both Greek and Latin in their unforged & undistrusted writings.  
Chrysostom, 

Chrysost. in 2. Cor. in h●m. 18.  
Mark the form of public prayer in Chrysostom● time.   expressing the manner of the church in his time, saith: Even in the prayers (of the church) a man may see the people (help or) offer much together (with the priest) for those that are possessed with wicked spirits & for the repentants. Communes enim preces à sacerdote & ab illis fiunt, & omnes unam dicunt orationem. For the priest and the people make their prayers in common, and they all utter the same words in their petitions to God. Again when we have excluded them out of the church that may not be partakers of the holy table and fall a fresh to prayer, we all prostrate ourselves together, and all rise up together. When peace is to be imparted we all salute one an other. In the very same dreadful mysteries the priest prayeth for the people, and the people pray for the priest. For their answer, And with the spirit, hath none other meaning. Ea quae sunt Eucharistia, id est, gratiarum actionis communia sunt omnia. The prayers of the Eucharist, that is of the thanksgiving (at the lords table) 
* 
Can they have plainer words?  
Basil. hexam. homil. 4.  
Men, women & children singing and praying in the Church service. justin. Martyr. Apol. pro Christianis. 2.   are all common. For the priest doth not only give thanks, but 
* 
Can they have plaine● words?  
Basil. hexam. homil. 4.  
Men, women & children singing and praying in the Church service. justin. Martyr. Apol. pro Christianis. 2.   all the people. Out of the which number were none excepted neither men, women, nor children, as basil shortly but fully decribeth the sound of the whole church praying together. If the sea be good and beautiful in the sight of God, how much more beautiful is such an assembly of the church as we have here, in which the mingled sound of men, women, and children making their (common) prayers ascendeth unto our God, as the noise of waves beating against the banks.  
The Latin church observed the same, as justinus reporting the order of the christian assemblies in his time witnesseth. On the day which is called sunday, all that are in towns or villages meet together in one place where the writings of the Apostles and Prophets are read, as the hour permitteth us: when the reader ceaseth the pastor warneth and exhorteth us to imitate the good things that have been read unto us: Then rise we all and jointly make our prayers: after the which ended, bread and wine with water are brought (to the place) & he that is chief among us maketh his prayers and giveth thanks in the best manner he can. 
* Ibidem.  Perfectis precibus & gratiarum actione, populus omnis qui adest benedicit, dicens, Amen; At the end of his prayers and thanks, all the people that are present, do bless and say Amen: Amen in Hebrew signifieth as much as God grant it may be so.  
S. Augustine noting the use of the church in his days, saith: 
* Aug. in. Psal. 54.  We call upon one God, we hear one Gospel (read,) we sing one psalm, we answer one Amen, we sound out one Hallelu jam. 
* Ambros. hexam. lib. 3. cap. 5.  The Church, sayeth Saint Ambrose, is often very fitly compared to the Sea: which at first rusheth in the prayers of the whole people, as it were in the flowing of her waves, and then soundeth with the respondes of psalms, and with the singing of men, women, maidens and young boys, much after the roaring of (mighty) waters.  
The reason of this general joining in prayer among the christians Leo well declareth in these words, 
* Leo. sermo. 3. de jeiunio. 7. mensis The public prayer of the whole people more available with God than the prayer of the pries● alone.  Most full forgiveness of sins is obtained, when the whole church pronounceth (every man) the same prayer, & the same confession. For if the Lord have promised to perform that which two or three of the godly consenting together shall ask, what shall be denied to an assembly of many thousands beseeching in one spirit with one accord? which was Tertul meaning long before, when he said of all christians: We meet in companies & assemblies, that coming 
* Tertul. in Apologet.  as it were an army (or in troops) unto god, we may even urge him with our prayers. Haec vis Deo grata est: this force is acceptable unto God. In this sort it continued 600. years as appeareth by Isidore. Oportet ut quando psallitur, psallatur ab omnibis; cum oratur, o●etur ab omnibus: quando lectio legitur, facto silentio aequè audiatur ab omnibus. Ideo & diaconus clara voce silentium admonet, ut sive dum psallitur sive dum lectio pronunciatur, ab omnibus unitas conseruetur, ut quod omnibus praedicatur, ab omnibus equaliter audiatur. This must of necessity be kept (in the church service) that when they sing, all sing: when they pray, all pray: when the lesson is read with silence, it be heard alike 
* 
Quasi manu facta.  
Isidor. de eccle. officiis lib. 1. ca 10. delection.  
That all shuld● prey & sing in the church is a duty and therefore a necessity.  
Legum Francie lib. 1. cap. 66.  
De eccles. diuer. capitulis Const. 123.   of al. For therefore the deacon commandeth silence that whether they sing ●● read, all may do the like, & that which is spoken to all should equally be heard of al. Yea Charles the great 800. years after christ took order by his laws not only that the people should say certain parts of the service with the priest, but that the pastors should preach it to be necessary for the simple to understand their prayers, that every man might know what he demanded a● the haudes of God. Glory be to the father, (& to the son & to the holy ghost, etc.) shallbe sung of all men with all honour; & the priest with the people of God shall sing with one voice, as the angels do, holy, holy, holy. 
* Lyra saith if the people understand the priests prayer & benediction they be b●t●er affected to god ward, and answer Amen with more devotion.  (Lord God of saboth) The bishops shall diligently look that the priests thoroughly perceive the prayers of their mass, & both themselves understand the Lords prayer & preach that all must understand it, that every man may know what he asketh of god.  
So justinian before him could command that all Bishops & priests (within the Roman Monarchy) should celebrate the sacred oblation (of the Lords supper) and the prayers used in baptism; not in secret but with a (loud and) clear voice, that the minds of the hearers might be stirred up with more devotion to express the praises of the Lord God. For so saith he, the Apostle teacheth 1. Corinth. 

1 Corinth. 14▪  
justinian apply S. Paul'S place to prove that the people should be edified & stirred by the priests words to confess with their mouths the praise of God in his church.   If thou bless with the spirit, how shall he that keepeth the place of the private (or lay) man, say Amen at thy thanksgiving unto God: because he wotteth not what thou sayest? Thou givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. And in his epist. to the Rom. With the hart we believe unto righteousness, & with the mouth we confess unto salvation. For which respects it is fit, that those prayers which are used in the sacred oblation, as well as others, should be pronounced by the bishops & priests with a clear voice: & let the religious bishops & priests know that if they neglect so to do, they should yield an account in the dreadful judgement of the great God for it, and we having information of them will not leave them unpunished.  
But what need we elder or other testimonies? your mass-book, which at this day you depend so much on, 
The p●iaers & speeches of their Mass book at this day prove the people should understand & answer the Priest in the chiefest parts of their Church service.  convinceth that the people at first did, & still should understand the prayers which the priest maketh even at the very altar & sacrifice itself, those being things of the greatest secrecy & most sublimity that you have.  Phi. 
Can you persuade us that our mass-book maketh with you?  The. 
Choose whether you will be persuaded or no: but you must needs be abashed to see the words of your own book fight against your error.  Phi. 
Faith than our luck is bad.  Theo. 
It is even so bad if it be not worse: that is, if your hearts do not bark against you for upholding this unfruitful prayer.  Phi. 
I am glad you come now to hold by the Missale.  Theo. 
We hold by the precept of the living & everlasting God, & yet we may prove by your own footsteps that you tread awry.  Phi. 
We will believe it, when we see it.  The. 
You shall soon see it: if that will suffice you. When you speak to men do you not waste your words in vain, if they understand not what you say? 

He that speaketh to men that which they cannot understand, mocketh and deludeth them.  
August. de Doct. christia. li. 4. cap. 10.    Phi. 
In our prayers we speak to God, & not to men, & therefore we see no reason why every man should look to understand that we say.  Theo. 
But when you speak to men, & not to God, do you not both abase your tongues & delude their ears if they understand you not?  Phi. 
If we speak to them, I grant they should understand us, or else we lose our labour, & they no whit the wiser.  The. 
S. Austen will tell you, There is no cause at all why (you) should speak, if they understand not what (you) say, for whose sakes (you) speak. The end of your speaking unto men, is to let them understand what you would advise or advertise them of: that if they do not, you speak in the air, 
1. Corin. 14.  as S. Paul saith, & do them no good.  Phi. 
I think so.  Theo. 
Your priest is appointed by the canon of your Mass, to say before he ascend to the altar, 
* Ordinarium Missae secundum usum Sarum.  I confess to God almighty, to blessed Mary, to all Saints & to you (brethren) that I have sinned very much in thought, deed & word. 
* Ideo precorvos fratres orate pro me.  Therefore I beseech holy Mary, all Saints of God, & 
* Orate fratres & sorores pro me.  you (brethren) to pray for me. When he cometh to his sacrifice he is likewise to say, Pray ye brethren & sistren for me, that my sacrifice & yours may be acceptable to the Lord our God: & every where when he prayeth he must say, 
* Dominus nebiscum. Oremus.  The Lord with you, let us pray.  
To each of these the people have their answers prescribed them what they must say, which even at this day are parts of your service, to the confession they must answer, 
* Ordinarium Missae secundi● usum Sarum.  Almighty God be merciful unto thee, & forgive thee all thy sins, deliver thee from all evil, preserve & confirm thee in that which is good, & bring thee to life everlasting. To the oblation they must reply, The grace of the holy ghost lighten thine hart & thy lips, & the Lord receive in good part this sacrifice of praise at thine hands for our sins and offences. Before consecration, when he biddeth them, Lift up their hearts, their answer must be▪ we lift them up unto the Lord: 
Sursum corda habemus ad Dominum.  & when he saith, Let us give thanks to the Lord our God, they must pronounce, it is meet & right so to do. The priest blessing, the Lord be with you, the people must requite with the like, in answering, and with thy spirit. 
Et cum spiritu tuo.   
And though you have excluded the people and set a Parish Clerk to make these answers, and willed the Priest for very shame to say some of them 
* 
Sac●rd. se ver●ens ad populum tacita voce dicat, Orate fratres & sorores prome.  
O mockery to desire the people to pray for him: and yet so to speak it, that no man shall hear it.   closely: yet know you that these words remaining yet in your Masse-bookes are manifest witnesses against you before God and man, that the prayers of the church should be common to Priest and people, and so were, when your Mass was first ordained: and that not only the prayers made by the whole Congregation are more available with God, than the private devotion of any Priest (which of a certain pride in yourselves you will not now acknowledge) but that you mock the people of God, & with your own tongues condemn your own doings, when in your Service you will them every where to pray with you and for you, and yet utter it in such a tongue, as they can neither understand what you or themselves do say.  Phi. 
By the gestures and actions which we use, the people understand our meaning. 

The Papists have turned edification into gesticulation.  
It is the people and not God that needeth the priests voice in the church prayers.    Theo. 
Then should your Mass have consisted of nothing, but of actions and gestures: where now your speaking unto them, when they understood you not, is very ridiculous.  Phi. 
We speak to them but seldom; and if they do not, as we will them, for lack of understanding us, the rest of our service may not be misliked, for so much as therein we speak to God and not to men.  Theo. 
The whole is superfluous, if not injurious to God and man.  Phi. 
Why so?  Theo. 
In all your public prayers, though you direct your words unto God, yet you utter them for their sakes that be your hearers. God needeth not your voice, he searcheth, and therefore understandeth the very secrets of your hearts, and you pray most effectually to him, when your hearts 
* Psal. 27.  speak, and your lips keep silence. God, saith Augustine, 
* Aug. de magi●●ro. cap. 1.  seeketh not to be instructed or remembered by our speech, to give us that which we desire. Where thinkest thou is offered the sacrifice of righteousness, but in the temple of the mind, and chambers of the heart?  Phi. 
That is true, but yet we may use our mouth in praying as well as our heart.  Theo. 
You may if you will, but you need not, except you list.  Phi. 
yes, the Priest is the mouth of the church: and therefore he must speak. 
Speech necessary in respect of the people: which if they understand not, silence would do them as much good.   Theo. 
The church needeth neither mouth, nor speech to God. He knoweth every man's heart as well as one's: but in respect of themselves, speech is necessary that they may be kindled, directed and confirmed, each by others voice in their common prayers and supplications unto God.  Phi. 
The Priest offereth their prayers unto God for them.  Theo. 
God will not have us believe or pray by a substitute, but in our persons, we are not too good to do him that service.  Phi. 

If it be needful for the Priest to speak in the Church service, it is as needful for the people to understand what he saith.  The people pray, but by the Priest's mouth.  Theo. 
Then must he speak: or else he can not be their mouth.  Phi. 
He must: otherwise how shall they know whether he pray or no?  Theo. 
And when they understand him not, they be no surer what he doth, than if he kept silence.  Phi. 
When they hear his voice they suppose he prayeth, though they know not what he sayeth.  Theo. 
They may well suppose it, for they know it not, and so may they do, when the Priest keepeth silence. Supposals are soon made, if God required no more at our hands.  
But by your confession that the Priest must speak in the prayers of the Church, we prove, the people must understand what is spoken. For GOD needeth not any man's speech: 

The end of speaking is that others may understand: if therefore that want, the first is superfluous  
August. de magistro. cap. 1.   the end why the Priest speaketh, is to guide the people's hearts in their petitions to God, and to have their consents that the prayers of the church may proceed from them all. If that end want, as in a tongue not understood it doth, in vain doth the Priest speak, and the people hearken unto that which they no way conceive, or have knowledge of. What needeth speech, that is, the sound of words, saith Augustine, when we pray, unless perhaps, as the priests do for the signification of their minds: not that God, but that men should hear, and through (their) rehearsal by consenting (to their words) be stirred (or moved) to depend on God.  
The Priest therefore in his church service, 
The Priest at his Mass uttereth every word, as if the people did understand him and join with him in prayer.  though he direct his heart to God, yet doth he open his mouth for their sakes that are present, that they may be both kindled and guided by the sound and sense of his words to join with him, in offering to GOD one agreement of heart and voice, which is the cause why public prayer was ordained. And even at this day in your Mass the Priest speaketh not one word in his own person, but in every prayer both warneth the people to pray with him, and speaketh in their persons as well as in his own. 

Oremus. Gratias agamus. Quaesumus. Offerimus. Laudamus. Benedicamus. Adoramus.   For example: Let us pray, let us give thanks, we beseech, we offer, we praise, we bless, we adore, which argueth that at the first institution of your own service the people did, & were bound to mark and understand the Priests words, & with answering Amen to acknowledge and conf●●m his prayers to be their desires and requests unto God, though now you shut up their ears & mouths that they can neither understand you, nor know what to answer you, but only open their eyes to behold your gestures, as if it were not a place for prayer, but a stage for dumb shows, to delight the senses.  Phi. 
You make certain petite reasons against us for the service in the vulgar tongue: but had they been sufficient, do you think the church of Christ would have taken up the contrary custom for these fifteen hundredth years?  Theo. 
I think she would not, & by her church service, I prove she did not.  Phi. 
You prove the people understood the service, & by course answered, and consented to that which was said in the church, but this doth not prove that the prayers were in any other tongue besides the Latin, Greek or Hebrew, which is our assertion.  Theo. 
This is it which I told you before, that finding the people did understand the divine service in the primative church: 
All tongues are alike to God.  and that no prayers were counted public, unless they had the consent & answer of the whole multitude: we need not care in what tongues this was done: The Hebrew, Greek Latin, 
God no respecter of persons, much less of tongues.  Armenian, Indian, Persian, Syrian, Gothian tongue's, are they not all alike to God? Must not barbarous Nations be edified by their prayers as well as the civiler or learneder sort of men? There is no respect of persons with God, is there of tongues?  Phi. 
The three learned tongues were dedicated in our saviours cross, the rest were not.  Theo. 

pilate's act is not so good a reason for the latin service; as Caiphas' prophesy was for the Pope's infallible judgement: and yet either is very foolish.  Who set up those titles on the cross: the Lord which suffered, or Pilate which condemned him unjustly to death?  Philan. 
What though Pilate set them up?  Theo. 
If Pilate were a wicked Pagan and his fact wickedder in proclaiming the Son of God for a Traitor and an aspirer to the Crown of jury, in Hebrew, Greek and Latin letters, what reason can this be why God will not, or should not be served in any other tongue, but in one of these? Have you no better examples than Caiphas to uphold the Pope's Tribunal; and Pilate to commend your Latin service?  Phi. 
yes, we have the church of God.  Theo. 
Then why conceal you that, and bring forth pilate's impiety to prescribe a rule in the church of God against the Apostle?  Phi. 
The tongues were good, though his fact were evil.  Theo. 
And dare you say that any tongue in the world is not good?  Phi. 
Good they be all, but not so good as any of these to serve God in.  Theo. 
Recoil you back again to that error, that God is an accepter of tongues?  Phi. 
You call it an error.  Theo. 
So is it: and that a very gross error. For God accepteth the zeal of the heart, not the sound of the mouth: and though to us there is some difference in the perfection and pleasantness of the speech; to God in devotion of prayer there is none. 
Origen. contra Celsum. lib. 8.  He, saith Origen, that is Lord of all tongues, heareth those that pray in any tongue. For God the governor of the whole world is not as one, that hath chosen the Greek, or some other barbarous tongue, 
All tongues are fit for prayer.  and is ignorant of the rest, or neglecteth those that speak unto him in any other tongue. And since he hath made all tongues, & requireth not the sound of our mouths for himself, but for ourselves, it is wilful folly to say that prayers be sanctified or accepted to God in one tongue, and not in all tongues alike.  Phi. 
Still I say 
The Rhemish Test. 1. Cor. 14.  the Church of God hath no such custom: which Saint Paul himself layeth down for a sure direction in all church matters.  Theo. 
Take you the negligent abuse of late years in some places for the custom of God's church? Or do you think it piety to pretend any custom of your own against the commandment of God?  Phi. 
Any thing which the whole Church doth practise and observe throughout the world, 
The Rhemish Test. 1. Cor. 14.  to dispute thereof, as though it were not to be done, is most insolent madness, as S. Augustine very notably saith in his 118. epi.  Theo. 
S. Augustin doth not say, that you may prefer custom before the Scriptures: or change the ancient custom of Christ's church in making her prayers in a vulgar and known tongue, with a newer order of your own in tying the people to a strange and unknown language: either of those by the verdict of Augustine in this very place is that most insolent madness which you would seem to fasten on others.  
And yet you miserably rack this place of Augustine. For of two parts, you dissemble the first, 
S. Augustine racked by the Jesuits from his right meaning.  that you may pull the second to your purpose: and in the second you leave out two conditions which your Author addeth: and were the text truly cited, your application is so false in the sight of all men, that none but mad men would venture on so desperate an assertion, as you have done. For that the whole church of God throughout the world ever had, or at this day hath her service in an unknown tongue, or in Latin, well you might utter it in a dream: but never sober man said it being broad awaked, & well advised.  
The words of S. Augustine, being consulted of the rites and ceremonies of the Church, 
August. epist. 118. cap. 5.  not of the doctrine or faith of the church, are these: If the authority of the Divine Scripture prescribe in any of these (rites and ceremonies) what is to be done, I answer there may be no doubt, but that we must do as we read. Similiter si quid horum, tota 
* The word should be hody.  die per orbem observat Ecclesia. The like I say if any of these (rites) be observed of the whole church throughout the whole world (at this present day), for to dispute that we should do otherwise: 

It is madness to break the custom of the universal Church in things indifferent.  
The Jesuits defend a new custom against the ancient and general order of Christ's Church: are they not mad by S. Augustine's rule?  
Lyra. in 1.  
Cor. 14.  
johan. Eckins in locis communibus.  
The south Indians ever had and yet have their service in their mother tongue.   is most insolent madness. The scripture is first to be respected & obeyed: if that prescribe no certainty, the custom of the universal church is to be followed, in those rites which are neither against the faith, nor good manners, for that is his main restriction: and not every custom which in time to come might, or should happily be newly devised by some parts or members of the church, but such as the whole church far & near without contradiction retained then, when he spoke, as descending from the Apostles or apostolic men. And so the word (hody) doth import, though your Monks have left out the first syllable, & written (die) for (hody) as the course of the sentence doth plainly declare.  
If then to dispute whether the ancient custom of the universal church may be altered, be madness, yea most insolent madness, what degree of frenzy will fall to your lot, that erect & descend a particular & late grown custom, against the plain precept of God himself, against the Apostles prescription, against the general & ancient usage of Christ's church, yea against the nature of man, & true intent of your own service which you would seem to make most account of?  Phi. 
All this is untrue.  Theo. 
Bethink yourself better, and you shall find it truer than you would wish.  Phi. 
Had ever any Nation their church-service in a barbarous tongue before our time?  Theo. 
Make you that such a wonder, which your own friends confess was so common in the primative church? Lyra saith, In primativa ecclesia benedictiones & caetera coina (or else leaving out the c, which seemeth to be added by the negligence of the Printer) oina siebant in vulgari. In the primative church blessings, and (all other or) other common (prayers) were made in the vulgar tongue (which the people understood.) Eckius saith, Non negamus tamen Indis Australibus permissum, ut in lingua sua rem divinam facerent, quod clerus eorum hody observat. We deny not but the south Indians were suffered (in the primative church) to have their divine service in their mother tongue (which is neither Greek, Hebrew, nor Latin) which also their clergy at this day observeth. An 
* Sigismond. liber in rerum Moscovit arum Commentariis, cap. de d●cimis. So have the Moscovites and Armenians.  other of your friends saith of the Moscovites, Totum sacrum seu Missa Gentili ac vernacula lingua apudillos peragi solet. The whole service or mass is said with them in their native & mother tongue. The epi. also & the Gospel of the day are read to the people with a loud voice out of the chancel, for their better understanding. Pet. Belloni saith. As 
* Petrus. Bello. de moribus Armeniorum.  many as are present with the priest singing mass Armenia, answer him in the Armenian tongue. For all, that stand by, understand the Armenian tongue which the Priest useth (in his service.)  Phi. 

All Africa, Asia, and the North parts of 〈…〉 ●nd barbarous tongues.  These be schismatical and disordered Churches.  Theo. 
In deed they know no part of your holy Father's religion nor dominion: Yet are they Christians, and nearer the truth by many degrees than the church of Rome. It is no schism to be free from him, to whom they were never subject, and some observances though they have, which are both superstitious and erroneous: yet that is no reason to dispraise them in that wherein they follow the example of the true and sincere church of Christ, and retain that custom which they received from the beginning.  Phi. 
We may dislike them for this aswell as you may for other things.  Theo. 
Whether you like them or no, so they do and so have they done ever since they were planted in Christ, even to this our age.  
And this their constancy you can not dislike, but you must also dislike the Apostle that first taught it, the primative church that continued it and adjudged it to be necessary; yea your holy Father himself, that not only would permit it, when he was requested: but strictly command it when it was not asked. Cyrillus that converted the people of Russia and Moravia, 

Aeneas Silvius hi●●. ●ohem. cap. 13.  
God from heaven decided that the Russians and moravians should have their service in their native tongue though it were barbarous.   made request to the Bishop of Rome, as Pope Pius the second reporteth, that he might use the Slavon tongue in saying divine Service to them, whom he had baptised. And when the matter came to be handled in the sacred Senate (or council chamber) a number contradicting it, he saith there was heard a voice, as it were from heaven, speaking these words: Let every spirit praise the Lord, and every tongue confess him: and that upon the hearing thereof, Cyrillus had his petition. The blindness of your holy father and his Cardinals was reproved by a voice from heaven for having their Service in an unknown tongue: and yet you bear men in hand, to dislike the late custom of your Romish Synagogue: or so much as to dispute thereof, as if it were not to be done, is insolent madness.  
Innocentius though he were the first that brought Transubstantiation, Auricular confession, and deposition of Princes to be confirmed in open council 1215. years after Christ, yet durst he not bind the West church to the Latin service, throughout, as you do: but gave straight charge rather to the contrary, that such as were of diverse languages, should have the prayers and sacraments of the church in their several and sundry rites and tongues: as appeareth in the council of Lateran assembled under Innocentius the third of that name. Because 
Concil. Lateranens. sub Innocent. 3. ca 9  in many places within the same city & Diocese there be mingled 
* in plerisque partibus. Populi diversar. linguarum.  people of diverse tongues, having under one faith sundry rites & customs: we straightly command that the Bishops of such cities & Dioceses provide fit men which may celebrate divine service, and minister the church Sacraments unto them, 
* Secundum diversitates linguarum.  according to the diversities of their rites & languages.  Phi. 
In diverse tongues he saith they shall have their service, but not in any barbarous tongue.  Theo. 
And he that saith they shall have their service in diverse tongues confesseth there were more tongues used in the West church than one: and taking order that service should be said unto them according to the diversities of their tongues, 
more tongues used in the west Church than the Latin tongue.  he saw some cause why the people should understand what was said in the church: and if that be needful or expedient for one nation, why not for other in like manner? And yet I see no restraint in the words, but that the Moscovites, moravians, & others were provided for by this Canon, to have the church service in their proper and native tongue, as well as the Grecians.  Phi. 
If it were so: we account it lawful, for that the church of Rome did permit it.  Theo. 
Then do we account our service in the English tongue much more lawful, 
The general use of the primative Church confi●meth the service in the English tongue.  chief for that it is warranted by the word of God, as I have showed; and secondly for that it wanteth not the general use and order of Christ's church in her sincerest and purest state to confirm the same.  Phi. 
Have you the general and ancient custom of Christ's church to insure your service in the english tongue?  Theo. 
We have, for that tongue which the people understand, be it English, Scottish, or what other speech you will.  Phi. 
That any Nation prayed in a barbarous tongue, you have no precedent in the primative church.  Theo. 
This is not the first time that your teeth could not rule your tongue: The primative church of Christ used and allowed all tongues, as well barbarous as learned, for the people to make their prayers in. 
All tongues allowed in the primative Church for men to make their public prayers in.   Phi. 
You say not truth.  Theo. 
If I do, you know your reward. You must be catholics of the second edition, when men began to fall from truth to Apostasy. For with the right and ancient faith of Christ's church, your Romish errors have no fellowship.  Phi. 
And what have yours, that were never heard of before Luther's time?  Theo. 
How chanceth then, our doctrine is confirmed by the scriptures, and witnessed in all the Fathers, where yours is not?  Phi. 
Not ours?  Theo. 
Not yours.  
Your praying in a tongue not understood of the hearers: your single and solitary Masses, where no man eateth besides the Priest: your decurted communions, where wanteth one half of Christ's institution, 
The jesuits are so Catholic that they have not so much as one Father for the greatest points of their religion.  I ask not how you prove these points to be catholic, that would trouble your brains too much: but what one Father have you for them, lest you seem to derive your religion you know not from whom? Catholic should have all the Fathers, we demand you but one: If you come short of that, what hope can you have to recover the rest?  Phi. 
The doubt is not of our faith, but of yours: you must show, by what title you claim your church, which was in our possession before you were borne.  Theo. 
The walls you had: for those we strive not: The faith which is the foundation of the church you never had: for that we stand. 
The walls of the Church were theirs, but not the faith of the Church.   Phi. 
But who standeth with you besides yourselves?  Theo. 
I have told you: the word of God, and clear consent of that church, which you dare not deny to be both ancient and catholic.  Phi. 
First then where is your antiquity for praying in a barbarous tongue?  Theo. 
That, which I have said, might seem sufficient, you bringing against it neither reason nor authority but only pilate's that put Christ to death. 
pilate's authority is all the hold the Jesuits have for their latin service.   Phi. 
That the people did understand the prayers which were made in the church you show some proof: but those we say were in Hebrew, Greek or Latin. Marry that the primative church permitted any Nation to make their prayers in a barbarous tongue, for that as yet I see no proof.  Theo. 
Review that which is already said, and you shall find, that not only the people did sing the Psalms and answer the prayers that were made in the church, but also they were taught, 
The prayer is not public except the people understand it and confirm it.  it was a point of their christian duty so to do, and that neither the Priests voice was needful, nor the prayer public, except the whole multitude did both conceive the meaning, and confirm the blessing of their Pastor and Reader: which in a strange tongue they can not: & therefore the conclusion is infallible, that in the primative church no tongue was used but such as the people understood, and in a barbarous nation of necessity that must be a barbarous tongue.  Phi. 
But we require some testimony that a barbarous tongue was used in prayer: for it may be that all the nations in the world understood Hebrew, Greek or Latin; 
Pilate wrote the superscription of the cross not for all the persons in the world but for all the strangers that w●re at jerusalem.  else why did Pilate set the title on our saviours cross in those three tongues, but that all nations might read it: and that they could not, except they understood one of those three tongues, which I conjecture they did.  Theo. 
A conjecture fit for the cause you have in hand. Pilate did not set up the title for all the men, women and children in the world to see or read as you suppose: but for those that were gathered out of all Countries to jerusalem at the time of his execution: and that strangers as well as Jews might know the cause why Christ was adjudged to die, the superscription was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, 
All the world understood not the three learned tongues.  without the knowledge of one of the which tongues no stranger used to frequent those countries, lest he should be forced as dumb men are, to work with signs, which in travelers or ligers, that have any business, is mere madness without some interpreter.  
Had all men understood one of those three tongues as you imagine, what needed the holy Ghost to have bestowed any more tongues on the Apostles, when they were sent to preach to all nations, but the Hebrew, Greek and Latin? 
What needed the gift of more tongues, and where was the division of tongues which God inflicted for building the tower of Babel, if the whole earth had gotten to be of three tongues?  for the whole world as you say, spoke and understood those three. You may do well to control the holy Ghost, and with your monstruous and false surmise to say the gift of more tongues than these three, was not needful. And where is then the division of tongues which God inflicted on the Sons of men, if the whole earth had recovered herself to be of three tongues? Or how could any Nation be barbarous, if each could naturally speak some one of the learned tongues? Yea why might not the offspring of Adam have gotten from three tongues to one with more easy and quicker speed, than from an infinite variety of tongues to three, and so frustrate the judgement and wisdom of God in confounding their speech? 
The primative Church prayed in barbarous tongues.   Philand. 
I do not avouch it for a certainty.  Theophil. 
Look better unto it, and you will reject it not only for an impossibility, but even for an impiety. And yet were you so absurdly and wickedly bend, you hurt not our assertion. For we can prove that the primative church allowed and used prayers by precise ●ermes in barbarous tongues. Origen saith, 
a Origen. contra Ce●sum. lib. 8. Every nation prayed in th●● native and mother tongue.  The Grecians name God in the Greek tongue, the Romans in the Latin: & singul●item nativa & vernacula lingua Deum precantur, & laudibus pro se quisque extoll●t, and every (Nation) in their native and mother tongue make their prayers to God and yield him his due praises. S. Hierom describing the solemn funeral of Paula, that died at Bethleem in jury saith: 
b Hier. in epitaphic Paul. ad Eust●chium. Prayer in the Syrian tongue  Hebraeo, Graeco, Latino, Syróque sermone psalmi in ordine personabant, non solum triduo donec s●bter Ecclesiam, & juxta specum Domini conderetur, sed per omnem hebdomadam. The Psalms were sung by order in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Syrian tongue, not only those three days, till she was laid in earth within the church, and near to the sepulchre of our Saviour, but that whole week.  
And lest you should think this order of singing in diverse tongues was used but once, commending the very same place for the great concourse of Nations far and near, thither resorting and there leading their lives, he maketh Paula then alive give this report to Marcelia. 
c 
Paula & Eustochium ad Marcellam ut commigret Bethleem. Hier. tom. 1. epist. 17.  
Prayers in as many tongues almost as there were nations in Bethleem.  
Every one of these nations had not sufficient to make a quire, or else some of these nations spoke the one the same tongue that the other did as divers of these spoke the greek tongue.   Quicunque in Gallia fuerit primus huc properat: divisus ab orb nostro Britannus, si in religione processerit, dimisso sole occiduo quaerit locum fama tantum & Scripturarum relatione notum. Quid referamus Armenios', quid Persas, quid Indiae, quid Aethiopum populos, ipsamque juxta Aegyptum fertilem Monachorum, Pontum, Cappadociam, Syriam Caelen, Mesopotamiam, cunctáque orientis examina? Vox quidem dissona, sed una religio: tot pene Psallentium Chori, quot Gentium diversitates. Whosoever is the chiefest in France, hither he hasteneth. The Britain divided from our world, when he cometh to any forwardness in Religion, seeketh for (this) place which he knoweth only by hearsay, and by relation of the Scriptures: what shall I speak of the Armenians, Persians, Indians, Ethiopians: of Egypt, that is hard by, and hath such store of Monks: or of Pontus, Cappadocia, Caelesyria, Mesopotamia, and all the swarms of the East? They have diverse languages, but one religion. There are (here) almost as many Quires that sing the Psalms (in their several tongues) as there be diversities of nations.  
Saint Augustine urgeth this which you defend (that GOD should not be praised in a barbarous tongue) as a manifest inconvenience against them, that would not have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used to express the nature and substance of the Trinity. 
d 
August. epist. 178.  
S. August. taketh it for a thing confessed that prayers should be used in barbarous tongues.   If one substance of the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost may not be uttered in the Greek tongue: ergo neither is it fit that God should be praised in a barbarous (tongue:) but if the later be used, why not the former? And that the later was used he showeth in these words, 
e August. Ibidem. What is this but praying in barbarous tongues?  una rogatur ut misereatur à cunctis Latinis & Barbaris unius Dei natura, ut à laudibus Dei unius, nec ipsa lingua barbara sit, ut Latinis aliena. The one nature of one God is prayed unto by all the Latins and Barbarians to be merciful (to them,) in so much that the very barbarous tongue is not excluded from the praises of one God, as belonging to the Latins (more than to the Barbarians.) In Latin we say, Domine miserere. Then belike this mercy ought to be asked of that one God the father, the Son and the holy Ghost, but only in the Hebrew or Greek tongue, or at least in the Latin tongue, and not in any barbarous tongue. Marry if it be lawful not only for the Barbarians in their language, but for the Romans (conquered and compelled by the Goa●hes to learn their speech) to say sihoraarmem: 
The service in the Gothian tongue.  which is as much as, Lord have mercy (on us,) why should it not be lawful for the counsels of the Fathers that were assembled in the Land of Grecia to call one substance of the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost, in their own tongue homoousion? Thus much S. Augustine confessing that God was and might be praised and prayed unto in a barbarous language, as well as in Hebrew, Greek or Latin: and repeating a piece of the church service in the Gothian tongue, which not only themselves used, but the Romans were forced to receive in steed of Domine miserere, when their city was taken and surprised by the Goths, for Kyerie eleison, 
Kyrie eleison was not used in the church of Rome in S. Augustine's time.  which Gregory two hundred years after borrowed of the Grecians, was not as yet in Saint Augustine's time used in the Church of Rome.  
The very savage people that offered unto Devils, when they were converted unto Christ, were not denied to have their Psalms and prayers in their rude and unpolished tongues, as S. Hierom reporteth of the Bessians and others. 
f Hieron. ad Heliodorum in ●pita. Nepotian.  The passion and resurrection of Christ, the tongues and letters of all Nations do sound. I speak not of the Hebrews, Greeks and Latins, which Nations the Lord did dedicated in the title of his cross: that the soul is immortal, and hath his being after the dissolution of the body, the Indian, the Persian, the Goth, the Egyptian can largely discourse. The wild Bes●ians and they which go clothed in beasts skins (for lack of other apparel) sacrificed men to the Ghosts departed, 
The barbarus Bessians had the melody of the Cross in their own tongue.  stridorem suum in dulce crucis fregerunt melos, have turned their barbarous and fearful noise into the sweet melody of the cross.  
Other particulars might be brought, but the report of Saint basil shall suffice for the general order of praying and singing, observed, as he saith, in all the churches of God, and therefore in those Nations and Countries where the common people could no Latin, Greek nor Hebrew: but of force were driven to use their natural language, though it were barbarous, before they could either utter their own minds or understand what others said. 
g Basil. epist. 63. ad Cleri●. Neo●. This order of service was used in all Churches where the people understood neither Hebrew, Greek, nor Latin.  The people with us rising in the night go to the house of prayer, and with continual tears making their confession to God, and at length rising from prayers, they set themselves in order to sing Psalms. Where being divided into two parts they sing by courses (each side after other) and so with variety of Psalms, and prayers interserted, they spend the night: as soon as the day breaketh all of them in common, as it were with one mouth and one heart, offer to the Lord a psalm of confession, every one of them making the words of repentance proper to himself. In respect of this (order) then if you refuse us, you must also refuse the Egyptians, the people of either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lybia, 
The south 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indian's the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arabians, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syrians, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Armenians and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Babylonians speak neither Hebrew, Greek nor Latin. Basil. Ibidem. This order was observed in all Churches, ergo amongst the Barbarians which could none of the learned tongues.  Thebais, Palestine, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arabians, Phoenicyan, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syrians, the (Armenians, Babylonians & other) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 borderers on Euphrates, & generally all with whom vigils, prayers and common psalmodies are esteemed.  
And that this order of singing the Psalms was general throughout the whole Church of Christ, were the people jews, Grecians, Romans, or Barbarians, the words immediately before do witness. To that accusation wherein we are blamed for the psalmodies, I have this to answer, that the manner and fashion (of singing Psalms) which is here with us, is agreeable and consonant to all the Churches of God. If these words be true: than not only the Egyptians, South Indians, Arabians and Syrians, whom this Father nameth; but the Persians, East Indians, Armenians, Iberians, Scythians and all other Nations had the same order of praying and singing in their Churches by the mouths and voices of the simple and unlearned people. And consequently either all the Christian men, women and children in the world could speak and understand one of the three learned tongues, which is a ridiculous, false, and impious imagination, or else each nation had their public prayers and Psalms in their several and barbarous tongues: which is the point you would needs have proved, before we passed any farther.  Phi. 
That was then the manner of the Church, but since this which we use, 
The Rhemish Test. 1. Cor. 14.  hath been thought by the wisest and godliest to be most expedient, and it is certainly seen to be nothing repugnant to S. Paul.  Theo. 
You lack good neighbours to help you, that you be forced so shamefully with your own mouths in godliness and wisdom to prefer yourselves before the learned and Catholic fathers of all antiquity. 
Mark this pride of the jesuits where they make themselves wiser and godlier than the primative church.  We show you the ancient and universal custom of Christ's Church proportioning her prayers by the rule of S. Paul, and directing them wholly to edify the vulgar and simple people, as much as might be, by plain precept from God himself, as they conceived the Apostles speech: you tell us that you have not only changed that order of your own authorities: but that you have conferred with some godlier and wiser personages than those famous and worthy Pastors that observed this course in the Church of Christ many hundreths before you were borne: and find it most expedient to continue your unfruitful manner of praying in a tongue not understood, though the precept of God, the Doctrine of the Apostle, and the practice of the primative Church be expressly against it. O mouths prepared to stick at nothing that may any way serve to hoodwink your hearers! In this and many other points of your Religion you run headlong against the clear testimonies of the sacred Scriptures, and general consent of the Catholic fathers, and yet you will be Catholics.  Phi. 
You be very rife with your reproaches.  Theo. 
I might justly give you some oftener remembrances, but that I more respect the seemelynes of the cause, which is Gods, than the sinfulness of your attempts, who neglect Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, Canons, Church and all, that is to follow the decrees you know not of whom: and yet will have it insolency and madness in us to dispute of your actions.  Philand. 
You do but slander us.  Theoph. 
We have hitherto slandered you with matters of truth, if the rest prove like, we shall do you no wrong, though we fawn on you less.  

Their Mass not catholic.  Your Mass, which this Realm hath now rejected, what hath it in it, either Catholic or apostolic, or any way concordable with Christ's institution?  Philand. 
You could never light on a worse match. Of all the rites, observances, and Sacraments which we have, none is more apostolic, more Catholic, more conformable to Christ's order and example than our Mass; 
The Rhemish Testament, fol.  and your profane Supper 
a 4●4.  hath nothing agreeable to the Apostles or Christ's institution, but all clean contrary: yea your 
b 448.  communion is the very table and cup of devils, and your 
c 228.  Caluins bread and wine, like at length to come to the sacrifice of Ceres and Bacchus.  Theo. 
Tie up your doggish, if not devilish eloquence: you shall have no praise, 
The Friars have served Ceres and Bacchus so long, that now they can not choose but talk of them.  though you take some pride in broaching these blasphemies. Your poisonful tongues and unblushing faces may injury the ordinance of God, but you can not overthrow his truth. If we had devised any thing of our own brains as you have done the most part of your Religion, you would have kindled I see to some choler that spare us such speeches for following the very sampler & original which Christ did institute, as exactly, as we possibly might.  Phi. 
You follow no part of Christ's institution.  Theo. 
It is easy for your side to say what you list: you were no right Friars, if you could not speak for yourselves: but leave your scoffs & vaunts at home, & bring forth your proofs.  Phi. 

The Rhemish Testament fol. 451. nu. 20.  I will begin with the name, and so proceed to the rest of the circumstances. You have small reason to name the holy sacrament rather the Supper of the Lord, than after the manner of the primative Church, the Eucharist, Mass, or Liturgy. But belike you would bring it to the supper again, or Evening service, when men be not fasting, the rather to take away the old estimation of the holiness thereof.  The. 

The Jesuits cannot abide the name of the lords supper.  If you leave not so much as the name untouched, I hope you will not conceal any weighty matter of more importance.  Phi. 
You may swear for that, and keep your oath.  Theo. 
Then if all your quarrels being discussed, you be found to have uttered nothing against us but your sharp and eager stomachs, and notwithstanding your vagaries and resaliries to and fro, your Mass be neither Catholic nor apostolic, deserve you not to bear back your own burden, and to have Bacchus, Ceres and the rest of your infernal saints to the shrines whence you brought them?  Phi. 
When that falleth out, which will be never. But you delay the time, for fear you take the foil.  Theo. 
If your arguments be as quick, as your appetites, we shall soon dispatch; but bring us not drippings, and say they be dainties.  Phi. 
S. Ambrose in hunc locum, 
The Rhemish Testament, 1. Cor. 11.  and most good authors now think this which (the Apostle) calleth Dominicam Caenam, is not meant of the blessed Sacrament, as the circumstances also of the text do give, namely the rejecting of the poor, the rich men's private devouring of all, not expecting one an other, gluttony and drunkenness in the same, which cannot agree to the holy Sacrament. And therefore you have 
* You have smaller to resist that name.  small reason (as I said) to name the said holy Sacrament rather the Supper of the Lord, than after the manner of the primative Church, the Eucharist, Mass, or Liturgy.  Theo. 
Malice bursteth out at your tongues ends, 
What names the Lords supper is called by in the Scripture.  when you cannot abide the words which we use, though the Scriptures did first authorize them, and the fathers for their parts continue them. The Sacrament which the Lord ordained at his last maundy hath sundry names that we find authentically written in the word of God: as the 
a 1. Cor. 10.  lords table, the breaking of bread, and cup of thanksgiving, the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, and as we thought till this time, 
b 1. Cor. 11.  the lords Supper. You begin to tell us S. Ambrose is of an other mind; and b●ca●se your hold in him was very small, you add that the most of yourselves also do now so think. A worshipful catch, that fifteen hundredth years after Christ you come in with your own verdict, in your own cause, and look to have it currant.  Phi. 
We mean not ourselves.  Theo. 
You can mean none, 
The Jesuits allege themselves & their fellows for good authors to discredit the fathers.  but yourselves, or your fellows. For you say, most good Authors now think so; of our side I am sure you will not agnise that any be good authors, as you call them, or that the most of us are of that opinion; and therefore you mean yourselves and your own adherents: who, were you not partial, yet are you too young to bid Augustine, Jerome, chrysostom, Theodorete, and others, rise from their chairs, and give you place.  
Augustine repeating the very words of S. Paul, when you come together, this is not to eat the Lords supper, saith 
c 
August. epist. 118.  
The fathers expound the lords supper in S. Paul to be the Sacrament.   hanc ipsam acceptionem Eucharistiae Dominicam Caenam vocat; the Apostle calleth this very receiving of the Eucharist the Lords Supper. Jerome commenting upon the same words: when you come together this is not to eat the Lords Supper, addeth: 
d Hier. in 1. Corinth. 11.  Now is it not the lords Supper (as you use it) but man's, in as much as you seem to meet rather to fill your bellies, than for the mystery. For the lords Supper ought to be common to all, because he delivered the Sacraments equally to all his Disciples that were present. And a Supper therefore it is called, for that the Lord at Supper delivered the Sacraments. chrysostom affirmeth the same. 
e Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 11. hom. 27  The Apostle toucheth them more dreadfully with these words, This is not to eat the lords Supper, sending them to that night in which Christ delivered the wonderful mysteries. Therefore he calleth it a Supper; for that Supper had all (that were present) sitting together in common; (that is at one time and in one place) * As 
f Ibidem.  often as you shall eat, you shall show forth the lords death; this is that supper. And in an other place. 
g Chrysost. in illiud Paul●, oportet esse haereses. tom. 4.  This is not to eat the lords Supper. He meaneth that Supper which Christ delivered (before his passion) when all his Disciples were with him. For in that Supper the Lord and all his Servants sat together.  
Theodorete Likewise, 
h Theodor. in 1. Cor. 11.  The Lord's Supper he calleth the Lord's Sacrament. And so Photius, He 
i Citatur ab Occumen. in 1. Cor. 11.  calleth it the Lords (Supper) after the imitation of that dreadful and mystical (Supper) when the Lord sat together with the disciples, as if he should have said the (Supper) which the Lord disposed and ordained. Bede to expound this place citeth the words of Augustine that went before. 
k Beda. in 1. Cor. 11.  The very receiving of the Eucharist he calleth the Lord's Supper. Haymo mentioneth both opinions, but concludeth plainly with us. 
l Haimo. in 1. Cor. 11.  Sacramentum igitur corporis Christi à communione Caena appellatur. The Sacrament then of Christ's body is called a Supper by reason of the communion: Or if you will have one place instead of all, 
S. Aug. in one short sermon calleth the Sacrament the lords Supper twenty times.  read S. Augustine de verbis Domini secundum Lucam: Sermo. 33. and you shall find him not only call the Sacrament a Supper and the Lords Supper twenty times in one short Sermon, but also bring you the authority of Christ himself for it, when he said in the fourteenth of Luke, a 
m Luk●. 14.  certain man made a great Supper.  
And therefore you were more angry than wise, to check that term as having small reason, 
The Jesuits will not hear of the lords Supper which is the usual speech of the fathers, but of the Mass which in 600. years they find but six times, and that neither in the fathers nor to this purpose.  which had so good testimony both of Scriptures and fathers; and in lieu of it to offer us the name of the Mass, a word that the greek Church never used, as yourselves know, and is found in the works of all the Latin fathers that be theirs, but six times in six hundredth years, (set Gregory aside who lived about that time and useth the word somewhat oftener than any of the rest) and yet not in that sense, nor for that thing which you intent. For never father called the Sacrament or Eucharist the Mass: And in that point if we have but small reason to speak as we do; you have utterly no reason great nor small to call the Sacrament the Mass as you do: but that rage in you many times over ruleth reason, and then you push out your violent and unmastered passions.  Phi. 
We have S. Ambrose for our Author, when we denied the blessed Sacrament to be called a Supper, and for the name of the Mass in plain words we have not 
* 
Ambros. epist. 33.  
The Rhemish Testament fol. 447.   him only, but also August. sermo. 251.91. Concil. Carthag. 2. cap. 3.4. cap. 84. Milevit. ca 12. Leo epist. 88.81. cap. 2. Grego. lib. 2. epist. 9.93. etc.  Theo. 
S. Ambrose doth not say, that the ministration of the Sacrament may not be called the lords Supper; but he would not have us think it to be a Supper provided to fill our bellies. And in that sense he saith, Ostendit 
n Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11.  illis mysterium Eucharistiae inter caenandum celebratum non caenam esse. The Apostle showeth them, that the mystery of the Eucharist was celebrated as the (disciples) were at Supper, and not to be the (whole) Supper (which they had:) and thereupon groundeth that which he noted before, that in the Church, 
o Ambros. Ibidem.  unitatis & mysterij causa convenitur, non dissentionis & ventris, they must assemble for the celebration of the mystery and observation of unity, not for dissension and the belly. 
The Rhemish Testament, fol. 451.   Phi. 
The circumstances of the text, namely the rejecting of the poor the rich men's devouring of all, not expecting one an other, gluttony and drunkenness in the same can not agree to the holy Sacrament.  Theo. 
The world wanteth such skilful interpreters of Scriptures as you are; you would easily prove if you were let alone, that a man hath no head, because he hath two feet, or two arms, and those are not his head. 
The Jesuits demonstrations be more delusions.   Phil. 
Would you make us so foolish as to think a man may not have feet, arms and head: though the parts in themselves be different in proportion, position and action?  Theo. 
But in bolting S. Paul's text, you reason as if he could not. For of two things, that were used both together, you urge the one to exclude the other; and as if that were some mighty collection, you say that we and all the fathers who took it otherwise have small reason for our doings.  Phi. 
We speak of you, not of the fathers.  Theo. 
You thrust them to the hearts through our sides. For if we following their full consent in expounding this place, have small reason, they had as little, who began it unto us, and went that way before us; we treading but their steps after them.  Phi. 
We meant not to disgrace them.  Theo. 
The sequel of your words doth, whatsoever your purpose was.  Phi. 
We give you the reasons of our exposition, and those in our judgement very clear.  Theo. 
As clear follies as any can be.  Phi. 
disprove them then.  Theo. 
The christians you grant had their common feasts in the Church at that time for their relieving of the poor, 
The Church in S. Paul's time had the Lords supper and their brotherly feasts one at the end of the other.  & retaining of brotherly unity.  Phi. 
They had as we note unto you out of Tertullian, Apolog. ca 39 Clemens Alexand. S. justine, S. Augustine contra Faustum lib. 20. cap. 20.  Theo. 
And that they had therewithal the Lords Supper, (for so I must call it, till you bring some better reason against it) I think you doubt not.  Phi. 
At or about the same time they had; but whether before or after I know not.  Theo. 
To this purpose it shall not skill.  
The faults for which S. Paul reproved them were these; the dividing themselves into factions, 
These faults n the Corinthians either immediately before or after the Lord's supper made them unfit guests for the lords table.  inso much that they would not expect one an other, (no not at the Lords table) their shaming the poor (with whom (as it seemed) they took scorn to sit at the same table,) & abusing the church of God to excess of eating & drinking. The two later enormities might be committed at their ordinary feasts in the Church: and so might also the first; yet because those brotherly repasts did either end or begin with the Lords Supper, they could not divide themselves each from other, and disdain the poor at their common meats, but they must offer the same abuse at the lords supper, which was ministered to them as they sat at their tables immediately before, or after their usual and corporal refreshings.  
By S. Paul's words, 

It should seem by Saint Paul, their feasts were before the ministering of the Sacrament.  
1. Cor. 11.   it should appear the Communion was distributed to them after meals, for so the Apostles received it at their master's hands the night that he was betrayed, and S. Paul not only noteth the time when Christ did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after they had supped, but to cut off dissension, drunkenness and contempt of their poor brethren in the Church, (which were the vices then grown amongst them) he requireth a precedent examination before they did eat, not an answerable conversation after they had eaten. He saith not, let every man remember at whose table he hath eaten, & whose cup he hath been partaker, 
1. Corint. 11.  but, let a man examine himself, and so eat of this bread and drink of this cup; that is before he eat of this bread and drink of this cup, and he shall find that contentious and riotous persons, (such as they were in their feasts,) be no sit guests for that heavenly Supper. And yet to us it is all one whether it were before or after: at their bankers and feasts, it was ministered and even served at their tables, as S. Augustine noteth in these words. (Non debent fratres) mensis suis ista miscere, 
August. ep. 118.  sicut faciebant quos Apostolus arguit & emendat. (The brethren ought not) to have these (mysteries) served at their tables, as they did whom the Apostle reproveth and reformeth.  

The rehearsal of Christ's institution needed not if it had not been first abused with unworthy coming to it.  And had not the lords Supper been abused among them, what needed the rehearsal of the first institution: to the which because the Apostle recalleth them, it is evident they were fallen from it. Now abuses in this place S. Paul mentioneth none but drunkenness, dissension and defrauding the poor: and since drunkenness and deceiving the poor, as you avouch, can not agree to the Sacrament, it followeth that dissension was the thing which defaced the lords Supper among them, in that they would neither at common meats nor at the lords Supper sit all together, but sort themselves in factions and companies, as they favoured and friended each other.  
This was the fault which S. Paul first rebuked, when he began to redress the things that troubled the Church of Corinth. They contended about Baptism, 
1. Cor. 1.  saying, I am Paul's and I am Apollo's, and I am Cephaes; and their dissension so increased, and came to that sharpness, that they would have their tables in the Church and even the lords Supper also each company by themselves. 
a Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11.  The false Apostles, saith Ambrose, had sown such discord among them, that they stood striving for their oblations. Hierom saith, 
b Hiero. in 1. Cor. 11.  In ecclesia convenientes oblationes suas separatim offerebant. Meeting in the church they delivered their oblations to several companies (according as every man fancied the parties.) And again, 
c Ibidem.  Nemo alium expectabat ut communiter offeretur: No man expected one an other, that the oblation might be common. And S. Paul, as Chrysostom thinketh, brought the Table & Supper where the Lord himself was, and at which sat all his Disciples, even judas the Traitor, for an example, to show them: that, that is rightly judged to be 
d Chrysost. in illud Pauli, oportet esse haereses.  The lords Supper, quae omnibus simul convocatis concorditer & communiter sumitur, which is received in common, and with one consent of all assembled together. Yea S. Augustine affirmeth that 
e August. epist. 118.  The Apostle speaking of this Sacrament saith, for which cause brethren when you assemble together to eat, expect one an other.  

The circumstances of the text may agree to the Lords supper.  Your observations therefore are first false, when you say, these circumstances can not agree to the holy Sacrament. For even these which you name, as most unlikeliest, are applied by the fathers to the lords Supper. Expecting one an other, you heard S. Augustine refer directly to this Sacrament. Devouring of all by the rich, and drunkenness S. Hierom expoundeth likewise of the very same mystery. (The Apostle) 
f Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11.  saith one is drunk, and an other hungry: for this reason. Quia superuenientibus mediocribus, & volentibus sumere Sacramenta deerant, quoniam ab illis qui obtulerant oblationes, in communi convivio fuerant cuncta consumpta. Because the meaner sort coming after (the rich) & minding to receive the Sacraments, there was nothing left, (to minister the Sacrament withal;) they that brought the oblations devouring all in their common banquet. Haymo saith, 
g Haymo in 1. Cor. 11.  One is hungry, that is he which for poverty is not able to bring wheaten bread and wine to be consecrated for the Communion: [an other] to wit the rich and wealthy man [is drunken] and surfeyteth as well with other meats, as with the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord.  
Next did some of them not agree to the sacraments of the lords table, 
Some circumstances may well agree though others did not.  as surfeyting, devouring and drunkenness: yet other circumstances, as schisms, not expecting one an other, may and do very fitly serve for the lords Supper, as you see by the judgement of those Fathers whom I have named.  
Thirdly did no circumstances of their disorders agree to the right institution of the Sacrament, 
Saint Paul reproved them because their disorders did not agree to the right institution of the Sacrament.  yet so long as Saint Paul refelleth their doings in the Church as unseemly for the sacred mysteries there prepared and received: what reason have you to deny that Saint Paul meaneth the sacrament, where he saith, when you come together (if you fall to filling your bellies, and despising the poor, as you do in your feasts) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, You can not, (or this is not the right way to) eat the lords Supper. For this is plain to him that hath but half an eye, that Saint Paul checketh them as unworthy partakers (by these their abuses of the mysteries of Christ, 
S. Paul checketh them for their unworthy coming to the lords table, ergo his words belong to the Sacrament. ) and interpreteth the plagues which some of them felt, to be God's scourges for their looseness in that behalf, and therefore with great reasons might he begin to reprehend them as vn●it approchers to the Sacrament, and utter so much in these words, when you come together, this is not (the way) to eat the lords Supper, or to have access to his table, to make schisms at your feasts in the Church with excess in yourselves, and reproach to others.  Phi. 
If you will needs have the Sacrament called the lords Supper, 
The name of the Mass is no way Catholic.  keep you that name, and we will keep ours, as more ancient and Catholic by the testimony of Saint Augustine, S. Ambrose and the rest whom I cited before for the antiquity of the blessed Mass.  Theo. 
He that will boldly deny a truth, will easily affirm a falsehood. S. Augustine in all the works that be undoubtedly his, never so much as once named the Mass. 
S. Augustine never used the word Mass.  The Sermons de tempore, which you produce, are collected out of other men's writings as well as his, and many of them 
h Eras. censura in tomum decimum August. & in sermo. de tempore.  found under the names of other authors, and favour little either of Austin's learning or phrase, as Erasmus confessed when he first surveyed them.  

S. Ambrose hath but one in all his writings, and that is missam facere, which is not to say Mass.  S. Ambrose hath the word once, and so have two Provincial Counsels of Africa; Leo hath it twice; which is all that you can find in six hundredth years till Gregory the first came, and used the word somewhat oftener: yet none of these call the Sacrament or Sacrifice by that name, as you would have it, but rather express by that word the ancient order of the primative church, in sending away such as might not be partakers of the Lords table, as in place where I noted before. 
Missa in the father's is the sending away of those that might not be partakers of the Lords table.  And that Missa with the fathers doth signify not the Mass, but leave to departed before or after the communion, your own fellows will instruct you, whom you may not well distrust as being with you, though you trust not us that are against you.  
Polydore repeateth and alloweth the same with these words: 
i Polyd. de invent. rerum, lib. 5. cap. 11.  Mihiverò prior ratio probatur ut magis apposita. The former dirivation (of the word M●ssa) pleaseth me better, as the likelier: and not that it should signify a sacrifice and be derived from the Hebrew word Missà as Reuchline would deduce it. And therefore he saith, 
k Polidor. Ibidem.  Idem igitur mos a nostris etiam servatur, ut peractis sacris, per Diaconum pronuncietur, 
Missà  Ite, missa est: quod idem est, ac ilicet, id est ire licet. The same manner is observed of our men, that at the end of divine service, the Deacon should say, ITE, MISSA EST, which is as if he said, YOU MAY DEPARTED. And that missa was usual for missio, he showeth out of Cyprians epistles, where he saith remissa for remissio.  
Rhenanus another of your friends giveth the like observation in his notes upon the 4. book of Tertullian against Martion. 
l 
Beati Rhenani annotationes in 4. lib. contra Marcionem.  
Missa in the father's doth as much signify the Mass as excommunication doth signify the communion.   hody in fine Sacri Levita pronunciat, Ite, missa est, id est, missio est, quod olim in initio dicebatur, antequam inciperentur videlicet ipsa mysteria. Hinc juxta vulgi consuetudinem, Ambrose missas facere dixit. Propriè missa erat tempore Sacrificij quando Cathecumeni foras mittebantur. At this day the Priest pronounceth at the end of his service, Ite, missa est, that is, go, you have leave to departed, which in the primative church was said in the beginning, before they came to the celebration of the Sacraments. Thence Ambrose used the word missam facere, according to the vulgar custom (of those times.) For properly missa was when the converts not yet baptised, were sent away in the time of the sacrifice, that is at what time the rest addressed themselves to be partakers of the Lords table. And that missa was common for missio; he proveth by Tertullian and Cyprian in his book de bono patientiae, and epist. 14.  
And lest you should think this to be a fantastical assertion of his without all ground or authority, such as the most of your observations are, he telleth you that, this mystery of antiquity is related in Isidores Lexicon. And in deed so it is. For Isidore saith, 
m 
Isidor. Originum, lib. 6. de officiis.  
Missa in the fathers directly opposite to the sacrifice: are not the Jesuits then wise men by these authorities to prove it to be the name of their sacrifice?   Missa tempore Sacrificij est, quando Cathecumeni foras mittuntur, clamante Levita, si quis cathecumenus remansit, exeat foras, & inde missa, quia sacramentis altaris interesse non possunt qui nondum regenerati nascuntur. Missa was about the time of the sacrifice, when the learners and such as were not yet baptised were sent out of the Church, the Levite crying, if any Cathecumene be here, let him departed, and thence is the word missa, because they can not be present at the Sacrament of the Altar, which are not yet regenerate. And I think for very shame you would not seem to be so foolish as to take 
n Concil. Carth. 4. cap. 84.  missam Cathecumenorum, which the fourth council of Carthage doth mention in the place alleged by yourselves, and likewise S. Austen in those very sermons, which you cite as his, for your Mass or Sacrifice. For how can, 
o Serm. de tempore. 237.  fit missa Cathecumenis, stand either for the sacrament or sacrifice, since the persons named were not baptised, and consequently not to be admitted to any of the Church mysteries?  
So that grant the word missa were found oftener in the Fathers than it is, you can thence conclude nothing for your Mass: which you rudely and unadvisedly think to be all one with their missa, 
This is a right pattern of the rest of their religion wherein they have kept the words of the ancient fathers, and quite perverted their meaning.  or missarum solemnia, where in deed it is as contrary to that which they spoke of, as poison to an wholesome potion. For missa with them did signify the sending away of such as might not communicate with the rest at the Lords table: the mass with you is the real and actual sacrificing of the son of God to his father; and the setting of the people to gaze on the Priest whiles he alone devoureth all, and falsifieth the very words and actions of Christ's institution.  Phil. 
Nay you falsify both the words and deeds of Christ's institution: and though you gather out of Isidore and others that Missa in the ancient Fathers was the demising of such as might not be present at the Sacrifice; and missa Cathecumenorum by no means can be our Mass, yet touching our saviours institution of the blessed Sacrament, we come nearer to this example than you do; you missing it in most points that be essential, and we following all his actions, that are imitable.  Theop. 
What essential points do we miss?  Phil. 
Almost all.  Theop. 
Reason you named some.  Phil. 
You do not imitate Christ in blessing the bread and wine, 

The Rhemish Testament.  
1. Cor. 11.   nor in unleavened bread, and mingling water with wine, nor in saying the words of consecration over the bread and wine; you use no confession before, nor adoration of the blessed Sacrament at the receiving of it. A number of like defects there are in your communion, which cause it to be no sacrament, but common bread and wine. Therefore 
* Though they curse, yet thou wilt bless, saith David to God in his 109. Psalm.  imperet vobis Deus, and confound you, for not discerning his holy body, and for conculcating the blood of the new Testament.  Theop. 
Keep your burning and cursing devotion for yourselves; your manquelling and masse-mongring rage hath as much affinity with 
* 
jud. epist.  
He that curseth us for keeping Christ's institution, curseth Christ that ordained it, and God that commanded us to observe it.   Michael's prayer beseeching God the devil might be restrained, as fierceness and fury hath to patience and piety. If we have altered any part of Christ's institution, curse on in God's name, and let your curses take effect. But if the celebration of our mysteries be answerable to his will and word that first ordained them, you curse not us, whom you would hurt, but him, that your cursed tongues can not hurt, which is God to be blessed for ever; and whose everlasting curse will take hold of you, if you relent not the sooner, for your proud defiance and stately contempt of his truth in respect of your massing revels and mummeries.  Philand. 
Nay you are contemners of his true body and blood in this 
* All-hail master quoth judas when he gave him a kiss, and had sold his life for earthly gain.  reverent, blessed and holy sacrament, and breakers of his institution, and therefore his curse will light on you.  Theop. 
Vain speech doth but spend time, show first wherein we break Christ's institution, and for the truth of his presence in this Sacrament, if we teach otherwise than the Scriptures and Fathers do warrant us, we are content to hear and bear the curse, which blind zeal hath wrested from you.  Philand. 
We showed you even now what things they were wherein you swerved from Christ's institution.  Theoph. 
You must both repeat them, and divide them, that we may the better discuss them.  Phil. 
I will.  
Christ took bread into his hands, applying this ceremony, action and benediction to it, and did bless the very element, used power and active words 
The Rhemish Test. 1. Cor. 11. Upon it and over it, are the chiefest points the jesuits can pick out of Christ's institution. O, this is a terrible narration.  upon it, as he did over the bread and fishes which he multiplied: and so doth the Church of God: and so do not (you) if (you) follow (your) own book and Doctrine, but (you) let the bread and cup stand aloof, and occupy Christ's words by way of report and narration, applying them not at all to the matter proposed to be occupied: and therefore howsoever the simple people be deluded by the rehearsal of the same words which Christ used, yet consecration, benediction or sanctification of bread and wine (you) profess (you) make none at all.  Theoph. 
Christ, you say, took bread into his hands, and did bless the very element: What mean you by blessing?  Philand. 
He used power and active words upon it, as he did over the bread and fishes which he multiplied.  Theoph. 
Why walk you thus in clouds? Blessing with us is the giving of thanks unto God: with you it is the making of a cross in the air with your two forefingers. 
What kind of blessing Christ did use.  Which of these twain do you mean?  Philand. 
That Christ blessed the bread; we be very sure: that he gave thanks to the bread, you dare not say.  Theo. 
Thanks he gave to God, and not to the bread.  Phil. 
But he blessed the bread: and therefore blessing is not taken in Christ's institution for thanksgiving as you misconstrue it.  Theoph. 
If a man should put you to the new Testament in Greek, can you spell it?  Philand. 
Yea Sir, and construe it as well as you.  Theoph. 
Then I trust your cunning will serve you to know 
φ Matth. 26. Mark. 14. Luk. 22. 1. Corinth. 11.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which word the holy Ghost useth to express the Lords action and benediction at his last Supper) doth infer that our Saviour gave thanks to God, and made no cross with his hand over the bread.  Philand. 

Mark. 14.1. Cor. 10. The Gospels do not differ, and therefore they must all agree in this, that Christ gave thanks to God his father.  But S. Mark saith that our Lord broke the bread, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having first blessed it, and Saint Paul doth not stick to refer that word to the cup itself, and not to God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ?  Theo. 
Do you think S. Mark reproveth S. Luke, & S. Matthew; or that S. Paul is contrary to himself?  Phil. 
No: I think the one expoundeth the other, and all their reports meet full in one congruence.  Theoph. 
And otherwise to say or think, is apparent blasphemy against the spirit of God, who never halteth in his tale, nor dissenteth from himself in any thing, much less in a matter of so weighty moment as this is.  Philand. 
He can be no Christian that doubteth thereof.  Theop. 
Then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & since children in Grammar schools do know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to give thanks with words, 
These two words be equivalent.  and not to cross with fingers, we conclude that this is a childish error of yours to think that Christ gave not thanks to God, but blessed the very element. Yea, no word plainer convinceth your puerility than that which you have brought to relieve yourself. 

Of the twain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the plainer to reprove the jesuits crossing.  
The Rhemish Test. us supra.   For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth more evidently refel your crossing with fingers than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as being compounded of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in Greek importeth speech uttered by month, and by no means drawing or crossing the fingers.  Phil. 
Let the word signify what you will: that which Christ did, were it with hand or mouth, he did it over the bread, and upon the bread, and so do not (you) but let the bread and cup stand aloof and occupy Christ's words by way of report and narration, applying them not at all to the matter proposed to be occupied.  Theop. 
This is the right behaviour of your Rhemish translators, to wrangle and trifle about phrases and ambiguities, as if they were the precepts and commandments of God. Our Saviour you affirm blessed the very element, that is, used power and active words upon it or over it.  
Blessing is a word that is diversly used in the scriptures. 
What it is to bless God.  To bless God, is to praise him, and to give honour to his name: and for that cause you shall find both those words joined together as words of like force, as when S. Luke saith, the disciples 
a Luk. 24.  continued in the temple praising and blessing God.  
To bless men, 
What it is for one man to bless an other.  if it be done by men, (for of their blessings we speak, and not of Gods) is to pray for them: and to beseech God that he will bless them, that is, defend them, prosper them, and be merciful unto them. So 
b Gen. 27.  Isaac blessed jacob, and 
c Gen. 48.  jacob the sons of joseph, and so were the Priests appointed by God himself to 
d Num. 6.  bless the children of Israel: and a form of prayer for that purpose prescribed them.  
We may also bless the time, 
What it is to bless time and place.  place and means, in which, or by which God showeth his favour towards us: that is, we may pronounce them blessed for our sakes, and ourselves bound to bless God for them. So David said to Abigail, 
e 1. Samuel. 25.  Blessed be God that sent thee this day to meet me: Blessed be thy speech (or counsel) and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from going to (shed) blood: where he blesseth God, as the author, the woman as the means, her words as the persuasions and occasions, that kept him from using the bloody revenge, which he determined against Nabal and his family. And so said Solomon, 
f Sapient. 14.  blessed is the tree whereby righteousness cometh. So on the contrary 
g job. 3.  job and 
h jerem. 20.  jeremy 
What it is to bless the meats and things which we use.  cursed the days wherein they were borne, & would not have them to 
What it is to bless the meats and things which we use.  be blessed. We must likewise bless the meats which we eat, & the things which we use for the maintenance of this mortal life: that is, prayer must be made unto God, that they may be healthful for us, & we thankful for them: by which means our food, & all other succours of this life are sanctified, to his pleasure & our comfort.  
Since then the Scriptures not only permit, but also command that we should bless one another, 
How we are said to bless the elements at the Lords table.  and so the creatures which nourish our bodies, we make no doubt but it is both lawful & needful for us to bless the sacraments which are the seals of Gods everlasting promises, & therefore we readily receive S. Paul's adjection, when he saith, the cup of blessing, WHICH WE BLESS, is it not the communion of Christ's blood? Marry blessing in that place we take not for 
* 
How the jesuits bless the cup.  
How we bless it.   crossing or charming the cup with a 
* 
How the jesuits bless the cup.  
How we bless it.   set number & order of signs & proffers as you use at your mass, but for the 
* 
How the jesuits bless the cup.  
How we bless it.   making of our earnest & humble prayers to God, that our unworthiness do not hinder the working of his sacraments, but that by his goodness & mercy, they may take their due effects in us according ●o his sons institution for the pardoning of our sins, the incresing of his grace & our faith, the quikning of our inward man, & preserving both body & soul to eternal life. And this the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the manner of blessing all other things & persons directed by the scriptures, 
Our blessing is consonant to the words and rules of the scripture, theirs is not. Their massing gestures over the cup.  the very principles of prayer & piety do approve & confirm, whereas your hovering & blowing over the Chalice, your crossing & hiding it, your rubbing of fingers for fear of crumbs, your first thwarting, and then lifting of arms, your joining and unjoining of thumb and forefinger, with twenty such nicefinities & curiosities, have neither foundation nor relation to Christ's action nor institution, nor to his Apostles doctrine nor doings, who knew their master's meaning, and continued their master's example with words & gestures reverent & sufficient to satisfy his heavenly will and precept for this matter.  Phi. 
You do not so much as use any words upon the elements, but let the bread and the wine stand aloof, as if you were afraid to touch them.  Theo. 
In deed we bless with our hearts and voices, 
Prayer blesseth the cup, and not our fingering or breathing on it.  not with our fingers; and therefore we make our account that our prayers are as forcible and as effectual at six feet length as at six hairs breadth. And to deal friendly with you, that blessing with mouth taketh no place, except the hand be also winding & turning the patene and chalice after your manner, we can not believe it afore we see some reason for it: sorcerers and conjurers have such circumstances, but we hope you be not of their Seminaries.  Phi. 
Did not Christ take the bread & likewise the cup into his hands?  Theo. 

Christ took bread to give it, and gave it out of his hand before he spoke the words of consecration.  Yes verily. He could not BREAK it with his hand, unless it were in his hand, neither could he GIVE it out of his hand, afore he took it into his hand.  Phil. 
Then Christ took the bread & so the cup into his hands before he did consecrate, & so you do not.  Theo. 
You would say before he did distribute. For breaking & giving which were the ends of his taking, are parts of distribution not of consecration.  Phi. 
What blasphemy have we here? did Christ distribute, before he did consecrated the bread?  Theo. 
You be so busy about blessing the host and the chalice, that you charge the son of God in his doings, and the evangelists in their writings with blasphemy.  Phi. 
Nay we charge you with blasphemy for saying, that Christ gave unconsecrated bread and wine to his disciples.  Theoph. 
Doth not the Scripture say the same? 
Matth. 26.  jesus taking bread and giving thanks broke (it) and gave (it) to (his) Disciples and said, take ye, eat ye, this is my body. And taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave (it) to them saying, drink ye all of this: for this is my blood of the new Testament, 
Christ did consecrate when the bread was in his disciples hands: what did he then over or upon the bread can you tell?  etc. He took bread, broke it and gave it to his disciples, bidding them take it and eat it before he said this is my body. Now if these words, this is my body, be the words of Consecration, ergo distribution went before Consecration, and when Christ did consecrate, the bread was in his disciples, and not in his own hands.  Phil. 
But he blessed, as we call it, or as you term it, he gave thanks, before he broke it.  Theop. 
That thanksgiving or benediction, was not consecration, as yourselves confess, and would seem to prove by an whole 
* Fol. 452. Num. 24. [This is.  heap of fathers: and therefore in spite of all that you do or can say, Christ did consecrate by word of mouth when the disciples had the bread & cup in their hands.  Phi. 
Would you have the priest than not at all to touch the elements?  Theo. 
When we divide them, we cannot choose but touch them, as Christ did: Marry they may be sanctified by prayer and made Sacraments by repeating the words of Christ though at that instant we touch them not. And therefore your unsound quiddities that Christ blessed the very element, 

Consecration taketh effect from Christ's words, not from our fingers or gestures.  
The Rhemish Test. pag. 452. These words this is my body, must be applied by way of rehearsal what Christ said.   and used power & active words upon the bread and over the bread, which (we) do not, but let the bread and wine stand a loof, and occupy the words of Christ by way of report and narration, applying them not at all to the matter proposed, these nice and new found quddities I say be mere fooleries; since the words of Consecration take their effect not from our fingers or gestures, but from Christ's mouth and commandment that we should do the like.  Phil. 
You never apply these words (this is my body) more than the whole narration of the institution, nor recite the whole otherwise than in historical manner, and for that cause you make it no Sacrament at al.  Theo. 
Can you tell what you say?  Phil. 
Why doubt you that?  Theo. 
Because it is a wicked and blasphemous lie for the priest to say, this is my body, otherwise than by way of rehearsal what Christ said. And therefore your brains be more than distempered if you would have us or any other Christian ministers to say it otherwise than by report, what Christ said, and commanded us to do in remembrance of him.  Phil. 
Do you think we mean the priest should say of his own person, 
If the priest say of himself, this is my body, he blasphemeth most horriblely: and therefore he must speak them by way of report what Christ said.  this is my body?  Theo. 
If you do mean it, Bedlam is a fit place for you than either Rheims or Rome.  Phil. 
You may be sure we do not.  Theo. 
Why then reprove you us for repeating the words of Christ by way of rehearsal what he did and said?  Phil. 
You should apply them to the matter proposed.  Theo. 
How? By prayer precedent and consequent, or by glozing and interlacing Christ's words with ours?  Phil. 
You should actively and presently apply them to the elements of bread and wine.  Theo. 
I must ask you the same question that I did before. The words were spoken by Christ in his own person, and cannot actively and presently be pronounced by any priest, but by way of report what Christ said, without apparent and horrible blasphemy. And therefore the application of them in our words must either go before them or after them, 

Here is much ado with actively and presently, and yet the cunning sophists never tell what is required to active and present application.  
This application the Jesuits may do well to tell us which way it must be made. The words of their Mass book are distinctè, secretè, & attentè.  
If they take breath in pronouncing Christ's words their application is quite marred: for they must do it uno spiritu, nulla pausatione interposita.  
A wise objection when both the elements and our prayers witness for us in the eyes of God and the whole church why we repeat the words of Christ, you jesuits cannot tell whether we jest or no.   and not exactly with them, much less to be comprised in them.  Phil. 
We tell you, you do not apply them actively and presently.  Theo. 
We tell you, you know not what you say. The words of Christ (this is my body, this is my blood) maugre all the devils in hell must be pronounced in no man's person, but only by way of repetition what Christ at his last supper said in his own person; and your jesuitical novelties of actively and presently be so far from the soundness of faith and substance of truth, that yourselves are not able to expound what you speak.  Phil. 
Yes that we are.  Theo. 
So it should seem by the readiness of your answer.  
What then is the present and active application, which you strive for, or which way is it made? By word of mouth, or intention of hart? The Priest when he saith, this is my body, cannot jointly with those words utter any other words of his own to apply them. Intention of heart cannot alter the sense of the speech, but only direct before God the purpose of the speaker. And unless the meaning of the Priest be to recite the words of Christ by way of repetition, I see not how you can excuse either the Priests hart or mouth from outrageous and monstrous impiety.  Phil. 
We have a present and active application of the words, which you have not.  Theo. 
What is it?  Phil. 
The Priest intendeth to do as Christ did, and therefore uttereth the words distinctly and advisedly over the elements that are in his hands and under his eyes, which you do not.  Theo. 
What you list to do is no care of ours; if you can show us any thing in Christ's institution, which we have not, we will give you the hearing: otherwise to add your ceremonies to his commandments, we mind it not. We know you cross the creatures at benedixit, and hold your noses ●o near the bread when you say, hoc est corpus meum, that the breath of your mouths even warmeth the host, but our belief is, that his mighty word, not your unpausing speech or intentive looks performeth the Sacrament. And therefore your blowing Christ's words upon the bread is rather a magical incantation, than any effectual application of them to the elements; and if you hold that his word is too weak to endue the visible sign with invisible grace, except it be backed by your blowing and crossing, we say you be proud disciples, no right appliers of his heavenly word and power.  Phil. 
We do not help his words as if they were of themselves weak: but we apply them to the elements in this present and active manner, which you do not: for when you recite the words, a man cannot tell whether you speak them, to try your memories, or to consecrated the mysteries, you be so far from using any gestures or action that should import application.  Theop. 
The purpose of our hearts well known unto God, and made open unto men when we call them to the Lords table; the prayers which we make before we come to the words of Christ, directly and plainly tending to that end; the placing of the bread and the cup in our and their sight; the mentioning of Christ's institution and commandment that we should follow his example, and continue that remembrance of him; the dutiful and reverent rehearsing the words which he spoke, as the holy Ghost did pen them; this demonstration and supplication that we receiving THESE THY creatures of bread and wine according to thy Son our Saviour jesus Christ's institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood, used immediately before we repeat the words of Christ; the breaking and giving of the bread, and so likewise the cup, immediately after they be sanctified, and offering them to each communicant in remembrance of Christ's body that was broken, and blood that was shed, to purchase the remission of their sins, thereby to preserve them body and soul to everlasting life; 
If this be not application, we would gladly know what it is.  the prayers I say precedent, the preparation evident, the direction adherent, the distribution consequent are signs enough to him that hath but ears or eyes, that we presently, purposely, publicly execute Christ's institution; and other hooking and haling of Christ's words to the elements by crossing, crouching, gaping and blowing on them, as your manner is, we acknowledge none to be required or expressed in the Lord's Supper.  Philand. 
It is no Sacrament, but (as Saint Augustine saith) when the words come, that is to say, actively and presently be applied to the elements.  Theoph. 
We know that to be most true which S. Augustine saith, 
The Rhemish Testament pag. 452. nu. 24. [this is. Tract. 80. in johan.  Accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum, when the word cometh to the element, the Sacrament is perfit: but what have your terms (actively and presently) to do with Saint Austin's speech? yea what place could you choose more repugnant to your fancies than this which you bring? The element without the word, is a weak and corruptible creature: put the word to it, and then it becometh a Sacrament.  Philand. 
You mark not the force of the verb Accedit: 
The word cometh to the element when it is seriously pronounced, and religiously believed.  which signifieth the word must come so near, that it must even touch the element.  Theoph. 
Can you tell us how words may touch elements?  Philand. 
What else? By active and present application.  Theoph. 
This is your old song, which we would have you turn to some plainer note. What kind of application mean you? with the breath of your mouths, motion of your hands, or cogitation of your hearts? You may blow upon the bread and wine, but there is some difference between the sound of your voice, 
Application is made with hart and not with breath or fingers.  and the breath of your lungs, if you look a little but to Aristotle's predicaments, and therefore your breath may touch the elements, your words can not. Much less can your fingers apply your speech either actively or presently to the elements: you must run to the inward intention of the mind, and that may direct your purpose in speaking, as it doth ours, but not actively apply your speech to come nearer the elements in your mass than in our communion. And so the coming of the word to the element in Saint Austen, to perfit a Sacrament, helpeth you to prove your real and manual application of Christ's words in your Mass as much as chalk doth to make cheese, when curds are wanting.  
Yea rather if you read on but four lines, you shall find your follies flatly refuted by Saint Augustine, and a clear resolution for us that not uttering but believing the words of Christ giveth force to the Sacraments. In the water (of Baptism) saith he, 
August. in johan. tracta. 80.  it is the word that cleanseth. Take away the word, and what is water but water? Then cometh that which you cite, Accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum. Put the word to the element and then is it a Sacrament. unde ista tanta virtus aquae ut corpus tangat & cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo? non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur. Name & in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens, aliud virtus manens: 

The rehearsing of the word is necessary to ground our faith on his promise, but faith maketh application.  
This negative overthroweth the jesuits active application.   Whence hath the water this virtue to touch the body, and wash the soul, but by the power of the word? not in that it is spoken, but in that it is believed: for in the word itself the sound passing is one thing, (and that little worth) the virtue remaining is another thing. If the word of Christ do not work in that it is spoken, much less in that it is actively or exquisitely spoken with square conveyance and nimble gestures, the lack of which is the greatest fault you can find with our Sacraments.  Philand. 
This is no small fault, but yet not the greatest.  Theoph. 
You should have laid forth in writing what circumstances are required to your active application of Christ's words, and then you might have been answered with more perspicuity. Whereas now your objecting unto us the breach of Christ's institution in certain metaphysical and supermysticall terms, 
The jesuits knowing that we would charge them with the breach of Christ's institution which they cannot answer, thought best to charge us with the like, though the points be neither material nor proved by them to have been used by Christ. The Rhemish Test. fol. 452. nu. 23. [bread.  neither opened by yourselves, nor understood of others, is but a jesuitical devise to make a brabble about words, and to get the simple in the mean time to mistrust somewhat in our doctrine and doings, though they nor you see no just cause to mislike: But to be short with you, if the repelling of your active and slipper gestures and haviours that we might embrace the will and commandment of the high and mighty God, be a fault, we have committed many foul faults in this and all other parts of our profession; otherwise in pride and presumption you mingle your fancies with the precepts of Christ: and when we reject the one, as we lawfully may, you charge us with contempt of the other, which we exactly follow, and this you utter in such dark and doubtful speech, that it is harder for us to understand you than refute you.  Philand. 
Do we not speak plain enough, when we say you imitate not Christ neither in unleavened bread, nor in mingling water with wine: as he did?  Theoph. 
You deal now plainly, if you dealt also truly, but that you do not. In what bread Christ ministered the Sacrament, may perchance be conjectured; but no such thing is expressed in the Gospel, much less prescribed for us to follow. Since the Scripture saith, he took bread, and maketh no distinction what bread he took, nor limiteth what bread we should take, we be left at liberty, so we take bread, to take either leavened or unleavened, as occasion serveth us. This conclusion Gregory the first confesseth to be most true. 
Greg. in Regist.  Tam azimum quàm fermentatum dum sumimus, unum corpus Domini salvatoris efficimur: Whether it be leavened or unleavened bread that we take, we are made one body of (our) Lord and Saviour. The whole Church of Rome not yet an. 150. years ago confessed as much in the council of Florence. 
Concil. Florent. sess. ultima in literis unionis.  Their words are: Item in azimo sive fermentato pane triticeo corpus Christi veraciter confici, Sacerdotésque in altero ipsum Domini corpus conficere debere, unumquemque scilicet juxta suae ecclesiae sive Occidentalis, sive Orientalis consuetudinem. We define the body of Christ to be truly consecrated in wheaten bread, whether it be unleavened or leavened, and that the Priests are bound to consecrate the Lords body in either of the twain, every man according to the custom of his Church, be it West or East.  Phil. 
That custom you break. For where the west Church did always consecrate in unleavened bread, and the East Church in leavened, you renounce the order of the west Church in which you live, and to spite the supreme Pastor of the west parts, 
We profess ourselves to be at liberty for using either, and th● rather because he would tie us of his authority to the one. The Rhemish Test. fol. 452. nu. 23. [bread.  yea rather of the whole world, you follow the manner of that Church, which is many thousand miles distant from you.  Theoph. 
We are reasoning of Christ's institution, not of customs or Churches: and your holy Father himself affirmeth that to be no breach of Christ's ordinance, which you have noted against us in your Rhemish observations as a transgression of the first and original institution of the Lords supper. And so whiles you eagerly and rashly pursue us, to trip us in somewhat, your own Churches and Counsels condemn you for wranglers.  Phil. 
In the other part of the Sacrament you contemn Christ and his Church much more impudently and damnably. For Christ and all the Apostles and all Catholic churches in the world have ever mixed their wine with water, for great mystery and signification, specially for that water gushed together with blood out of our Lord's side. This our Lord did (saith S. Cyprian epist. 63. ad Cecilium, nu. 4.7.) and none rightly offereth, that followeth not him therein. Thus Irenaeus (lib. 5. cap. 1.) justine (Apol. 2. in fine) and all the fathers testify the primative church did, and in this sort it is done in all the Masses of the Greeks, S. james, S. Basils', S. Chrysostom's: and yet (you) pretending to reduce all to Christ, will not do as he did, and all the Apostles and churches that ever were.  Theo. 
Their faces must be well stéeled that are harder than yours; the whore of Babylon that hatched both your friarly profession and religion, hath taught you long since to leave off blushing, and fall to bragging.  
We mingle not water with the wine which we consecrate: this is impudently and damnably done say you. You need more water with your wine, your tongues burn so hot with your impudent lies and damnable lies, that an whole stream will scant cool them.  Phi. 
Christ and all the apostles, & all catholic churches in the world have ever mixed their wine with water: you will not of very frowardness: do you not deserve to have hot words?  Theop. 

The delaying of the wine with water in the Lord's cup began first for sobriety, not for any mystery.  We forbidden no man to temper his wine with water, if he find either himself annoyed with the use of mere wine, or the wine of itself to be heady and strong: yea we rather wish all men, if the wine provided for the Lords table be hot and fuming, to delay it, that it may be mild and temperate, lest that which is taken to sanctify the soul, happen to distemper and hurt the body: and we greatly commend the wisdom of Christ's Church in former ages, where the wines were fiery, and communions daily (as in the noblest and chiefest parts of christendom in those days) for delaying her wine with water, 
It cannot be proved that either Christ or his Apostles used water with their wine, by any good record.  that the very element might serve for sobriety, as well as the word for increasing of sanctity: But the Christ, or his Apostles used water with the wine which they hallowed, or commanded others to mingle both wine and water in this mystery, or that the Church of Christ ever taught it to be a necessary part of this Sacrament, that we deny: That if you prove, we will acknowledge & amend our error, which as yet we take to be none, by reason we find it a thing lawful, but not needful to be done, and esteem it in them as a matter rather of temperance, than of conscience.  Phil. 
They did it for great mystery and signification, as Cyprian in an whole epistle teacheth you: and they took their pattern from Christ himself, of whom Cyprian saith. 
Cypr. epist. 63. ad Caecil.  This our Lord did, and none offereth rightly that followeth not him therein.  Theop. 
You pervert Cyprian, as you do all things else that come through your hands. 
Cyprian doth not allege Christ's institution for water, but for wine.  Cyprian intendeth not in that epistle to prove that Christ had water in the cup, when he delivered the same to his disciples, but he refuteth the Aquarij, that ministered the communion in water alone; and against them he proveth that Christ had wine and not water for the Sacrament of his blood: and then inferreth, to that effect which you allege, This the Lord did (that is he took wine to resemble his blood) and none offereth rightly that followeth not him therein.  Phil. 
Nay Cyprian hath plain words, that Christ mingled wine and water both together. His words are, At enim non manè sed post coenam mixtum calicem obtulit Dominus. 
Cypr. epist. 63. ad Caecil. Ibidem.  Our Lord offered (his) chalice mingled (with water and wine) not in the morning but after supper. And again, Qua in part invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse, quem Dominus obtulit. By which part (of Christ's speech) we find the chalice that our Lord offered, was mingled (with wine and water.)  Theop. 

Cyprian proveth that the Lords cup must be mixed with wine.  We doubt not that Cyprian calleth the cup, which Christ offered, mixtus calix, but his meaning, we say, was to express that Christ had wine, in the cup which he gave, and therefore if any man minister the Lords cup not mingled with wine, he followeth not the Lords steps.  Phil. 
Cyprian saith there must be water as well as wine.  Theo. 
But when he allegeth Christ's example that the cup must be mingled, he meaneth the mixture of wine & not of water. And so he expoundeth himself very often in that epistle. 
Cypr. li. 2. epi. 3. ●d Caecil.  Calix, qui inebriat, utique vino mixtus est: the cup which maketh drunk no doubt is mixed with wine. And again, 
* Ibidem.  A Domino admoniti & instructi sumus, ut calicem Dominicum vino mixtum, secundum quod Dominus obtulit, offeramus. We be taught and instructed by the Lord that we should offer the Lords cup mingled with wine according as the Lord did offer it. 
Cyprian urgeth Christ's example for wine: which he calleth a mixture by reason it was both lawful and then used to temper it with water.  So that the commistion which Cyprian requireth by virtue of Christ's institution, is not of water which at that present was not in question, but of wine, which by the old Testament he proveth, was foretold of Christ, that he should offer; and by the new he showeth that he did offer in the cup which he delivered to the twelve Apostles. You therefore abuse Cyprians words, when you bring them to prove that Christ had water as well as wine, and that if we leave out either, we follow not Christ's example, for he namely urgeth Christ's action for the use of wine, and that if we omit, we violate the Lords institution.  Philan. 
Cyprians reason will declare that he speaketh of both; and his words to that end are so manifest that we marvel you will stand in it. Thus he saith, 
Epist. 63. ad Caecil.  In sanstificando calice Domini offerri aqua sola non potest, quomodo nec vinum solum potest. Nam si vinum tantum quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis: si verò aqua sit sola, plebs incipit esse sine Christo. In sanctifying our lords chalice, water alone may not be offered, as also not wine alone. For if a man offer wine alone, the blood of Christ beginneth to be there without us. And if water alone, (be offered) the people begin to be (in the cup) without Christ. And therefore he resolveth, 
Ibidem.  Quando in chalice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur. When water is mixed in the chalice with wine, than the people is united unto Christ.  Theo. 
Sir we never denied that Cyprian spoke of water in one part of the Sacrament, and to continue the use thereof alluded to the mystical interpretation of water, which Saint john maketh in his Revelation, when he saith, 
revel. 17.  The waters, which thou sawest where the whore (of Babylon) sitteth, are peoples, multitudes, Nations and tongues; but it is one thing to allege Christ's institution for the necessity of having water in the sacred cup, which Cyprian did not, and an other thing to play with figures and allegories as Cyprian doth, 
Cyprian alloweth water in the Lord's cup, & showeth what it may signify: but he doth not derive it from Christ's example.  when he showeth what water may signify. That Christ mixed water with wine at his last Supper, no Scripture reporteth, and the Gospel keeping silence, no man can justly prove it: And therefore Cyprian neither did, nor could avouch any such thing: but that water was and might be used in the Church of GOD, and in Saint john's vision of the whore of Babylon was parabolically taken for nations and countries, this we can grant both to you and to Cyprian without any prejudice.  
And yet I must let you understand that neither this kind of proving by parables is always sound, nor this collection, that without water the people is not figured in the Lord's cup, is any needful point of christian religion. For Cyprian himself elsewhere showeth that wine alone in the Lord's cup, though no water be added, resembleth the people united to Christ far better than water, & that resemblance is alleged & subscribed unto by S. Augustine, the other is not. 
* Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 6. ad Magnum.  When the Lord called his body, bread, that is made of the kneading together of many corns, he declareth the union of our people whose burden he bore. And when he called his blood, wine, which is pressed out of many kernels and clusters of grapes, and gathered into one liquor, he signifieth also our flock coupled with the permixtion of a multitude conjoined. And this way he saith, 
* Ibidem.  the Lords sacrifices declare the unity of Christians knit together with firm & inseparable charity: whose words S. Austen repeateth and commendeth 
* Aug. de Baptis. lib. 7. ca 50.  writing against the Donatists. And useth the very same in a Sermon of his own concerning this matter. 
a Ex sermo. ad Infants. Citatur à Beda in 1. Cor. 10. Ibidem.  As to make the visible kind of bread, many corns are kneaded into one (lump of dough) so also of the wine, brethren call to your memories how it is made one. Many grapes hang in the cluster, but their juice runneth into one liquor. Whereupon he concludeth that the Lord hath consecrated at his table the mystery of our peace and unity.  


The wine signifieth the people better than water doth.  
The jesuits themselves receive not the saying of Cyprian.   This similitude is grounded on the nature of the elements, and signification of the Sacraments, the other is not: and that the faithful be not joined to Christ their head in this mystery, but by mingling water with wine, this doctrine is neither safe, nor true, by the confession of either side, yours & ours: especially yours, for you exclude the people not only from the water, but also from the wine, and yet by the bread alone you suppose them to be coupled and united to Christ their head: and we for our side confess, that both parts alike do knit us unto Christ, as well the bread as the cup, and that not the mixing or tempering of either element, but the due receiving of both doth incorporate us into Christ.  Phil. 
Then you refuse this saying of Cyprians as untrue.  Theo. 
We can give Cyprian leave to dally with allegories, and to allude to the mingling of water & wine then used in the Church: but we can not give you leave to derive it from Christ's institution, and to make it an essential part of the Sacrament. And yet you cross Cyprians authority more than we do. For where the mixing of water with wine is required by Cyprian, that the people and not the Priests only, might be joined with Christ in that part of the mystery, you retain the action, and frustrate the signification, by taking both wine and water from the people of God: and thereby show that your mixture is wholly superfluous as not directed to that end, which Cyprian speaketh of, but rather to the contrary.  

Can the jesuits tell how the people are in the cup after consecration?  And of all others you may lest endure Cyprians comparison, for he saith, that after consecration, as Christ is in the wine, so the people is in the water: and if you transubstantiate the water into the people, as you do the wine into Christ, and bring them within the compass of your chalice, you had need of a chalice as wide as the church, or else you shall shrewdly throng them together. Your doctrine therefore rejecteth the meaning and saying of Cyprian, more than ours; and with more pride: we having the gospel for our discharge when we say that Christ commanded no mixture in his last Supper: 
Their own schools are against them.  & your own Schools with one consent to affirm with us, that water is no necessary part of this Sacrament.  
The Gospel in plain speech reporteth of our Saviour, that he drank the fruit of the vine. His own words are, 
b Mat. 26.  I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine: 
c Chrysost. in Mat. homil. 83.  which surely, saith Chrysostom, yieldeth wine and not water. Your own Schools conclude flatly with us against you. 
d 
Thom. part. 3. quaest. 74. articls. 7.  
Scotus in 4. senten. distinct. 11. quaest. 6. & Innocen. de officio missae part. 3. ca 4. affirm the same.   Non est aqua vino miscenda de necessitate Sacramenti. To mingle water with wine is no necessary point of (this) Sacrament. Water by the position of your own Schools is not necessary, then of consequent arbitrary: that is every church hath full liberty to use wine alone, as Christ did, with out danger of departing or dissenting from the primative church, though they for some respects delayed their wine with water and the Sacrament is as perfect, and as consonant to Christ's institution without the mixture of water, as with it.  Phi. 
That Christ used wine we do not deny, but we avouch that he also mingled it with water.  Theo. 
We know you avouch it, but we would see you prove it.  Phi. 
Cyprian saith it.  Theo. 
Cyprian saith it not; he saith rather the contrary. 
Cypr. lib. 2. ep. 3.  invenimus vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit. We find it was wine, 
Ibidem.  which (the Lord) called his blood. And again: Cum dicat Christus, ego sum vitis vera, sanguis Christi non aqua est utique sed vinum. Whereas Christ saith, I am a true vine, surely the blood of Christ is not water but wine. And again he saith, 
Ibidem.  that Noë typum futurae veritatis ostendens, non aquam sed vinum biberit, foreshowing a figure of the truth that should follow drank not water, but wine.  Phi. 
Not water alone, but mixed with wine.  Theo. 
Then all that Cyprian either pretendeth or allegeth Christ institution for, is the having of wine, & not of water: and though he use the words mixtus and miscere very often, yet his meaning is to prove by scripture the adding of wine, not of water to the Lords cup.  Phi. 
He nameth both wine & water as I have showed you.  Theo. 
And as I have answered you, both were lawful, and then used in the church: but Christ's institution is urged by him for wine and not for water: and though he call the cup (mixtus) mingled, because there might be and were then both in use, yet the scriptures which he citeth concerning this Sacrament, and the figures which he bringeth make clearly for wine, 
Cyprians proofs are all for wine.  and not for water: And therefore that Christ mingled water at his last Supper, or commanded us so to do, can not be proved by Cyprian, nor any other learned and ancient father: but that the church of Christ tempered her wine with water (though not in all places, nor at all times as your boasting vain serveth you to affirm) that we grant may be proved by Cyprian and others, and was ever confessed by us: marry that is not our question. You charge us with the breaches of Christ's institution, in which and in every part of which, 
The question is not whether water was then and now may be used, but whether it were a part of Christ's ordinance.  there is an absolute necessity, that you should prove if you could tell which way to do it, but your lofty words and weak proofs have no coherence; you speak it in state, as if it were more than Gospel, and when you come to bring forth your proofs, you wrist a poor place of Cyprians, and so take your leaves.  Phil. 
We bring you S. james Mass, which in express terms affirmeth that Christ after Supper taking the cup and mingling it with wine & water, sanctified it, blessed it, and gave it to his Disciples.  Theop. 
Of james Mass, 
jacobi Missa.  I have spoken before: In such rotten records, neither received nor regarded in the Church of Christ, 
The Church of Rome proveth the most part of her religion by such forgeries.  till error and ignorance grew so great, that the Pastors could not or would not discern fables from truths, and forgeries from sincerities, lieth the sum of your late Rhemish religion; but take back your Monkish corruptions, and let us have likely testimonies for that you say, or none; you may allege S. james Gospel which is yet extant, with as good credit, as S. james Mass: and so the Gospels of Nicodemus, Thomas, 
Dist. 15. § Sancta Romana.  Andrew, Barnabas, and Bartholomew, or if those like you not, the Acts of Peter, Philip and Andrew, and the Revelations of Paul, Steven, and Thomas; 
Many things forged in the Apostles names, and yet rejected by the church of Christ.  for these be of the very same mint and stamp, that james Mass, and the Apostles canons and constitutions are; but know you Sir, that as Heretics and other idle persons forged these things in their names, so the Church of Christ ever rejected them as false and heretical, and suffered no christians to ground their actions or doctrines on such corruptions.  Phil. 
Saint Basils' Mass confirmeth the same. The words are: Likewise taking the cup of the fruit of the grape, 
Basilij Missa.  & mingling it, & giving thanks, and blessing, 
These three Masses be all of one sort.  and sanctifying it, he gave it to his holy Disciples.  Theoph. 
A pig of the same sow. They that would offer to broach their fancies in the Apostles names, would never stick at the Father's works. It is easy to put Ambrose, Austin's, Basils' and Chrysostoms' names to any thing; and yet the word which is used in Basils' Liturgy doth not convince the mingling of water with wine, and Chrysostoms' Liturgy doth apparently show that water was mingled with wine for the people long after consecration, and yet before distribution, which argueth my saying to be most true, that they delayed their wine for sobriety, they did not mix it for any mystery.  Phil. 
Saint basil, I am sure, saith Miscens: Christ mingling (the wine) gave it to his disciples.  Theo. 

The Greek word for miscens doth not ever import the mixture of water.  The Greek words for miscens & mixtus, if they come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do not always signify the mingling of water with wine, but generally the tempering or pouring out of wine for him that shall drink, though none other kind of liquor be added to it. Erasmus giveth that observation upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and Saint john so useth it when he sayeth, 
Apocal. 14.  He shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is mixed (or poured) without mingling into the cup of his wrath: where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being without mixture, is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, mingled or rather infused into the cup of God's wrath. Upon which speech Erasmus noteth. Graecis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur quod infunditur in calicem bibituro, etiamsi non aqua diluatur aut alio potus genere. The Grecians call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when (any thing) is powered into a cup for him that shall drink, 
Eras. annotat. in 14. Apoc.  though it be not delayed with water, or any other kind of liquor. In this sense many of the Fathers that wrote in Greek may use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet no mingling with water can be inferred upon those words, as your interpreters over greedily imagine.  Phil. 
You pare the words of Saint Basils' Liturgy, but Saint james Mass is so manifest for Christ's mingling water with wine, that you are feign to deny the work.  Theo. 
If the Church of Christ did receive it, I will not deny it: but if they knew no such monument, why should you be suffered now to sort us out what forgeries you list for apostolic labours?  Phil. 
The sixth general council under justinian, received the 
* 
Concil. in Trull. sub justi. cap. 32.  
james his Mass never received nor used in the Church as his.   Mass of S. james and S. basil as authentic: and proved by their 
* 
Concil. in Trull. sub justi. cap. 32.  
james his Mass never received nor used in the Church as his.   authorities against the Armenians using wine alone in the mysteries, that Christ had both water and wine in his sacrifice.  Theo. 
That council, which you cite, was neither the sixth general, nor any general council at all. It was celebrated 700. and odd years after Christ, by which time it may be, james his Liturgy was gotten into some credit amongst them: and yet they allege neither of them for Christ's institution, but only that delivering the Church service in writing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ibidem. cap. 32.  they taught that order to perfect the sacred cup with wine and water in the divine ministration.  Philand. 
Call you the credit of that council also in question?  Theo. 
I might well do it, 

Laurent. Surius to● Council 2. admonitio ad lectorem de Canonibus qui sixtae Synod. dicuntur.  
Ibidem.   if I would but follow the judgement either of your nearest friends, or of those that lived next to the time when this council was called. Surius the great Soultan of your side sayeth, that some of those are thought to be Supposititij vel Graecorum temeritate depravati: either forged, or depraved by the rashness of the Grecians. And Theophanes who wrote not long after the keeping of the council, sayeth that those are falsely said to be the canons of the sixth council, and giveth this hard judgement of them: ut enim in caeteris omnibus falsitatis arguuntur, 
This council is provincial and late, and vehemently suspected by themselves.  ita in hac re quoque mentiuntur: as in all other things they be taken tardy with falsehood, so in this also they make a lie: But for our parts we see no reason to deal so rigorousely with them. They were but a provincial council, if they were any council at all: for we have nothing left but the canons and those contradicted by name. Next the makers lived more than 700. years after Christ, and might soon be deceived by the titles and shows of these Liturgies: Lastly, what corruptions have crept since either into the canons or into the Liturgies we know not, and in those cases which the Gospel exactly reporteth as it doth the Lord's Supper, we believe no man against or without the Gospel.  
And that in Chrysostoms' Liturgy water was mingled long after consecration for the people to drink, 

Chrysostoms' Liturgy mingleth water with wine after consecration for the people to communicate.  
Chrysost. Missa.   the book itself will show you: where the words of Christ's institution being repeated three leaves before, when the time for the Priests and people to communicate approached, it is said, Accipiunt Diaconi sacros calices praestolantes cum fervent aqua venientem Subdiaconum. Tunc infundit aquam calidam quantum sufficit. Deinde sumit corpus Dominicum. The Deacons take the sacred cups or chalices, expecting the Deacon that bringeth water (that hath) boiled. Then he poureth in (to the chalices) warm water so much as sufficeth, 
Sodde water poured into the wine after consecration, could be no mystery. The translation which their own men have set forth, hath the words which I cite.  and after receiveth the Lord's body. Now Sir with all your cunning tell us for what signification and mystery, water that had sodde, was powered into the chalice after consecration, if not to temper and delay the headiness of the wine before the priest or people did drink of it: and if your brains be not mingled with too much melancholy, you will perceive, that could be no part of Christ's institution.  Phi. 
We find no such thing in Chrysostoms' Mass.  Theo. 
It were marvel that I should find it, and not you.  Phil. 
Read his Liturgy translated by Erasmus, and if you find it I will give you this hand.  Theo. 
Your hand will do me no good: I had rather you should confess a truth than hazard a joint. Read Chrysostoms' Liturgy which Leo Thuscus translated into the Latin tongue, and Claudius de saints, a man of your Religion hath set forth of Plantines Press 1560. and if you find not the words, as I repeat them, return them to me for masterless creatures, which I would be loath you should.  Phil. 
But mention is made in the very beginning of the same Liturgy, that the priest mixed water with wine before consecration.  Theo. 
It may be the priest did temper that which himself should drink, before consecration. But after consecration, before the rest of the Clergy or the people did communicate, they delayed it with water in such sort as I tell you: what the cause was, judge you.  Phil. 
Why this was done, I can not so well say, but this I know, that all catholic churches in the world have ever mixed their wine with water.  Theo. 

* No marvel to see the Church of Christ mix her wine with water at her daily communions when the people were fasting, since the soberer sort of heathens in those countries durst not drink those strong wines without some delay. Polyd. de inventoribus re●um lib. 5. ca 9  Had they so done, yet so long as they did it for sobriety, not for necessity, it nothing concerneth Christ's institution, which we labour to restore, nor bindeth any man as a matter of religion or conscience: but now your flaunting humour swelleth above truth and measure when you say all Churches in the world have ever observed the same.  Phil. 
Name one age or place that hath not done it.  Theo. 
That is the way indeed to cast the burden on other men's shoulders, which yourselves should bear: and yet we can soon choke you with an instance, and that by the very confession of your own fellows.  

The seventh Bish▪ of Rome from Peter first mingled water with wine at the Lords table.  Alexander septimus à Petro Pontifex conse●raturus primus aquam vino miscuit, instituítque ut ex azimo, non fermentato ut antea consuevit fieret pane. Alexander the seventh from Peter, was the first, saith Polydore, that mingled water with wine at consecration, and ordained that the oblation should be of unleavened bread, and not of leavened, as till that time was used. Lo Sir the whole church of Christ in all the Apostles times used wine alone, & an hundred years after Christ began the first admixtion of water with wine, and use of unleavened bread in the lords supper; which you with forgery under james name would father on Christ himself; though he in the Gospel with his own mouth deny it.  
For countries we can give you the like. The Armenians for 1145. years after Christ died leavened bread, and mingled no water with their wine at the lords ●akle. See the report of Otho Frisingensis in whose time they began to hearken to the church of Rome. Their Metropolitan had under him 
The Armenians for a 1000 years and upward mixed no water with their wine.  a thousand Bishops: and in some things agreed, in some things dissented from the Greek church. Where amongst other things, he saith of the whole country of Armen●a: 
* Otho. ●risingens. lib. 7. cap 32.  Ponunt fermentatum panem sicut illi: aquam autem, vino non miscent, sicut nos & illi. They use leavened bread (in the lords supper) as the Grecians do: marry they mingle no water with their wine, as both we & the Grecians do.  
These be your famous objections which you exaggerate, as if they were some mighty breaches of Christ ordinance, wherein to let pass the hold which we have in the Gospel, 
Their objections be so far from truth that their own schoole● go clear with us against them.  being thereby cleared from your pelting quarrels in the eyes of all men that ever read the words of Christ, if your own Schools in either or any of these things which you oppose, go not clear with us, that they be no parts of Christ's institution, we will yield to the fault and correct that oversight. If they do, then let your friends conceive what truth there is in your mouths, and what credit is to be given to your wrangling observations sent us lately from Rheims, wherein without all shame and care, you refute, not us, but yourselves and your own conclusions, that you might say somewhat against us, before the simple and unlearned, were it otherwise never so false or foolish, and even contrary to your own Principles.  
But you did well to begin first: you saw how plainly you were to be taken tardy with many wilful and inexcusable breaches of Christ's institution, and therefore you thought it safest to make the salie first on us, 
The Jesuits Testament is as full of poiurie as it is of heresy.  that whiles we were occupied in defending our own, we should desist from impugning your Mass, which is now nothing else but an heap of sinful devices and abuses invented by Satan, and broached by Antichrist, to deface and frustrate the lords supper.  Phi. 
Who can abide your blasphemies against the blessed Mass?  Theo. 
Call you that bl●ssed, where besides your 
These be 5. as deep wounds in the word of Christ as ever the jews made in his flesh.  fruitless prayers and 
These be 5. as deep wounds in the word of Christ as ever the jews made in his flesh.  superstitious ceremonies: your prin●●e & half communion subuerte●h ●he Lord's institution, your 
These be 5. as deep wounds in the word of Christ as ever the jews made in his flesh.  sacrifice derogateth from his death and bloodshedding your 
These be 5. as deep wounds in the word of Christ as ever the jews made in his flesh.  adoration of bread & wine convinceth you of heinous & open Idolatry?  Phi. 
Th●se words declare your fury.  Theo. 
Those deeds show forth your pie●●e.  Phi. 
You can not prove so much as one of these things which you object.  Theo. 
If we move not every one of them; we will acquit you from them all  Phi. 
That shall you never do.  Theo. 
So must you say though it be never so plain: but to the point.  


The priests sole receiving. Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  
As needful to give as to break the bread.   Where learned you, thatch Priest might celebrate the lords Supper openly in the church, wit●●●● any man to communicate with him, the people standing by, and gazing on h●m? The Gospel is against you: for Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it, and gave it to the Disciples: you break the bread in your private Mass for fashion's sake, but to whom do you give it? Giving is a part of the lords supper, as well as breaking. If it be needful to break the bread, because Christ did so: we conclude it as needful to give th● bread, because he did both: and the bread is 
a August. epist. 59  broken, as Augustine affirmeth, to be divided: In vain then is it broken if it be not given.  
This the words that next ensue, confirm. Accipite, edite, take ye, eat ye. The words be plural: ergo they be neither truly repeated, nor duly followed, 
These words be spoken in the plural number & of other men's persons.  except others receive with the Priest. For his person and action is wholly singular, and so perforce you must either change the words of Christ's institution, which is no way lawful: or increase the number of communicants, which everteth your private Mass. 
b 1. Cor. 10.  We are all partakers of one bread, saith Paul, describing thereby the lords Supper: and with you no man is partaker besides the Priest. 
c 1. Cor. 11.  When you come together to eat (the Lord's supper) tarry one for an other, that ye come not together unto condemnation, which the Apostle 
d Epist. 118.  spoke of this Sacrament, as you heard out of Augustine. To li●le purpose stay you for them, which shall eat nothing when they come. 
e Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11.  The lords supper ought to be common to all, because he gave the Sacraments equally to all his Disciples, that were present: and your Mass is private to the Priest alone. Call you this an imitation of the lords Supper, or a performance of his will, when you frustrate the very words which he spoke, and neglect the chiefest thing which himself did at his table? 
f Luke 22. 1. Cor. 11.  Do this, saith Christ, in remembrance of me: that is neither omit, nor alter you this institution, but in all points do that, which I did before you: which you do not, & therefore as yet we see not how you can excuse yourselves from a plain contempt of Christ and his ordinance.  Phi. 
Is this all you can say?  Theo. 
This is more than you yet have answered, or, as I think, can for all your cracks.  Phi. 
It is answered with a word.  The. 
Such a word it may be, that it will work miracles; but in the mean time how keep you Christ's institution?  Phi. 


The Rhemish Test. sol. 451. nu. 23. [in the night.  
Christ's actions and words are necessary, though the circumstances be not.   All the circumstances of time, person and place, which in Christ's action are noted, need not to be mitated. As that the Sacrament should be ministered at night, to men only, to only twelve, after supper and such like: because (as S. Cyprian epist. 63. nu. 7. & S. Aug. epist. 118. nu. 6, note) there were causes of those accidents in Christ, that are not now to be alleged for us.  Theo. 
That which you say is true, but it serveth not your turn. The circumstances of time, as whether at night or in the morning: of place, as whether in church or in chamber: of person, as whether men or women: twelve, or any other number: these things we grant be wholly in different. The reason is. The Lord neither in his speech, nor in his actions which he commanded us to imitate, did comprise any of these particulars. 
Matth. 26.  He took bread, he gave thanks, he broke it, and eat it, saying, this is my body. The cup likewise he took, and when he had given thanks he gave it them, drink ye all of this, this is my blood of the new Testament. 
* Luk. 22.  Do this in remembrance of me. These things be essential parts of the Lords supper commanded by him to be followed of us. These if you neglect, you neither obey his precept, nor celebrate his supper, but profanely and wickedly thrust his ordinance out at doors that your own devices may take place.  Phi. 
His words, 
* The sanctification of the meat is performed by those words, but the use & end of the supper is directed by the other. The precept that Christ gave us to follow him precisely concerneth his actions.  this is my body, this is my blood of the new Testament, etc. are essential parts of this mystery, and so are the elements: for in these two consist the matter and form of the sacrament.  The. 
And what are his action's? be not they likewise essential parts of his supper?  Phi. 
What actions mean you?  Theo. 
Giving thanks, breaking, giving, eating, drinking; without which it is not the Lords supper.  Phi. 
These be certain accidents which our Saviour then used, they be not of the essence of the sacrament.  Theo. 
With what words did he command us to continue this memorial of him?  Phi. 
Do this for a commemoration of me.  Theo. 
Let it be, in remembrance of me, or for a commemoration of me, whether you will, so you take not commemoration for Dirges: which Christ needeth not, since he liveth & reigneth in the glory of God his ●ather; the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the remembrance of me: but the first part of the sentence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Do ye this.  Phi. 
It is so, what then?  Theo. 
He that charged his Apostles & in them all others, to do what he did, taught them that his actions were essential to his Supper as well as words. He did not will them to say this, but to do this in remembrance of him.  Phi. 
Do you not think the repeating and using of his words to be necessary in the celebration of the Sacrament? 
The Rhemish Test. fol. 452. nu. 24. [take, eat. To what end is meat if it be not eaten?   Theo. 
yes, but I add that his actions are as necessary.  Phi. 
There is difference between the making of a medicine or the substance and ingredience of it, and the taking of it.  Theo. 
There is: but when the medicine is never so well made if it be not ministered to the patiented, the making of it is utterly vain.  Phi. 
Yet the making of it, is not the ministering of it.  Theo. 
The one is the end of the other, and therefore without the ministering the making is superfluous. 
The Rhe. Test. Ibidem. Eating and drinking are not essential parts of the Sacrament, but of the supper they are.   Phi. 
Then taking and eating is not the substance, or being, or making of the sacrament or sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, but it is the use & application to the receiver, of the things that were made & offered to God before.  Theo. 
Neither did I say that eating and drinking were the substantial parts of the sacrament, but of the Lords institution.  Phi. 
As though the sacrament were not our Lord's institution.  Theo. 
Christ's institution containeth as well the use as the matter or form that must be used. A supper is not only the meat provided, but also the act of eating that which is provided; & so the Lords institution or Supper employeth the use and action as well as the word and elements.  Phi. 
The use of it is to be a sacrifice, as well as a sacrament: and in a sacrifice, offering is rather required than eating.  Theo. 
That is the way to correct the son of God, who said not, 
The Jesuits neglect ●hat ●●ich Christ 〈◊〉, and busy 〈…〉 which he did 〈◊〉.  take this and offer it, but take this and eat it. Eating which Chr●st commanded, you neglect; offering which ●e did not command, you esteem; and yet you would be followers of Christ.  Phi. 
Did not Christ▪ say to his Disciples Do this?  Theo. 
You know we press you with that saying of his.  Ph●. 
Do this, that is 
* A●● that is 〈◊〉 by the Poet Vi●gil c●m faciam vitula.  offer this.  Theo. 
So you say, but where saith Christ so?  Phi. 
Doubt you whether this be a sacrifice?  Theo. 
We talk not what names the lords supper may be called by, but what words Christ used.  Phi. 
H● s●ide Do this.  Theo. 
To wit that which he did before, for so the demonstrative bindeth the sense.  Phi. 
And what if Christ sacrificed himself, as he sat at table?  Theo. 
〈◊〉 must come to that issue, or else your sacrificing is clean without Christ's commanding.  Phi. 
Christ himselve seemeth to mention some such thing, when he sayeth, 
* 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26.  This is my body, which is (not which shallbe) broken for you. And this is my blood 
* O●ige. in Matt. tract. 35. & Chrys. in 1. Cor. ho. 27. read the very words of Christ in the future tense.  which is shed (not which shall be shed) for many for remission of sins. If this were not a sacrifice, w●at was it?  Theo. 
It was the foretelling of that which was then at hand presently to ensue.  Phi. 
Christ used the present and not the future tense.  Theo. 
And yet the suffering, which he specified by the breaking of his body, and shedding of his blood was not present, but the next day on the cross. If you teach that Christ's blood was really shed at the table for remission of sins, you must put him twice to death, & make the later death which was on the cross to be utterly idle. For 
a Hebr. 10.  where remission (of sin) is, there needeth no more sacrifice for sin. If than remission of sins were obtained by the actual shedding of Christ's blood at his last supper, his death & cross the next day were superfluous. If forgiveness were not obtained over night, but that the Lord the next day was to shed his blood for our sins, than spoke he before hand of that which the next day should follow: & his speech in the present tense noteth nothing but that he had even then given himself over to death for our sakes, which immediately they should beheld.  
No act of Christ's therefore at his last supper importeth any real sacrifice that he then made, 
Christ ordained a Sacrament to be divided, not a sacrifice to be offered.  but he did institute a Sacrament of thanksgiving, and co●maunded us by eating and drinking to be partakers of his body that was wounded and blood that was shed the next day for the remitting and pardoning of our sins. So that you must either retain eating and drinking at the lords table, or else renounce both the benefit of his passion, and memorial of his death, with an open neglect of his last Will and Testament.  Phi. 
We do retain it, and as you know, by our canons we bind all priests that consecrate to 
* De consecrat. dist. 2. § Relatum est. They bind the Priest to communicate.  communicate in both kinds.  Theo. 
Let the decrees of men alone, do you bind them to it by the words of Christ?  Phi. 
We do, though the punishment be expressed in the canons, and not in the Scriptures.  Theo. 
It in punishment enough to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, a greater you can not impose, make your canons as severe as you will.  Phil. 
Yet you see we bind them to communicate.  Theophil. 
You should break Christ's institution, if you should do otherwise.  Philand. 
And therefore we do that which I tell you.  Theophil. 
Then eating and drinking are necessary parts of Christ's institution.  Philand. 
Of his action they are parts, but not of the Sacrament.  Theophil. 
Neither do I say that they are parts of his body & blood, but of his example and ordinance.  Philand. 
We grant.  Theo. 
And the neglecting of those actions which Christ in his person performed before us, is a breach of his institution as well as the changing or omitting of his words. 
The Priest charged to do as Christ did.   Philand. 
In the Priest it is.  Theo. 
Of the Priest we speak: for Christ charged him, and not women or laymen to do as he did.  Phi. 
Then we agree to your last position, that if the Priest do not observe Christ's actions as well as Christ's words he transgresseth Christ's institution.  Theoph. 
Then your Priests are all guilty of violating Christ's institution.  Phi. 
Do they not eat and drink at the Altar, as he did?  Phi. 
That Christ himself did eat and drink at the ministration of the Sacrament, 
The words of Christ rather bind him to distribute than himself to communicate.  is not expressed in any part of his institution, though some words that follow after declare he drank of the same fruit of the vine which the rest did, but the whole course of his actions & speeches stood in delivering the mysteries unto others. He took bread, that he might break it: he broke it, that he might give it: he gave it, that they should eat: and so his words declare which are both plural and spoken to others, take ye, eat ye, not singular or to himself. Though therefore your Priest take and eat for his part, 

The Priest in every private Mass doth make a mock of these words take ye, eat ye.  
The Rhemish Test. fol. 451. nu. 23. [in the night.  
The Church must not choose what she will follow but rather obey that which Christ commanded. The primative Church knew not what Private Mass meant.   yet since Christ broke the bread that it might be divided among others, & bid them take and eat, it is certain your Priests neither do as Christ did, nor as he commanded his Apostles to do, nor as the very words of Christ, which he repeateth, do specify. For Christ said, take ye, eat ye, which in their private Masses your Priests do not, and for that cause every such Mass is a manifest contempt of Christ's words and deeds confessed and rehearsed by your own mouths, at the altar, as parts of his institution.  Phi. 
The Catholic church only, by Christ's spirit can tell, which things are imitable, which not, in all his actions.  The. 
When himself hath appointed what actions of his he will have to be followed; the church is bound to obey, & not licensed to make her choice: But in this case the church of christ hath faithfully done her duty. For she always observed these actions of Christ her Lord and master, and verified his words, till Antichrist with pride and power came to take up his seat in the midst of her, and to proportion all religion to his unsound and deceived affection.  Phi. 
Is the catholic church in this point with you?  Theo. 
Yea and against you mightily. The canons, as you term them, Apostolical, prohibit your private Mass. 
a Apostol. can. 9  Whosoever of the faithful enter the church & hear the scriptures read, if they stay not out prayers & receive the sacred communion: let them as perverters of ecclesiastical order be put from the communion. Which words the 
b Contil. Antio●. ca●on 2.  council of Antioch repeateth and confirmeth as agreeable to Christian discipline in their days.  
Read the church service which (as you tell us) james, basil, and Chrysostom composed, you shall find them public communions not private masses; read what Dionysius S. Paul's sch●ler (as you bear men in hand) and justinus the martyr report of the ●●●●tration of the Lords S●pper in their days. 
a Dionys. ecclesi. hierarch. cap. 3.  This is the general and catholic description and order of the divine mysteries, saith Dionysius, that first the minister himself receiveth & then imparteth the same to others. 
b justi. Apol. 2.  Towards the end of our prayers, ●aith justinus, we salute one an other with a kiss after that bread and a cup of wine delayed with water are brought to him that hath charge over his brethren, which he taketh and giveth thanks to the father of all through the son and holy Ghost; 
They delayed their wine with water lest mere and strong wine should annoy any of the communicants.  his prayer and thanks all the people standing by confirm with answering Amen: then those which are called with us Deacons give every man that is present of the bread and wine tempered with water, and carry the same to such as are absent. This I trow resembleth our communion not your private mass, & this without controversy was the catholic and Apostelike manner of solemnising the lords Supper in the primative church.  
Yea the church of Rome which you would seem so much to reverence withstood this your profanation of the lords supper a long time with marvelous zeal. 
c De cons. dist. 2. § peracta.  Consecration ended, saith Pope Calixtus, let all communicate that will not stand excommunicated: for so the Apostles determined, and the holy Roman church observeth. The manner of the whole church in Pope Gregory's time 600. years after Christ was for a Deacon to cry to the people, 
d Greg. Dialog. lib. 2. cap 23.  Si quis non communicet, det locum, he that mindeth not to communicate let him avoid. Pope Martin willed him to be 
e De cons. dist. 2. ¶ Si quis.  cast out of the catholic church, which entered the church of God, and with held himself from the communion of the Sacrament. Charles the Emperor 800. years after Christ gave commandment ut 
f ●eg. Franciae, lib. 1. cap. 132.  omnes fideles communicent, & ad Missas perexpectent sine al●a depraedicatione, that all the faithful should communicate, and look at mass so to do without other warning. What need we farther proof in a case so manifest? your own fellows confess no less: 
g Rationaìe di●●no officio. lib. 4. cap. 53.  In the primative church, saith Durandus, all that were present at the celebration of the Mass did every day communicate. Their oblation was a great loaf sufficient for all, which the Grecians are said to continue to this day. 
No private Mass in the primative Church by their own confession.  So that both the words of Christ's institution, & the tradition of the primative church directly refute your private Masses and prove the communion now used in the church of England to be good and catholic.  
The 
h Chry. hom. 27. in 1. Cor.  lords supper, saith Chrysostom, aught to be common. For such things as are the Lords belong not to this or to that servant, but are common to all. If then it be the Lords, as in deed it is, thou shouldst not take it as thine own to thyself, but propose it to all in common, as being the Lords. Thou dost not suffer it to be the Lords, when thou dost not suffer it to be common, but eatest it thyself. 
i Idem hom. in dictum Pauli oport●t haereses esse.  Paul calleth it the Lords supper, which is received in common, with one consent of all assembled together, for until all communicate & be partakers of that spiritual food, the mysteries once set forth are not taken away, but the priests standing still stay for all, yea for the poorest of all. So Theodoret: The 
k Theod. in 1 Cor. 11.  Lord's table is equally proposed unto all men: of that supper all are partakers alike. And Haymo: 
l Haym. in 1. Cor. 11.  The Sacrament of christs body is called a supper by reason of the communion, because it ought to be common to all the faithful and just.  
If this doctrine be true, as there can be no question of it, then are your private Masses far from Christ's institution, & as far from the catholic order of Christ's church, which suffered no man to be present at the time of the divine mysteries but such as would & did participate, sending the rest away that could not be partakers of▪ the Lords table. 
The very name of the Mass, as all ancient writers use it, impugneth their private Mass.  And this the very name of your Mass as I have proved, doth show, signifying the demising of all such as might not communicate; which if you should do in your private Masses you should leave an empty church, yea the priests must take pains to serve & answer himself, since no man besides the priest hath any part of that banquet, which Christ provided for all: and bequeathed unto all to be the monument of his passion, and pledge of their salvation.  
With like rashness you take from the people when you do admit them once a year to their rights (as you call it) the cup which should be to them, 

The lords cup ras●ly taken from the people.  
Mat. 26. Luk. 22.   the communion of the lords blood, Drink ye all of this, saith our Saviour, and divide it 'mongst you. These words you repeat for a show, but you falsify them in sense. For you suffer no layman to taste of the Lords cup, as if one part of this mystery were sufficient, the rest superfluous; or you might dispense with christs institution at your pleasure.  Phi. 
Christ spoke that to such as were Priests & not unto the lay people.  The. 
Doth your conscience serve you Philander to play the wanton in so great and deep mysteries of christian religion? To whom then were these words spoken, take ye, eat ye? not to the selfsame parties to whom it was said Drink ye? 
The cup was delivered at the same time to the same persons with the bread, ergo both or neither pertain to the people.  If none may drink but priests, because the disciples which drank were Priests: then by the same logic none should eat but priests, because neither time, place, nor persons were changed between these two precepts eat ye, drink ye, but in all respects the cup was delivered at the same time, to the same persons, when the bread was. So that you must either exclude the people from both, which I trust you dare not, or admit them to both which is the very point that we press you with.  
Hear what a man of your side thinketh as well of this consequent, as of your half communion. 
G●r●rd. Lorich. de missa publica ●r●rog●nda.  There be some false catholics that fear not to stop the reformation of the church what they can. These spare no blasphemies, lest that other part of the Sacrament should be restored to the lay people. For say they, Christ spoke drink ye all of this, only to the Apostles: but the words of the Mass be these, take and eat ye all of this. Here I would know of them whether this were spoken only to the Apostles: then must laymen abstain likewise from the element of bread, 
If your own ●●mpanions 〈◊〉 tell you 〈…〉, take 〈◊〉 to your 〈◊〉 consciences.  which to say, is an heresy, yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemy. It is therefore consequent that both these words (eat ye, drink ye) were spoken to the whole Church. I will not take this advantage, that your own fellow doth proclaim you for false Catholics, heretics and horrible blasphemers, God give you grace to see whither you be fallen and whence: This for your lives you cannot shift, but these two precepts eat ye, drink ye, by the tenor of Christ's institution must be referred to the same persons, and so both or neither pertain to the people.  
Surely the words which our Saviour used in delivering the cup, are more general and effective than when he gave the bread, 
m Mat. 26.  Drink ye all of this, and 
n Mark. 14.  they all drank of it: 
o Luk. 22.  take it, divide it among you. This cup is the new Testament in my blood which shall be shed for 
The blood of Christ was shed for the people as well as for the Priest: the cup therefore belongeth to the one as well as to the other.  you. Now the Lord shed not his blood for the Priest only, but also for the people, neither was the new Testament established in the blood of Christ for the priests sake but as well for the redemption of the people. Then as the fruits and effects of the blood of Christ are common to the people with the Priest, so should the cup also which is the communion of his blood shed for the remission of the people's sins, be divided indifferently between the Priest and people. 
p Chrys. hom. 18. in 2. Cor.  There is, saith chrysostom, where the Priest differeth nothing from the people, as when we must receive the dreadful mysteries. For it is not here, as it was in the old Law, where the Priest eat one part and the people an other, neither was it lawful for the people to be partaker of those things which the Priest was, 
One cup proposed to all both people and Priest.  but now it is not so, but rather one body is proposed to all, and one cup.  Phil. 
The church than might like that the people should have the cup, as the church after did mislike it for many and weighty causes, but how prove you that Christ's precept extendeth unto the people?  Theo. 
We can have no better interpreter of Christ's speech than his Apostle, that was best acquainted with the true meaning of our Saviour. 
q 1. Cor. 2.  We have, saith he, the mind of Christ: and 
r 1. Cor. 11.  that which I delivered you, I received of the Lord. So that he did not correct, but only report the lords ordinance, and in delivering both kinds to the whole church of Corinth, priest and people without exception the teacher of the gentiles did neither serve from the first institution, nor right intention of Christ his master. 
s 
1. Cor. 10.  
S. Paul extendeth Christ's words, drink you all of this, to the whole Church.   The cup of thanksgiving which we bless, is it not the communion of Christ's blood? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of Christ's body? Ye can not drink the cup of the Lord & the cup of devils. Ye can not be partakers of the lords table and of the table of devils. Can you frame us a reason out of these words of Saint Paul, to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking such things as the Gentile there sacrificed to Idols, & not confess that they drank of the Lords cup? It is not possible. For this is Saint Paul's argument: You can not drink both the lords cup and the cup of devils: the cup of thanks giving which we bless (and you all drink of) is the communion of the lords blood, therefore you may not drink of the cup of devils.  
YOU CANNOT DRINK BOTH, 
The people of Corinth by S. Paul's instruction received from Christ himself, were partakers of the Lords cup.  inferreth they did, and should drink one, which was the lords cup, not the cup of devils: else Paul should have said, you may drink neither: not the cup of devils, for they might have no fellowship with devils; neither the lords cup, for that is reserved for the Priest by your doctrine: but both, saith Paul, you cannot drink, ergo they must drink one which was not the cup of devils. Again the cup which they drank not, could to them be no Communion. For nature teacheth us that to be partaker of a cup, is to drink: but the lords cup was to them the communion of his blood, ergo they drank of the Lords cup.  
My collection is so clear, that the vulgar translation, which you are tied to by the Council of Trent, putteth these very words in the text, Omnes de uno pane, & de uno calice participamus, we all are partakers of one bread, AND OF ONE CUP. 
* In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fathers received those words, we all are partakers of one cup, into S. Paul'S text.  Ambrose, 
* In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fathers received those words, we all are partakers of one cup, into S. Paul'S text.  Hierom, 
* In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fathers received those words, we all are partakers of one cup, into S. Paul'S text.  Bede, 
* In 1. Cor. 10. The latin fathers received those words, we all are partakers of one cup, into S. Paul'S text.  Haymo, and others found it so consequent to S. Paul's former words, and coherent with his main reason, that they stick not to keep this addition (& de uno chalice) in their very terts, on which they comment. So that out of question Paul taught the Church of Corinth to distribute the lords supper to the Christians in both kinds, and that as he saith, he received of the Lord.  
And who● that hath any shame or sense left, reading the next Chapter that followeth, where Christ's institution is fully proposed and largely debated by S. Paul, will or can doubt, but the Lord at his last Supper ordained both kinds for all the faithful? 

1. Cor. 11.  
Did S. Paul speak these words to the Priests alone, or to the people also?   As often (saith Paul to the whole Congregation) as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup, ye show the lords death till he come. Whosoever shall eat this bread & drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man therefore (not speaking of this or that man, but of every man) examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. And lest you should want a general affirmative to justify this our exposition, take these words of S. Paul and quiet yourself. 

1. Cor. 12.  
We all as well the people as the pastors.   By one spirit are we all Baptized into one body, whether we be jews or Grecians, bond or free, and WE ALL HAVE DRUNK into one spirit. Can you look for director or plainer words? All jews and Gentiles, bond and free not only drank, but by drinking were made partakers of one and the same spirit, ven as by baptism they were grafted into one body.  
Then if Christ himself delivered both kinds at his last Supper with a straight and general charge for the cup, 
The Jesuits cannot take the cup from the people without subverting these main places of Scripture and parts of Christ's institution.  drink ye all of this; and Paul receiving his instructions from Christ his master, proposed the same to the Lay men of Corinth no less than to the ministers, excepting none, Jews nor Gentiles, bond nor free, from this precept, how dare you Philander and your late convents restrain the people from drinking of it? The (Lords) cup is the new covenant, which he hath made with all believers: do none believe but Priests? For the remission of sins; are lay men no sinners? as a memorial of his death; may the people lose that remembrance? It is, saith Paul, THE COMMUNION OF HIS BLOOD, and the partaking of his spirit; have the people no right to the blood of Christ, that was shed for them; or will you claim his spirit as peculiar to Priests, which is common to all the children of God?  Philand. 
The Church I warrant you did ponder and consider these reasons, 
The Catholic Church ministered the communion to the people in both kinds.  when she took this order, and finding them unsufficient, she decreed with us that the cup was not necessary for the Lay people.  Theoph. 
What Church I pray you? The primative and ancient Church of Christ, where catholicism should begin? We can assure you no. They ministered in both kinds to Priest and people, men and women without exception. DIONYSIUS. 
a Dionys. eccles. hierarch. ca 3.  The bread that was whole being broken into many parts, and ONE CUP DIVIDED AMONG ALICE, the Bishop in these (twain) perfiteth the holy Sacrifice. The sacred Communion of one and the same bread AND COMMON CUP, bindeth (Christians) to divine concord and likeness of manners, as being nourced up together. IGNATIUS. 
b Ignat. ad Philadelph●ens.  There is but one flesh of the Lord jesus, and one blood that was shed for us: there is also but one bread, that is broken for all; and ONE CUP THAT IS DIVIDED AMONG ALL. ATHANASIUS. (If those be his expositions which you have set forth in his name) 
c Athanas. in 1. Cor. 11.  The dreadful cup was delivered (by the Lord) TO ALL MEN ALIKE. CYPRIAN: 
d Cyprian. lib. 1. epis. .2.  How do we prepare (the people) for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them in the Church to DRINK THE lords CUP BY RIGHT OF COMMUNION? AUGUSTINE: 
e August. quaest. super Leviticum, li. 3. cap. 57  Not only no man is forbidden but rather ALL MEN that seek for life ARE ENCOURAGED TO DRINK. And again speaking to the people 
f De conse. dist. 2. ¶ quia passus.  simul bibimus, quia simul vivimus, WE DRINK TOGETHER (at the lords table) because we live together. chrysostom as before. 
g Chrysost. hom. 18. in 2. Cor.  One body is proposed to all and one cup. GREGORY. 
h De cons. dist. 2. ¶ quid sit sanguis.  The blood of Christ is now not powered into the hands of unbelievers, but into the mouths of the faithful. THEOPHILACT. 
i Theoph. in 1. Cor. 11.  How happeneth thou drinkest alone, whereas this dreadful cup was delivered to all men indifferently? HAYMO: 
k Hay. in 1. Cor. cap 10.  The cup is called a communion (by Paul) because all men are partakers of it. PASCHASIUS: 
l 
Paschas. de corpo. & sa●gui.  
Dom. cap. 43.  
Their half communion is so catholic that the master of their sentences 1200. ●eres after Christ knew it not.   Christ gave the cup, and said, Drink ye all of this, as well the Ministers, as the rest of the believers.  
Infinite are the places which might be brought to make faith, that for a thousand years in the Church of God, the people were not deprived of the Lords cup. The master of your sentences who lived very near twelve hundred after Christ knew not this maiming and paring of Christ's institution which now reigneth in your churches. 
m Sentent. lib. 4. dist. 1●.  Therefore is the Sacrament, saith he, celebrated in two kinds, that in Christ the taking of soul and flesh, and in us the redeeming of them both might be signified. For the flesh of Christ is offered for our flesh, and his soul for our souls. It is taken under both kinds which profiteth both parts. If it should be received in one kind only, that would declare, that it availed for the safeguard of one part only, soul or body, not for both jointly. 

De cons●●ist. 2. ¶ comp. Glos● sa ibidem.  
1300, years after Christ there was no communion in one kind, but in case of necessity.   The gloze that followed an hundred years after, resteth himself on the same reason with the same words, and shrinketh not from the communion in both kinds, but in the danger of sickness, or point of necessity. Insirmus vel sanus in necessitate potest sumere corpus sine vino: a sick man (whom the drinking of wine might hurt) or an whole man in case of necessity (where he can not choose) may receive the body without the wine. Then in the Church where provision might soon be made for all, and no necessity could be pretended, it was not as yet counted lawful for the people to receive the Sacrament in one kind.  Philand. 
But if the Church after upon good deliberation, 
As though the Church could have cause or power to change Christ's ordinance.  saw sufficient cause to change that order, who made you controllers of Christ's spouse?  Theoph. 
That unshamefast harlot, which fourteen hundred years after Christ's ascension would both alter her husbands will, and defraud his children of that portion, which their Lord and Saviour had allotted them, did prostitute herself and bastardise her offspring as much as lay in her, and is no way worthy to have the honour of a mother, or name of a spouse, though she paint herself never so freshly with youthful colours: And the reasons which moved her so to do, 

Rationale divinor. officio. lib. 4. cap. 42.  
Two weighty reasons for their communion in one kind.   were as ridiculous, as the fact was impious. Durandus saith, Non esset decens, tantum sanguinem conficere, nec calix capax inveniretur: It would not be decent to consecrate so much blood (as must serve the people) neither can there so big a chalice be gotten. Gerson beateth his brains to justify that, which the council of Constance did, in taking the lords cup wholly from the people not yet nine score years ago: and when he hath all done he cometh in with these toys: 

Gerson tract▪ contra haeresin de communione Laicorum sub viraque specie.  
The catholic considerations for which the the Church of Rome abolished Christ's institution.   THE length of laymen's beards, the loathsomeness to drink after others, the costliness of so much wine, the difficulties first of getting, then of keeping wine from souring, freezing and breeding of flies, the burden in bearing and danger in spilling it, last of all, the people's unwoorthynes to match (Messere magnifico) the Priest in the receit of this Sacrament. Be not these valiant inducements for you to change the last Will and Testament of Christ jesus, and abrogate that which was orderly kept in the church for a thousand years and upward? And yet these were the gravest and profoundest considerations that your friends had to lead them to this attempt: and these you know be very miserable.  
Gerson I grant shifteth what he can to bring other proofs, that both kinds are not simply needful, but why the council of Constance took the cup clean from the people, (which violence before was never offered them,) of this I say, Gerson a chief agent in that council labouring purposely to show the reason of their doings, neither doth, nor could, yield any better or weightier occasions than these which I now repeated, and the reader shall find blazed with great confidence in the second part of the foresaid treatise.  
O dainty fathers and sleek divines which for long beards, and unsweet breaths, for a little pains, and no great charges, for frosts in winter, and flies in summer thought best to correct Christ's institution, and not only to forsake the full consent of all ages and Churches in expounding the same, but also to chase the people by terror of secular power and ecclesiastical curse from the cup of their salvation, from the communion of Christ's blood, 
To follow Christ's institution is adjudged to be heresy and accursed with our late Romanists.  and fellowship of his holy spirit. Such fathers, such fancies. What is mockery, what is injury to God and man, if this be Religion or piety?  
The Church of Rome, you will say concluded with them. That increaseth her sins, and excuseth not their follies. If an Angel from heaven had conspired with them, our duty bindeth us to detest both him and them as accursed, 
What the ancient Church of Rome thought of this mangling the communion.  if they step from that which the primative church received from Paul, and Paul from Christ: How much more than ought we to reject that which the church of Rome presumeth not only besides, but against the sacred scriptures? And yet to speak uprightly the ancient church of Rome maketh wholly with us in this cause. For no church ever resisted your mangled communions with greater vehemency than the church of Rome did, till covetousness and pride blinded her eyes, and hardened her heart against God and his son.  

De cons. dist. 2. § Cum omne.  Pope julius, that lived under Constantine the great, made this decree. We hear that certain led with schismatical ambition against the divine ordinances, and apostolic directions do give TO THE PEOPLE the Eucharist dipped in wine for a full communion. They received not this from the Gospel, where Christ betook his body and blood to the Disciples. For there is recited the delivering the bread by itself, and the cup by itself. 
The people must have the bread and the cup delivered them severally and asunder in both kinds.  Let therefore all such error and presumption cease least inordinate and perverse diuises weaken the soundness of faith. If the communion be neither perfit, nor agreeable to Christ's institution, and apostolic prescription, except the people receive both kinds several, and asunder, the bread from the cup, and the cup from the bread, as Christ ordained, and the Gospel declareth: Ergo your excluding the people clean from the cup is altogether repugnant to the manifest intent of our Saviour, and right imitation of his Apostles.  
And what if the first authors of your dry communion were the Manichees, are you not wise men, and well promoted to forsake the precept which Christ gave you, the precedent which Paul left you, the course which the christian world for so many years observed, and follow so pestilent and pernicious a sect of heretics, reproved and long since condemned by the church of Rome, for that very fraud and abuse in the Sacraments, which you be now fallen unto? The Manichees, 
Leo serm. 4. de quadragessima.  saith Leo, to cover their infidelity, venture to be present at our mysteries, and so carry themselves in the receiving of the Sacraments, for their more safety, that they take the body of Christ with an unworthy mouth, but in any wise they shun to drink the blood of our redemption. 
The Manichees the first author's of the 〈…〉.  Which I would have your devoutness (speaking to the people) learn for this cause, that such men might be known to you by these marks, and when their 

〈…〉 in them as 〈◊〉.  
●● cons. dist. 2. § Co●perimus.  
To ●nstaine f●om the Lords cup is sacrilege.   sacrilegious simulation is found, they may be noted and bewrayed by the Godly, that they may be chased away by the priestly power.  
Against this disorder of Manichees wrote Pope Gelas●●, as your friend Master Harding confesseth. We have intelligence that certain men receiving only a portion of the sanctified body abstain from the cup of the sacred blood: who for that it appeareth, they be entangled with I know not what superstition let them either receive the whole Sacraments, or be driven from the whole: because the dividing and parting of one and the same mystery can not be without grievous sacrilege. The sense is plain. To take the lords bread, and not drink of the lords cup, is a severing and distracting of this mystery, which by the judgement of these two Popes is open sacrilege: ergo neither Catholic or christian.  
What shift n●we Philander, to save yourselves from sacrilege? 
Artic. 2. contra I p●s●. Sar●●.  Spoke Gelasius of the Manichees as Master Harding resolveth? Grant it were so. Then what was sacrilege in them, can it be catholic in you? If that ancient church of Rome condenmed this in the Manichees, how cometh your late Church of Rome not only to suffer, but also to command the same? Can you turn darkness to light, and sacrilege to Religion? 
To forbear the Lords cup is sacrilege in all persons, and ages as well as it was then in the Manichees.  That were a marvelous alteration. But Si●s your minds may change we know: Christ's institution can not chang●; The contempt thereof, in Manichees, in Papists: as then, so still, was and will be sacrilege.  
Spoke Gelasius not of the Manichees but of certain Priests that receiving the bread at the lords table neglected the cup? Yet Leo speaketh of the Manichees by name, and ●hose Laymen, 

Leo speaketh of Lor● 〈◊〉 though Gelas●us di●●●nt, and calleth it sacrilege in them to reframe the Lords cup.  
Mat. 26.   and mingled with the people, and calleth their forbearing the Lords blood a sacrilegious sleight: & reason were you should prove that only Priests are meant in this place of Gelasius, and not suppose what you list at your pleasures, as the gloze doth and others of your side, that stand on this answer. The words are indefinite, and touch as well people as Priest: but let us imagine that Gelasius spoke of Priests, first than you commit sacrilege in restraining all Priests from the communion of both kinds, except they say Mass themselves. Next if it be sacrilege in the Priest, why not in the people? The precept of our Saviour, drink ye all of this, compriseth all, both Laymen and Priests. His Apostle 
* 1. Cor. 11.  extendeth the same to the whole Church of Corinth. chrysostom saith 
a Chrys●st. ●●mi. 18. in. 2. Co●.  the Priest differeth nothing from the people in receiving the mysteries, but one cup is proposed to all: 
b De c●●. dist. 2. §. quaa passus.  In Chalice nobiscum vos estis: You (saith Austen to the people) are in the (Lords) cup no less than we. 
c The●phil. in 1. Cor. cap. 11.  The cup was delivered to all men (Priest and people) with like condition, as Theophilact affirmeth. 
d Paschas. de ●●rpore & sa●g. Dom. cap. 43.  Drink ye all of this, that is, saith Paschasius, as well other believers as Ministers. Hence we frame you this argument. The cup was by Christ delivered to Priest and People with like condition, and like precept: 
If it be sacrilege in the Priest, it is no less in the people.  the refusing of the lords cup is sacrilege in priests by the position of Gelasius and the confession of your friends: it is therefore no less than sacrilege for the people to refrain the same. What then is it, for you to pull the lords cup out of their hands, by rigour and force, for so trifling respects as you pretend, but apparent, violent, and wilful sacrilege?  Phi. 

They would have it to be sacrilege to withstand their fancies, and to follow Christ's commandment.  It was sacrilege then for the people to refuse or refrain the cup, because the church was content to admit them to it: But now the church is otherwise resolved, it were sacrilege to expect, or demand it.  Theo. 
What shall the man of sin and son of perdition when he cometh, (if he be not already come, and you his supporters to hold up his seat in the temple of God) say more than you now say; that you at your lists may break the commandments of the great and everlasting God, and alter his ordinances; and to blame you for it, or recall you back from your enterprise, is sacrilege? 
Esa. 5.  Woe be to you that call good evil, and evil good, which set darkness for light, and light for darkness, and put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe be to you that are (so) wise in your own eyes, and (so) prudent in your own conceits, that you prefer your own Counsel before the wisdom of God.  Philand. 
Nay you prefer your wits before the whole Church of GOD: you would not otherwise take upon you to control your forefathers and teachers in such sort as you do.  Theoph. 
If they forsook their fathers, yea GOD himself, 
We may well forsake them that forsook both God and their fathers before them.  why should we not renounce them rather as parricides than resemblance of their ancestors?  Philand. 
They were Catholics, and so are we.  Theoph. 
You leave the steps both of Christ and his Church, and yet you must and will be catholics.  Philand. 
We follow them better, than you do.  Theoph. 
So it appeareth by your half communion, which they condemned for sacrilege, and you embrace for Religion.  Phi. 
Here is such a stir about eating and drinking, as though all consisted therein, 

The Jesuits can not hear of eating and drinking at the lords table on the people's behalf, because they have discharged them from both.  
1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10. joan. 6.   and in the mean while you neglect and abolish the holy and unbloody sacrifice, which is far more Catholic, than your communion.  Theo. 
You need not make so light of eating and drinking at the lords table. There depend greater promises and duties on that, than on your unbloody sacrificing the son of God. As often as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup, ye show the lords death till he come. Without eating and drinking therefore the lords death is not showed. The bread which we break, (to be eaten) is it not the communion of Christ's body? The cup of blessing which we bless (that all may drink of it) is it not the communion of Christ's blood? If we refuse eating the one, or drinking the other, can we be partakers of Christ or his spirit? He that eateth my flesh, saith our saviour, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him: and except you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. These be the fruits, and effects of religions and worthy eating and drinking at the lords table: show us the like for your sacrificing, and we will think you had some occasion though no reason to turn the Lords Supper into an offering.  Philand. 
This one Sacrifice hath succeeded all other, 
The Rhe. Test. fol. 447. n●. 21. ●you can not drink.  and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices, and hath the force and virtue of all other, to be offered for all persons and causes that the others, for the living and the dead, for sins and for thanksgiving, and for what other necessity soever of body or soul. Be not these as great and good effects of our Sacrifice, as those which you now rehearsed for eating and drinking at the Altar? 
The sacrifice of the Mass.   Theo. 
They be great, if you had as good authority for the one as we have for the other.  Philand. 
We have better.  Theo. 
We must give you leave to say so, but you shall give us leave not to believe you.  Phi. 
All the fathers with one consent stand on our side for the Sacrifice.  Theoph. 
Were it so, that yet is many degrees beneath the credit of our conclusion. You bring us the speeches of men, we bring you the word of God: I trust you will aguise some difference betwixt them.  Phi. 
As though we could not bring you Scriptures as well as fathers for the sacrifice of the Mass.  
Melchisedec by his oblation in bread and wine did properly and most singularly prefigurate this office of Christ's eternal Priesthood, 
The Rhe. Test. fol. 447. Ibidem.  and sacrificing himself under the forms of bread● and wine: which shall continue in the Church throughout all Christian Nations in steed of all the offerings of Aaron's Priesthood, 
Their proofs for the Sacrifice of the Mass.  as the Prophet Malachi did foretell, as Saint Cyprian, Saint justine, Saint Irineus, and others the most ancient Doctors and Martyrs do testify. Cyprian epistola 63. num. 2. justin. dial. cum Trypho. post med. Iren. libro 4. capit. 32. And Saint Augustine libro 17. cap. 20. de civitat. Dei. & libro primo contra advers. leg. & prophet. ca 18. & lib. 3. de baptism. ca 19 S. Leo sermone 8. de passione: avouch that this one sacrifice hath succeeded all other, and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices, etc.  
Yea in S. Paul's epistle to the Church at Corinth the first and tenth chapter: 

The Rhe. Test. Ibidem.  
They will prove their sacrifice by S. paul himself.   We may observe that our bread and chalice, our table and altar, the participation of our host and oblation, be compared or resembled point by point, in all effects, conditions, and properties, to the altars, hosts, sacrifices, and immolatious of the jews and Gentiles. Which the Apostle would not, or could not have done in this Sacrament of the altar, rather than in other Sacraments or service of our Religion, if it only had not been a Sacrifice and the proper worship of God among the Christians, as the other were among the jews and heathen. And so do all the fathers acknowledge, calling it only, and continually almost, by such terms as they do no other Sacrament or ceremony of Christ's Religion: The Lamb of God laid upon the table: Concil. Nicen. The unbloody service of the Sacrifice, In Concil. Ephesin. epist. ad Nestor. pag. 605. The sacrifice of sacrifices: Dionys. Eccles. Hieronym. cap. 3. The quickening holy sacrifice: the unbloody host and victim: Cyril. Alex. in Concil. Ephes. Anat●. the propitiatory sacrifice both for the living and the dead. Tertul. de cor. Milit. Chrys. ho. 41. in 1. Corinth. ho. 3. ad Phil. Ho. 66. ad pop. Antioch. Cypr. epi. 66. & decaena. Do. nu. 1. August. Euch. 109. Quaest. 2. ad Dulcit. to. 4. Ser. 34. de verb. Apost. The sacrifice of our mediator: the sacrifice of our price: the sacrifice of the new Testament: the sacrifice of the Church. August. li. 9 ca 13. & li. 3. de baptist. ca 19 The one only inconsumptible victim, without which there is no Religion. Cyprian. de caen. Do. nu. 2. Chrysost. ho. 17. ad Hebr. The pure oblation, the new offspring of the new Law: the vital and impolluted host: the honourable & dreadful Sacrifice: 
God grant you may have eyes to see your follies. Not one of all these scriptures or fathers maketh for the Sacrifice of their Mass.  the Sacrifice of thanksgiving or Eucharistical: & the Sacrifice of Melchisedec. This is the Apostles and father's doctrine. God grant you may find mercy to see so evident and invincible a truth.  Theo. 
You be now where you would be; and where the fathers seem to fit your foot: But if your sacrifice be convinced to be nothing less than catholic, or consequent to the Prophets, Apostles or Father's Doctrine, what say you then to your vanity in alleging, if not impiety in abusing so many Fathers and Scriptures to prop up your follies?  Phi. 
Be not these places which we bring you for this matter, undeniable, unavoidable, indefeatable, unanswerable?  Theo. 
In any case lay on load of terms: You have made us so many in your late Rhemish testament, that now you must not seem to lack. But what if all these places need neither denying, avoiding, defeating nor answering? What if not one of these fathers, whose works you cite as thick as hops, ever spoke or heard of your external and real sacrificing the son of God afresh for the sins of the world, but they using the words Sacrifice and oblation to an other purpose, you force a private and peculiar sense of yours upon their speeches against their meanings?  Phi. 
This is ever your wont, when the words be so plain that you can not deny them, to fly to the meaning.  Theo. 
In deed this hath been not the least of Satan's sleights in conveying your Religion from step to step & point by point, to keep the speech, 
The general order of the Romish Religion is to keep the father's phrases, and to change their faith.  and change the sense of the learned and ancient fathers, that what with the phrases which were theirs, and the forgeries which were not theirs, and yet carried their names, he might make the way for Antichrist to set up his visible Monarchy of error and hypocrisy.  Phi. 
This is the way to rid yourselves of all objections.  Theoph. 
And the other is the way to drown yourselves in the depth of all corruption: but so long as we hold their faith and doctrine, which were the lights and lamps of Christ's church, we can spare you their phrases here and there scattered in their writings, & you no whit the nearer the truth of their belief.  Phi. 
You hold not their faith in this or any other point of your Religion.  Theo. 
The greatest boasters be not always the greatest conquerors: Let it therefore first appear what they teach touching the Sacrifice of the Lords table, 
How the lords supper may truly be called an oblation and a Sacrifice.  and what we admit: and then it will soon be seen which of us twain hath departed from them.  
The fathers with one consent call not your private Mass, that they never knew, but the lords Supper a Sacrifice, which we both willingly grant and openly teach: so their text, not your gloze may prevail. For there besides the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, which we must then offer to God for our redemption & other his graces bestowed on us in Christ his son: besides the dedication of our souls and bodies to be a reasonable, quick, and holy sacrifice to serve and please him: besides the 
There are four kinds of Sacrifices in the Lord's supper, and not one of them is the popish Sacrifice.  contribution and alms then given in the primative Church for the relief of the poor and other good uses: a Sacrifice no doubt very acceptable to God: I say besides these three sundry sorts of offerings incident to the lords table, the very Supper itself is 
There are four kinds of Sacrifices in the Lord's supper, and not one of them is the popish Sacrifice.  a public memorial of that great & dreadful sacrifice, I mean, of the death & bloodshedding of our saviour, and a most assured application of the merits of his passion, for the remission of our sins, not to the gazers on, or standers by, but to those that with faith and repentance come to the due receiving of those mysteries.  
The visible sacrifice of bread and wine representing the Lord's death S. Austen enforceth in these words: 
August. de side ad Pe●●. cap. 19  Hold most firmly, neither doubt of this in any case, that the only begotten son of God taking our flesh offered himself a sweet smelling sacrifice to god, to whom with the father & the holy ghost, the patriarchs, Prophets, & Priests under the old law sacrificed brute beasts, & to whom now, in the time of the new Testament, with the (same) father & holy spirit, the holy Catholic Church throughout the world doth not cease to of●er the sacrifice of bread and wine in faith & charity. In those carnal Sacrifices there was a figuration of the flesh of Christ, which he should offer, & blood which he should shed for the remission of our sins: In this sacrifice there is a 
The Catholic Church offereth bread and wine to God for a thanksgiving in remembrance of his sons death. Our Sacrifice is the giving of thanks and remembering of his death.  thanksgiving & remembrance of the flesh which he hath offered and blood which the same god hath shed for us. With him agreeth Ireneus: Christ 
b Irineus, lib. 4. cap. 32.  willing his Disciples to offer unto God the first fruits of his creatures (not that god needed them, but lest they should be found unfruitful or unthankful) took the creature of bread and gave thanks saying this is my body. And likewise he confessed the cup which is a creature amongst us to be his blood teaching the new oblation of the new Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the world. 
c 
Ibidem. cap. 34.  
The Church offereth to God of his creatures with thanksgiving: & sanctifying that which the faithful receive at the Lords table.   We must then offer to god, & in all things yield thanks to god the maker with a pure mind, unfeigned faith, steadfast hope, and fervent love, offering the first fruits of his Creatures: and this oblation the Church only sacrificeth in purity to the creator, offering to God of his creatures with thanksgiving. And this we offer to him not as if he stood in need (of these presents) but rendering him thanks for these his gifts, and sanctifying the creature.  
This oblation of bread & wine for a thanksgiving to God, & a memorial of his sons death was so confessed & undoubted a truth in the church of Christ, till your Schoolmen began to wrest both Scriptures and Fathers to serve their quiddities, that not only the Liturgies under the names of Clemens, Basil, and chrysostom do mention it: (
d Clemens. Apost constitutio. lib. 8. cap. 17.  We offer to thee our king and God this bread & this cup according to thy sons institution: 
e Liturg. Chrys. & Basil.  tua ex tuis offerimus tibi domine, we offer thee O Lord these thy gifts of thine own (creatures.) Which sense Irineus 
f Lib. 4. cap. 34.  urgeth against valentine,) but also the very Missals used in your own Churches at this day do confirm the same. These be the words of your own Offertory: 
g 
Offertorium Missae.  
Their own Mass-book is against the sacrifice which they defend to be in their mass.   Receive holy Father, God everlasting, this undefiled host, which I thine unworthy servant offer to thee my king and true God, for my sins, negligences, and offences innumerable, for all standers by, yea for all faithful christians as well living as departed this life, that it may help me & them to attain eternal life. 
h Ibidem.  We offer to thee O Lord this cup of salvation, entreating thy goodness that it may be taken up into thy sight, as a sweet smell for the saving of us & the whole world. 
i Ibidem.  Receive blessed Trinity this oblation which we offer to thee in remembrance of the passion, resurrection, & ascension of Christ jesus our Lord. 
k Ibidem.  We humbly beseech thee most merciful father through jesus Christ thy son our Lord that thou accept & bless these gifts, these presents, these holy undefiled sacrifices, which we offer to thee first for thy Church, holy and catholic etc. For all true believers etc. For all here present etc. For the redemption of their souls, and hope of salvation.  


By their own books it is evident that they do not sacrifice Christ, but the creatu●es of bread and wine.  
Mark this contradiction in their mass-book to the sacrifice which the jesuits pretend.   Certainly you speak these words long before you repeat Christ's institution, your Mass-book doth apparently prove that which I report, if I mistake the secrets of your mass, let the shame be mine. What then offer you in this place? Christ, or the creatures of bread & wine? By your own doctrine Christ is not present, neither any change made till these words, This is my body, this is my blood, be pronounced, ergo before consecration the creatures of bread & wine keep their proper & earthly substance, when notwithstanding yourselves offer them to God in your masses for the remission of your sins, redemption of your souls, & to profit the quick & the dead by that oblation. You teach the people that nothing is offered by the priest to god the father for remission of sins, but Christ his son: Your mass, where this should be done, convinceth that you sacrifice not Christ, but the creatures of bread & wine. Be you not more than blind which see not that the prayers which you daily frequent refute the sacrifice which you falsely pretend?  Phi. 
As though the ancient fathers did not also say that Christ himself is daily offered in the church.  Theo. 
Not in the substance which is your error, but in signification, which is their doctrine & ours. Take their interpretation with their words & they make nothing for your local & external offering of christ. 
l 
Aug. ad Bonif. epist. 23.  
Christ is offered not in substance but in a Sacrament or representation of his death.   Was not Christ, saith Austen, once sacrificed in himself? and yet in a sacrament is he offered for the benefit of the people, not every Paschal feast only but every day. Neither doth he lie, that when the question is asked him, answereth, Christ is offered (daily.) For if Sacraments had not a certain similitude of the things, whereof they be sacraments, they should be no Sacraments at al. And by reason of this similitude they usually take the names of the things themselves. Christ is offered daily: this is true, saith Austen, but how? The communion is a sacrament of the Lords death; & sacraments have the names of the things themselves from a certain resemblance that is between them. This doctrine differeth much from yours, and yet must Austen stand for a christian and Catholic father, when you by your patience shall go for upstarts.  Phi. 
S. Augustine spoke this not of the lively flesh & blood of Christ which we sacrifice to god the father by the priests hands for the sins & necessities of men: 
Christ slain for our sins is the true sacrifice of the Lords table.  but of his death & passion represented at our mass by the holy mysteries.  The. 
In deed S. Augustin spoke of that he knew: as for your conceit of sacrificing the lively flesh & blood of Christ in substance under the forms of bread & wine by the priests hands; neither he, nor any good author was ever acquainted with it. And to say the truth the very spring & root of your error is this that you seek for a sacrifice in the Lord's supper, besides the Lord's death. Mark well the words of Cyprian. 
a Cypr. li. 2. ep. 3.  The passion of the Lord is the sacrifice which we offer: Of Ambrose, 
b Ambros. in 10. ca epist. ad Heb.  Our high priest is he that offered (on the cross) a sacrifice to cleanse us: the very same we offer now; which being then offered cannot be consumed; this Sacrifice is a sampler of that, we offer that very sacrifice for ever: Of Eusebius, 
c Euseb. de demonst. evang. lib. 1. cap. 10.  Christ after all things (ended) offered a wondered oblation & most excellent sacrifice (on the cross) for the salvation of us all, & gave us a memory thereof in stead of a sacrifice: we therefore offer the remembrance of that great sacrifice in the mysteries which he delivered us. Of Chrysost. 
d Chrys. in Mat. hom. 83.  Bringing these mysteries we stop the mouths of those that ask, how we prove that Christ was sacrificed (on the cross.) For if jesus were not slain, whose sign and token is this sacrifice? Of Austen, 
e Aug. contra Faust. l. 20. c. 21.  We sacrifice to God in that only manner, in which he commanded we should offer to him at the revealing of the new Testament: the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was yielded in very truth when Christ was put to death: after his ascension it is now solemnised by a Sacrament of memory.  
The very elements and actions of the lords Supper convince no less. 
The actions and elements of the supper resemble his death.  The bread which we break, what else doth it represent, but the lords body that was broken for us? The cup, which we drink, what else doth it resemble save the lords blood that was shed for our sakes? 
f De cons. dist. 2. § cum frangitur.  When the host is broken, and the blood poured out of the cup into the mouths of the faithful, what other thing, saith Prosper, is thereby designed, than the offering of the lords body on the cross, and the shedding of his blood from his side? 
g 1. Cor. cap. 11. As Christ is crucified in the mystical supper, even so is he offered.  As often as you shall eat this bread and drink of this cup, you show forth the lords death till he come: saith Paul. There can be no question of this, the spirit of god hath spoken it. Then if the death of Christ be the sacrifice which the church offereth, it is evident that christ is not only sacrificed at this table: but also crucified: & crucified in that self same sort & sense that he is sacrificed: but no man is so mad as to defend that christ is really put to death in these mysteries: ergo neither is he really sacrificed under the forms of bread & wine: which thing yourselves have lately ventured & rashly presumed without all antiquity.  
The catholic fathers I can assure you say, christ is offered, & christ is crucified in the Lord's supper indifferently. So jerom, 
h Hier. in ps. 95.  Christ is every day crucified to us. So Chrysostom, 
i Chrysost. in acta Apost. hom. 21.  The death of christ is here performed. So Gregory, 
k De cons. dist. 2. § quid sit sanguis.  Christ dieth again in this mystery, & his flesh suffereth for the salvation of the people: so to conclude, Austen, 
l Aug. evang. quaest, l. 2. ca 38.  The gentiles now through the whole world taste & lick the passion of Christ in the sacraments of his body & blood. If you can expound this you shall not need to stagger at the rest. The church hath no Sacrifice propitiatory besides the death of her Saviour, and therefore as she doth kill him, so she doth offer him in her mysteries. If you can not, learn by the direction of your own decrees, what doctrine was taught in the primative church, and even in your own church for 1300. years touching this matter. 
m De cons. dist. 2. § hoc est quod al●imus.  The offering of the (Lords) flesh, by the Priest's hands is called the passion, death, and crucifying of Christ, Non rei veritate, sed significant mysterio, Not in precise truth, but in a mystical signification, or it your gloze delight you rather, 
n Glossa de cons. dist. 2. § quid sit sanguis.  In this mystery Christ dieth, that is his death is represented; his flesh suffereth, that is his passion is represented.  
In this very sense Christ is offered daily. Chrysostom, 
o Chrysost. in 10. cap. epis●●d Hebr.  Do we not offer every day? we do: but a memorial of his death. We do not offer an other sacrifice, but ever the same or rather we continue the remembrance of that sacrifice. Ambrose, 
p Ambr. in 11. ca epist. 1. ad Cor.  Because we were delivered by the Lord's death, we bearing that in mind do signify with eating and drinking the flesh and blood that were offered for us: It is a memorial of our redemption. Eusebius, 
q Eusebale demonstra. Euangelic. lib. 1. ca 10.  Christ offered a wonderful sacrifice for the salvation of us all, & we have received a memorial of that most sacred oblation to be performed at the lords table according to the rule of the new testament. Augustin, 
r 
August. 83. quaest. cap 61.  
Christ is offered at the table, that is a sacrament & similitude of his death is celebrated.   Christ is our high priest after the order of Melchisedec, which yielded himself a slain sacrifice for our sins, and gave us a similitude & image of that oblation to be celebrated for a remembrance of his passion, in so much that we may see that, which Melchisedec offered to God, now sacrificed in the church of Christ throughout the world.  
Emissenus, 
s 
De cons dist. 2. § quia corpus.  
This is Christian & comfortable doctrine.   Considering that Christ was to take his body from our eyes & place the same in the heavens, it was requisite he should institute the sacrament of his body and blood for us at his last supper, that it might always be continued in a mystery, which was once offered for a ransom, & because the work of our redemption did never fail, the sacrifice of our redemption might be perpetual, and that everlasting oblation (of Christ on the cross) might remain fresh in memory and present for ever in grace.  

Theod. in cap. 8. ad Hebr.  Theodorete, If Christ (by his own sacrifice on the cross) brought to pass, that other sacrifices should be superfluous, why do the Priests of the new Testament execute the mystical liturgy or Sacrifice? It is clear to them that are instructed in our mysteries, that we do not offer an other sacrifice, but continue the memory of that one and healthful Sacrifice. For so the Lord himself commanded us, do this in my remembrance, that in beholding the figures, we should remember the pains which he suffered for us, & bear a loving heart towards him that did us so much favour, and expect the receiving of good things to come (which he promised.)  

Theoph. in 10. cap. ad Hebr●os.  Theophilact, Do we then offer unbloody sacrifices? No doubt we doe● marry by being a remembrance of the Lords death. He was once offered, and yet we offer him always, or rather we celebrate the memorial of that oblation, when he sacrificed himself (on the cross.)  
Receive this addition which they make; and we grant you that oblation, which they teach. Christ is offered, or rather a memorial of his death and oblation is celebrated. 
What sacrifice the fathers taught, and offered.  This later correction doth expound and interpret their former assertion. You can require no plainer, nor sounder doctrine. They pies not Christ with their hands, they shroud him not in accidences, they pray not for him, that God 
* Canon Missae supra § propitio ac sereno vultu.  will vouchsafe to respect and accept him as he did the gifts and (external) sacrifices of Abel, Abraham and Melchisedec, as you do in your Masses: they never told us the very fact and intention of the Priest were meritorious; these be your absurdities and blasphemies: They did offer an 
a Liturgia Basilij.  unbloody sacrifice not of flesh but of Spirit and mind, 
b Cypr. li. 2. epist. 3. & August. 83. quaest. ca 3.  the selfsame which Melchisedec did two thousand years before Christ took flesh, and therefore not the flesh of Christ: a 
c Dionys. eccles. hierach. cap. 3.  figurative sacrifice, to wit, Signs, Samplars, Similitudes and Memorials of his death and bloodshedding. So that Christ is offered daily but Mystically, not covered with qualities and quantities of bread and wine; for those be neither mysteries nor resemblances to the death of Christ: 
d 
Paschal. de cons. dist. 2. § iteratur.  
The true exposition of the Sacrifice at the lords table.   but by the bread which is broken, by the wine which is drunk, in substance creatures, in signification Sacraments, the lords death is figured & proposed to the communicants, and they for their parts, no less people than Priest, do present Christ hanging on the cross to God the father, with a lively faith, inward devotion, and humble prayer, as a most sufficient and everlasting Sacrifice for the full remission of their sins and assured fruition of his mercies. Other actual and propitiatory sacrifice than this the church of Christ never had, never taught.  
You believe not me. Well, what if your own fellows and friends teach the same? What if the master of your Sentences, what if the Glozer of your decrees, what if the Ringleader of your Schoolmen make with us in this question, and evince, that for twelve hundred years after Christ your Sacrifice was not known to the world: 

How long the Church was without their kind of sacrifice.  
Sententiarum. lib. dist. 12.   will you give the people leave to bethink themselves better, before they call you or account you catholics? Then hear what they say: Peter Lombard in his 4. book and 12. distinction. I demand whether that which the Priest doth be properly called a Sacrifice or an oblation, and whether Christ be daily offered, or else were offered only once. 
The master of the sentences is against the jesuits in the sacrifice of their Mass.  To this our answer is brief: that which is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory & representation of the true sacrifice, & holy oblation made on the altar of the cross. Also Christ died once on the cross, and there was he offered himself, but he is offered daily in a sacrament, because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once done. Now what this meaneth, Christ is offered in a sacrament, we need no fairer interpretation than that which your own gloze often repeateth: 
f Glossa. de cons. dist. 2. ¶ semel.  Christ is offered in a sacrament, that is, his offering is represented, & a memory of his passion celebrated. 
g § in Christo.  It is the same oblation which he made, * that is, a representation of the same passion. 
h § Iteratur.  Christ is offered every day mystically, * that is, the oblation which Christ made for us is represented in the sacrament of his body & blood.  

Thom. part. 3. qu●est. 83. art. 1.  With these concurreth Thomas of Aquine. Because the celebration of this Sacrament is a certain Image of Christ's passion, it may conveniently be called the sacrificing of Christ. The celebration of this Sacrament is termed the immolating of Christ in two respects: First, for that, as Austen saith, resemblances are wont to be called by the names of those things whose resemblances they are; next 
* 
The latter schoolmen since Thomas mistaking the former, turned these words to opus operatum, and taught the Priest's act to be the right mean to apply Christ's death to the quick and the dead.  
Can their doctrine be Catholic that so lately was unknown to their own fellows?  
24. places cited by the jesuits in their testament to no purpose, and so 14. by the maker of their Apology.   for that by this sacrament we be made partakers of the fruit of the lords passion. Here find you no real, local, nor external offering of Christ to God his father by the Priest for the sins of the people; which is your opinion at this day; you find that the celebration of the lords supper may be called an oblation, first, for that it is a representation of Christ's death, and sacraments have the names of the things which they signify; next, because the merits and fruits of Christ's passion are by the power of his spirit divided and bestowed on the faithful receivers of these mysteries.  
Now boast of your Catholic doctrine, that your prattling Sophists and wandering Friars invented but yesterday; now call for your sovereign Sacrifice not only repugnant to the sacred Scriptures and ancient fathers, but rejected by the Mintmaster of your sentences, refuted by the conclusions of your Seraphical Doctor, shunned by your rude Gloze-maker, and clean thwart to the Canon of your ordinary Mass. If you speed no better in the rest of your causes, a worse name than fugitives will become you and your companions well enough, without peril of slander or breach of charity.  
These foundations lying sure; to wit, that the creatures of bread and wine are offered to God for a thanksgiving, when they be sanctified and received according to his sons institution, and that Christ himself is daily offered and crucified in a mystery, because the breaking of his body, and shedding of his blood on the cross are proposed and renewed by the bread which we eat, and cup which we drink at the lords table; these conclusions I say standing good we receive the four and twenty places which here you huddle, and the fourteen which the Penman of your Apology hath shuffled into his sixth chapter, (being for the most part the same that these are, and the rest weaker than these;) and affirm that not one of them teacheth any other sacrifice than we have showed and confessed, and that is no such offering as you avouch and defend at this day to be in your Mass. For you will have a real, external and corporal kind of offering the live fle●● of Christ by the Priest's hands, under the forms of bread and wine to God the father for the sins of men: 
Their real & actual sacrifice must needs be made with hands, and so the gestures of the Priests hands is all the sacrifice the Jesuits have.  and this manual service or act of the Priest you avouch to be meritorious and propitiatory for those that can purchase the Priests good will to be mindful of them in his memento.  
This is, we say, a wicked invention of yours, not the assertion of any father: They celebrated and solemnised the lords death by sanctifying the creatures as Christ ordained, and by dividing them to such as were faithful and thankful to God for the redemption of the world in the blood of his son: and this their incitation and provocation of all men to faith, prayer, thanks and obedience was the acceptable service and Sacrifice of the new testament. To this we would recall you, by telling you that God careth not for the Priests hands, 
What Sacrifice it is that God regardeth.  but for the people's hearts, and that he requireth not one man's crossing, but the whole Churches calling on him with one heart and one mouth, that he may be honoured, and we comforted in the death of his son. And this was it that Malachi foretold, and not the Priests holding up the Chalice, or cleanly conveying the paten, as he must in your Sacrifice.  Phi. 
The Prophet Malachi did plainly foretell (our Sacrifice) as S. Cyprian, 
The Rhemish Test. fol. 447. Malac. 1.  S. justine, S. Ireneus, and other most ancient Doctors and Martyrs do testify.  Theo. 
Why? What said the Prophet Malachi?  Phi. 
I have no will to you, saith our Lord of Saboth (to the jewish Priests) and a gift will I not receive of your hands. For from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place A CLEAN OBLATION IS OFFERED AND SACRIFICED TO MY NAME.  Theo. 
Malachi doth not say it shall be offered at the Altar, or by the Priest's hands, or under the forms of bread & wine: 
The prophecy of Malachi discussed.  but a pure oblation is offered unto my name.  Phi. 
And what oblation can be so pure, as the body and blood of Christ?  Theo. 
Neither saith he, the purest, but a pure oblation is offered,  Phi. 
What other oblation hath the new Testament, but only that?  Theo. 
Sacrifice for sin it hath none, but that which the son of God made on the cross: marry yet the new Testament teacheth us other oblations besides that: though I confess all our words and works, & even ourselves must be washed and sanctified in that sacrifice: before we, or any thing that we say or do can be acceptable unto God.  Phi. 
What oblations doth the new Testament teach us besides that?  Theo. 
You have not forgotten, I dare say, what Peter saith. 

1. Pet. 2.  
What sacrifices the new testament teacheth us to offer unto God.   And ye as lively stones be made a spiritual house, and an holy Priesthood, to offer up spiritual Sacrifices acceptable unto God by jesus Christ.  Phi. 
Why may not S. Peter speak that of the anointed Priests, and their true sacrifices?  Theo. 
So he doth, but he meaneth all Christians, and not your shavelings.  Phi. 
You would pick a quarrel to holy oil: but you be not yet at rest from the sacrifice. Why may not S. Peter I pray you speak of the blessed Mass?  Theo. 
Because he speaketh to all both men and women: and telleth them of a blesseder matter than your mass, that is of the true spiritual sacrifices, in which god taketh more pleasure than in your mumbling of fruitless Masses.  Phi. 
What are those?  Theo. 
S. Paul uttereth two of them almost in one sentence. 
a 
Hebr. 13.  
The Sacrifice of praise.  
Of mercy.   Let us therefore by him offer the Sacrifice of praise always to God, that is, the fruit of lips confessing his name. To do good and distribute forget not: for with such sacrifices God is pleased; which liberality else where he calleth 
b Phil. 4.  a sweet smelling odour, and a sacrifice acceptable and pleasant to God. A third kind of Sacrifice is that which he mentioneth to the Romans. 
c Rom. 12. Of ourselves.  I beseech you brethren by the mercies of God, that you give up your bodies a living SACRIFICE, holy and acceptable unto God (which is) your reasonable serving of God.  Phi. 
These were Sacrifices of the old Testament as well as of the new. For David saith, 
d Psal. 115.  To thee will I sacrifice the offerings of praise, and call upon the name of our Lord: and of the next, 
Eccles. 35. Psal. 50.  He that showeth mercy, offereth a Sacrifice: and so of the third, 
These be the sacrifices of the new testament, which God requireth at our hands, and of which Malachi speaketh.  A sacrifice to God is a spirit, afflicting himself with penance.  Theo. 
Keep your penances to stuff puddings. The sacrifice to God is a troubled (or a broken) spirit. We will not now strive for words. These you see be Sacrifices of the old Testament as well as of the new.  Theo. 
And therefore the truer and purer Sacrifices. For the rest were shadows, these were none: and so those were abolished, which these were not.  Phi. 
But Malachi speaketh of a new Sacrifice that was never before.  Theo. 
He speaketh of the true Sacrifice, which from the beginning and so to the end, was and shall be more acceptable to God than the bloody and external sacrifices of the jews: Of a new Sacrifice, that never was before he speaketh nothing for aught that I can see.  Phi. 
The sacrifice which Christ made of himself under the forms of bread and wine, was a new sacrifice.  Theo. 
Very new, if any such were made.  Phi. 
Of that Malachi speaketh.  Theo. 
Who told you so?  Phi. 
S. Cyprian, S. justine, S. Ireneus, and others.  Theo. 
You might do well to speak more directly for now we know not whether you allege them to expound the Prophet Malachi, 
The Jesuits in alleging the father's use such cunning that a man can hardly perceive to what end they name them.  or whether you make them Prophets to tell what shall continue in the Church throughout all Christian Nations in stead of all Aaron's offerings.  Phi. 
They will tell you the meaning of Malachi.  Theo. 
They will in deed: but you neither quote them right, nor apply them right, if you cite them to show that your Massing Sacrifice was forespoken of by the Prophet Malachi.  Phi. 
No? why?  Theo. 
Cyprian in that epistle maketh no mention of Malachi, nor of his words: 
Three fathers abused by the jesuits to pervert the words of Malachi  justinus and Ireneus allege him; marry not for the Priest's act in offering the son of God, nor for Christ's secret lodging under the forms of bread, but for the prayers and thanks that all the faithful give to GOD, when they come to be partakers of this mystery.  Philand. 
They say Malachies words are performed in the Eucharist.  Theo. 
Not by the priests hands or gestures, but by the people's hearts and voices.  Philand. 
Those be your shifts.  Theoph. 
Go to, you shifters: is it not enough for you to beguile the simple with empty sounds, shows, and names, but you will resist a manifest truth when you are sure to have it proved to your faces?  


Cyprian in that place which they cite doth not so much as speak of Malachi.  
Cyp. ad Quirinun lib. 1. cap. 16.   Cyprian in his 63. epistle meddleth not with Malachies words, but if you would in deed learn what he thought or wrote of that prophesy, and what he counted to be the Sacrifice that Malachi foretold, turn to his instructions given to Quirinus against the jewest, he first book and 16. chapter, where he proveth that the old sacrifice should be abolished, and a new succeed: and there you shall find him expound it to be Sacrificium laudis & justitiae: the Sacrifice of praise and righteousness, and that by no worse man's authority than David's.  
justinus I grant allegeth the words, and saith, God (in that speech) doth witness, that all the sacrifices, which Christ jesus appointed to be done in his name, at the Eucharist of bread (and wine) are acceptable to him. But what Sacrifices they were, which Christ delivered and prescribed in the Eucharist for his, to do, the words of justinus that presently follow do perfectly open. 

Iustin●●n Dial. cum Tryphone advers. judaeos.  
justinus restraineth the words of Malachi to prayers and thanks: other sacrifice he acknowledgeth none in the Lord's supper.   Preces quidem & gratiarum actiones bonorum perfectas solas esse & Deo gratas hostias ego quoque concedo. Haec enim sola facienda acceperunt Christiani in aridi humidique sui cibi commemoratione, in quo, mortis quam per se perpessus● est Deus Dei filius memoria re colitur. That the prayers and thanks of the good are the only perfect sacrifices and pleasant to God I confess. For these only (sacrifices) have the christians received to be done in the celebration of that their (Eucharistical) food & liquor, in which the memory of the death of the son of God, who himself was God, is renewed. You should have spared the very quoting of this place by mine advise: for if all the Preachers in England would have laid their heads together in words to cross your actual & corporal sacryficing the flesh of Christ, they could not have done it in quicker and smarter speech.  
Ireneus maketh even as much for you, as justinus did: for he not only subverteth your real sacrificing of Christ, when he teacheth that the church offereth the creatures of bread and wine in token of her thankfulness unto God: but the very words of Malachi he expoundeth by S. john's authority for the prayers of the Saints. 
Irenae. li. 4. ca 33  Benè ait, & in omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem johan. in Apocalypsi orationes ait esse Sanctorum. 
* Ibidem. cap. 34  Et ideo nos quoque offerre vult munus ad altar frequenter sine intermissione. Est ergo altare in coelis. 
Ireneus expoundeth Malachies words of prayer, obedience, and thanksgiving as we do.  Illuc enim preces nostrae & oblationes nostrae diriguntur. Well saith God (by Malachi) In every place incense is offered to my name and a pure sacrifice. Now incense john in his Apocalypse calleth the prayers of the Saints. And therefore (God) will have us offer a gift at (his) altar continually without intermission. The altar is in heaven. Thither are our prayers and oblations directed.  Phi. 
Yet S. Irenens applieth the words of Malachi to the Eucharist.  Theo. 
He doth, but that sacrifice he saith is the offering unto God the first fruits of his creatures for a thanksgiving: and with that restriction he limiteth the word offerimus which he often useth: 

Iren. lib. 4. ca 34,  
Ireneus teacheth not the offering of Christ to his father but of creatures for a sign of thankfulness.  
Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34   Offer igitur oportet Deo primitias eius creaturae. Offerimus einon quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes donationi eius, & sanctificantes creaturam. We must offer to God (but) the first fruits of his creatures. We offer to him not that he wanteth, but giving him thanks for his bountifulness, and sanctifying the creature. Here is a sacrifice of thanksgiving for his mercies, & not Christ, but the creatures of bread and wine offered unto God with prayer, and other christian duties which he nameth, as clean thoughts, faith without hypocrisy, firm hope, fervent dilection: these are the sacrifices of the new Testament & of the Lords table, not proper to the priest, but common to the people: nor finished with the hands, but performed with the spirit of man, which is the true service of the second covenant.  Phi. 
You turn and wind the Scriptures as you please: but sure the Prophet Malachi directly toucheth our Sacrifice. 
The rest of the fathers interpret Malachies words after the same manner.   Theo. 
You dream so earnestly of it, that all the Fathers in Christ's church can not pull you from it. What Cyprian, justine, and Ireneus write of this prophesy you do or may understand by that which is said; if the number be too small you may have more, to assure you that the Prophet never thought of your real and corporal sacrificing of Christ's flesh to God the Father by the priests fingers.  
Tertullian alleging the very words, 
a Tertul. adver. Iud. eos.  Et in omni loco offerentur munda Sacrificia nomini meo. In every place shall there be brought clean Sacrifices unto my name: addeth, Indubitatè, quod in omni terra exire habebat praedicatio Apostolorum. Undoubtedly (the Prophet Malachi meaneth) that the preaching of the Apostles was to be spread over all the earth. Against Martion he sayeth, 
b Tertul. adver. Marc. lib. 4.  Et in omni loco Sacrificium nomine meo offeretur, & sacrificium mundum, scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura. In every place shall there be offered in my name a sacrifice, and that a clean sacrifice, to wit, sincere prayer from a pure conscience. So Eusebius. 
c Euseb. de demonst. evang. lib. 1. cap. 6.  Where (Malachi) doth say, that incense and sacrifice are offered to God in every place, what else meaneth he but that (it is done) in every Country and in all Nations, which in deed were to offer to the most high God the incense of prayer and sacrifice which is called clean, no longer by blood, but by godly works. Now what those works were, cyril will teach you. 
d Cyril. contra Iulia●●m ●i. 10.  We use sacrifices, but of the spirit and mind. For we have a precept that leaving the gross service (of the jews) we should yield a subtle, fine and spiritual sacrifice. And therefore we offer unto God for a sweet smell, all sorts of virtues, faith, hope, charity, justice, continence, obedience, mildness, perpetual praises, and other (such) virtues. So Hierom. 
e Hie. in Zachariam lib. 2. ca 8.  Incense is offered to the name of the Lord in every place and a clean sacrifice not in the oblations of the old Testament, but in the holiness of evangelical purity, of which incense we read in other places (as when David sayeth,) Let my prayer be directed as incense, in thy sight, and the lifting up of mine hands (as) an Evening sacrifice. So Augustine: 
f August. contr. litter. Petilia. li 2. cap. 86.  Hear ye (donatists) the Lord saying (thus) by his Prophet, In every place shall incense be yielded to my name and a pure sacrifice. With this sacrifice of your brethren, which God (most) respecteth, you show yourselves, by your cavilling, to be grieved, and if at any time you hear the name of the Lord to be praised from East to West, which is the lively sacrifice, whereof it is written, Offer to God the sacrifice of praise, your countinances hang as did that homicides (which slew his brother.)  Phi. 
This nothing infringeth our assertion.  Theo. 
But this declareth the meaning of Malachi.  Phi. 
Our oblation is a sacrifice of praise & thanksgiving.  Theo. 
Had you kept yourselves there and not run farther to fancies of your own framing, and Uictimes (as you call them) of your own presuming, you might have offered that clean sacrifice foretold by Malachi, which now you do not.  Phi. 
You will not have his words pertain to the Eucharist.  Theo. 
You will never speak truth so long as you may shift with facing.  Phi. 
Confess you then that Malachi spoke of the Eucharist? 
We strive not for the word sacrifice which the Jesuits very diligently prove, but for their kind of sacrifice, which they cannot prove by the testimony of any one father.   The. 
With all our hearts.  Phi. 
You be now over the shoes in your own cistern.  The. 
But it doth me no hurt, for I feel no wet.  Phi. 
You grant the Eucharist to be a sacrifice which your fellows will be angry with you for.  Theo. 
Neither they, nor I, ever denied the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. The very name enforceth it to be the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, which is the true and lively sacrifice of the new Testament.  Phi. 
I thought you would back again.  Theo. 
I am now as farfoorth as ever I was, or as any of these ancient fathers are, which have expounded the words of Malachi.  Phi. 
Then you must affirm it to be a sacrifice.  Theo. 
Leave this foolish repeating and often inculcating that which neither benefiteth you, nor annoyeth us. 

In what sense the Lords supper is both a Sacrament & a Sacrifice.  
Our duties to God, are our sacrifices.   The lords table in respect of his graces & mercies there proposed to us is an heavenly banquet which we must eat, & not sacrifice: but the duties which he requireth at our hands when we approach to his table, are sacrifices, not sacraments: as namely to offer him thanks and praise, faith and obedience, yea our bodies and souls to be living, holy, and acceptable sacrifices unto him, which is our reasonable serving of him.  Phi. 
This must be done when we receive the sacrament, but this is no part of the Sacrament. 
From these sacrifices the Eucharist hath his name▪   Theoph. 
These be the conditions without which God will not have us come to his Table, and for these respects the Eucharist hath his name, thereby to put us in mind of our duties.  Phi. 
We do not deny these sacrifices to be good and holy, and then most requisite, when we draw nearest unto God, as at his table, but we add that the very sacrament itself is a sacrifice, and the celebration thereof is a continuance of that oblation which Christ made in his own person on the Altar of the cross.  Theo. 
This we grant to be most true in that sense which Saint Augustine and other ancient and Catholic Fathers do avouch it: that is, because Sacraments have the names of those things whose Sacraments they are. 
This sacrament hath the similitude, and therefore the name of Christ's death and passion▪  And since this is the Sacrament of the Lords death and a passion, we do not stick to say that Christ is daily crucified and sacrificed for the sins of the world: marry not really, or corporally, but by way of a mystery; that is his cross and bloodshedding are proclaimed and confirmed in the eyes of all the faithful by these signs of his death, and seals of his truth, by which he first witnessed that his body should be broken, and his blood shed for the remission of our sins.  Philand. 
Why then refuse you the father's expressing their opinion of this sacrifice? 
The jesuits are very plentiful in heaping impertinent allegations.   Theo. 
Nay, why do you abuse their words, to support your errors: and wheresoever you find the names of sacrifice and oblation in them referred to the lords supper, why allege you the places with such confidence as if the fathers were at your commandment, to mean nothing but your real sacrificing the son of God under the forms of bread and wine?  Phi. 
What other meaning could they have?  Theo. 
I have already showed you by their own writings what other meaning they had.  Phi. 
You say, they call it a sacrifice, because it is a sign and memorial of his death on the cross.  Theo. 
That is sufficient to show their meaning.  Phi. 
But their words are so weighty, that a cold and naked signification, doth not answer the force of them. 
The Rhe. Test▪ pag. 447.  The Lamb of God laid upon the table: conc. Nice. The quickening holy sacrifice: the unbloody host and victim. Cyril. Alex. in conc. Ephes. Anath. 11. The only inconsumptible victim, without which there is no religion. 
All these fathers speak of Christ's body broken and blood shed on the cross which are resembled in this sacrament.  Cypr. de caen. Dom. nu. 2. Chrys. hom. 17 ad Heb. The sacrifice of our price. Aug. confess. lib. 9 cap. 13.  Theo. 
What a patching you keep to no purpose?  Phi. 
Dare you attribute these speeches to the creatures of bread and wine?  Theo. 
Dare you attribute them to the priests external gestures? Is his act the lamb of God, or the price of our ransom, or the holy and quickening sacrifice?  Phi. 
No, but the flesh and blood of Christ are, which the Priest offereth, as we say, to God for the sins of the people.  Theo. 

The power of Christ's death the jesuits attribute to the Priest's act.  To what end then allege you these places for the Priest's act, which show the worthiness of Christ's sacrifice, and the power of his death?  Phil. 
Our sacrifice worketh those effects.  Theo. 
And so doth ours.  Phi. 
Then you be of our opinion.  Theo. 
As though we did resist you touching the thing that is offered, and not touching the manner of offering. That Christ is the lamb of God laid on the lords table before the eyes of our minds, that his flesh wounded and blood shed for our sins are an holy quickening, and ever during sacrifice, and the most sufficient price of our redemption, we urge this against you, you need not urge it against us, we fully and faithfully teach it: The question between us, is how this sacrifice once made on the Cross is daily renewed in our mysteries.  

The Jesuits sacrifice.  You will have a real, corporal, and local proffering of Christ's flesh to God the father under the forms of bread and wine made by the priests external actions and gestures for the sins of such as he lift: this is we say a wicked and blasphemous mockery. His passion is the true oblation of the church: his flesh wounded and blood shed are the only sacrifices for sin: which oblation that it might be always in our hearts and sights, he hath commanded us to continue in his church, by a memorial of his own erecting: and to apply the same to ourselves by a steadfast hope in his mercies & humble prayer unto his holiness as often as we approach to his table to be partakes of his death & merits. 
How the death of Christ is both offered and applied.  And therefore the priests act can no way be available for those that stand by & look on, and neither communicate with him in prayer or in the participation of the mysteries. And your alleging four and twenty places of the fathers for this kind of sacrifice, of which they never thought, showeth what fidelity and sincerity you have used in the rest of your Rhemish observations, which you sent over but to occupy men's heads, whiles you were working an other feat.  Phi. 
What feat could we have in hand, 
Your feat was to prepare the people against a day.  but the testifying of truth to our Country men, & that we have done to the utter confutation of your heretical doctrine?  The. 
You must needs confute us, for besides abusing of scriptures, which you wind like a with about your fingers: where the Fathers will not serve your turns, you will force them even by scores t● depose what you list: and though they use but general and indifferent words, yet you will by and by quote them to be of your opinion. 
A man may soon pe●uer● the fathers by scores, as the jesuits have done in their Testament.   Phi. 
Where have we so done?  Theo. 
Omit the places that are passed in this beadrole of Fathers which here are brought, show but one that ever mentioned your kind of sacrifice, we will trouble you no farther, you shall set up your Mass again.  Phi. 
What we shall not.  Theo. 
I will help you the best I can.  Phi. 
Any of the places which we bring, is sufficient to justify our sacrifice.  Theo. 
As well every, as any. They call the lords Supper ministered according to his institution, an OBLATION and SACRIFICE, or as your pen runneth, an HOST and a VICTIM: what then?  Phi. 
Then we say truth when we teach it to be a sacrifice, & not only a sacrament. 
What sacrifice it is the jesuits would establish.   The. 
Then you lie the more, when you say that you really & corporally sacrifice the Son of God under the forms of bread and wine: and that the priests act, though the people neither understand what he saith, neither know what he doth, but gaze on him whiles he alone murmureth to himself in a tongue unknown, & maketh that private to one which should be common to all by Christ's institution: is notwithstanding very profitable before God, for such as hire his pains, or please his humour: to be had in mind, when he rubbeth his memory.  Phi. 
You pervert our doctrine.  Theo. 
It may be my terms do not please you, 
They produce the name of sacrifice used by the fathers and understand thereby their own fancies.  but I tell you the things which we reject in your sacrifice. Leave your presumptuous and meritorious application of Christ's death as pleaseth the Priest, leave your real and corporal enclosing of Christ under accidents and shows of bread and wine, confess the Lords Supper to be a public action & pertinent to the whole church as it was ordained, and let your prayers instruct and direct the hearts of the simple and have their open & evident assent, & as for the name of sacrifice and oblation, it shall not offend us.  Phi. 
The chief occasion of your hatred against the daily sacrifice is this, that you do not acknowledge the real presence of Christ in this sacrament, & that maketh you neither to offer him, 
The reason why we do not use the word sacrifice so often as the fathers do.  nor to adore him as we do: yea scant to abide the father's words wherein they witness that he is offered, and must be adored under the forms of bread and wine.  Theo. 
We hate your follies, we hate not their speeches; and yet there are reasons why we do not think ourselves bound to take up the frequent use of their terms in that point, as we see you do. For first they be such words as Christ and his Apostles did forbear, and therefore our faith may stand without them. Next they be dark and obscure speeches wholly depending on the nature and signification of Sacraments, which the simple do hardly conceive. 
The father's phrases beguiled the jesuits whiles they were too eager on them.  Thirdly we find by experience before our eyes, how their phrases have entangled your senses, whiles you greedily pursued the words, and omitted the rules that should have mollified and directed the letter. These causes make us the warier and the willinger to keep to the words of the holy Ghost, though the father's applications, if you therewithal take their expositions, do but in other terms teach that which we receive and confess to be true and sincere.  Philand. 

The name of sacrifice hath no warrant in the Scripture.  Would you make us believe that the sacrifice of the Altar hath no warrant in the Scripture?  Theo. 
Show me the place where it is so called, and then will I grant that in the word I was deceived.  Phil. 
First you heard the word OBLATION in Malachi.  Theo. 
I did, but I hear him not apply it to the Sacrament. 
The Rhe. Test fol. 447.   Philand. 
Melchisedec by his oblation of bread and wine did properly and most singularly prefigurate this sacrifice.  Theo. 
But the Scripture doth not say, that either Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine, or that Christ at his last supper did imitate Melchisedec.  Phi. 
He was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec.  Theo. 
Saint Paul showeth in what things Melchisedec resembled Christ, as in that he was the king of righteousness and peace, 
Heb. 7.  without father, without mother, having neither beginning of his days, nor end of his life, (and) remaining a Priest for ever, without partner or successor: but of sacrificing bread and wine, as you say Melchisedec did, Saint Paul saith nothing.  Phil. 
The Fathers do, almost every one of them.  Theo. 
I do not deny, the resemblace to be both tolerable and usual among the fathers, but I say the scriptures have no such thing.  Phil. 
Saint Paul himself maketh an whole discourse to prove the Sacrament to be the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the church.  Theo. 
Where? In his Apocalypse, 

A man shall find many things in the Rhemish observations which are not the text of the Scripture.  
The Rhe. Test. fol. 447.   which your law mentioneth?  Phi. 
No Sir, I allege his canonical writings.  Theo. 
Where may a man seek to find it?  Phil. 
Look our observations upon his 10. chapter of the first to the Corinthians.  Theo. 
Nay in your observations I know we shall find many things that are not in the scriptures: they were purposely made, that where your religion stood not in the text, at lest it might stand in the gloze: but I would hear Saint Paul say so much, or but half such a word, and then I were answered.  Phi. 

The Jesuits would prove if they could tell how that S. Paul calleth the lords Supper a Sacrifice.  In all that discourse you may observe that our bread and chalice, our table and Altar, the participation of our host and oblation, be compared or resembled point by point in all effects, conditions, and proprieties to the Altars, hosts, sacrifices and immolations of the jews and Gentiles: Which the Apostle would not, nor could not have done in this Sacrament of the Altar, rather than in other Sacraments or service of our religion, if it only had not been a Sacrifice & the proper worship of God among the Christians, as the other were among the jews and Heathen.  Theo. 
Tell me not what I may observe, but what you can conclude. Is the word sacrifice attributed to the lords Table in that chapter?  Phi. 
By resemblance and comparison it is.  Theophil. 
Speak first whether so much be expressed by the Apostle in plain words; and then after we will examine what may be collected.  Philand. 
In plain words it is not, but 
* This point by point is not worth a blue point.  point by point it is compared in all effects, conditions and proprieties to the altars, hosts, sacrifices and immolations of the jews and Gentiles.  Theo. 
Where is this resemblance of your bread and Chalice, table and altar, host, and oblation point by point in all effects, conditions and proprieties to the altars, hosts, sacrifices and immolations of jews and Gentiles?  Phi. 
In S. Paul.  Theophil. 
I see no such thing.  Philand. 
You will not for fear you should be driven to confess that S. Paul calleth our host a Sacrifice.  Theo. 
Let us then examine S. Paul's purpose, that we may see both what he saith, and to what end he saith it.  
The christians at Corinth in respect of aquaintance or alliance with others that were Heathens in that city, 
Their misconstering of S. Paul examined.  did not stick, if they were invited, to go to the banquetes and feasts of the Pagans, which they kept in the Temples of their Gods, when they did sacrifice unto them, and at which they spent such cates and wines as they had then offered to their Idols. 
The fault which the Apostle reproveth in the Corinthians.  The pretence which the christians had for their resorting to the Pagan's feasts was this, that they knew the idol was nothing, and therefore giving thanks to God for his creatures, they did eat of all things without scruple of conscience, howsoever it had been used, or to whomsoever it had been offered.  
This Saint Paul reproveth them for: and showeth that though the Idol in itself be nothing, yet since the Gentiles did offer those things, which were at their idols feasts, not to God but to devils, the christians could not sit at the same tables with the Pagans, 
This was partaking with Idols and dishonouring of God.  rejoicing, triumphing, and feasting in the names of their idols, but they must needs be partakers of their idolatry. Now how that could stand with their coming to the Lords table, where they professed to serve him, and none but him, he wisheth them to consider.  
The reason which he draweth from the lords table, (you call it a comparison point by point, in all effects, conditions and proprieties, to the altars, hosts and sacrifices of the Heathen) may be either a comparison or an opposition, but liker of the twain to be rather an opposition than a comparison. For so Saint Paul knitteth up his argument. You can not drink (both) the lords cup, and the cup of devils: you can not be partakers (or eat) of the Lords table, and of the table of devils. 
S. Paul's reason against it by way of comparison or opposition▪  The one you are partakers of: as you know. For the cup of thanksgiving, which we bless, is it not the communion (or participation) of Christ's blood? The bread which we break is it not the communion of Christ's body? You cannot there fore have any fellowship with the table or cup of devils, but God will surely revenge it, as the forsaking of himself and serving of his enemy. This may the whole drift of S. Paul stand good and his reason forcible without your point by point or your effects, conditions, and proprieties of altars, hosts or Sacrifices.  

Though Saint Paul's reason be framed by way of compar●son, yet the jesuits illation is not necessary.  If any list to make it a comparison, he may for me; & yet that way I see no cause why you should so proportion Christ's mysteries to the devils sacrifices, that point by point they must answer one an other in all effects, conditions and proprieties of Altars, hosts and immolations. For this sufficeth S. Paul's inte●t, that where the christians thought it a matter indifferent, and lawful to eat & drink in the temples and at the tables of Heathen Idols, he by examples both of christian and jewish religion showeth them that though they did not sacrifice: and so took themselves to be free from Idolatry: yet seeing they rejoiced and feasted with the men and meats that were addicted and consecrated unto Idols, they were partakers of their wickedness. And therefore the thing which S. Paul urgeth in this comparison of Christian, jewish and heathenish religion is not offering or sacrificing, but in plain words eating & drinking at the same table with men of any profession, where their rites and ceremonies, be they good or bad, 
Eating of things consecrated unto Idols is fellowship with diu●l●, though they be not sole omelie sacrificed unto them.  are used, as well as their offerings and immolations: and in that sense the conclusion holdeth on either side, though the things be not really sacrificed unto God or the devil, but dedicated or consecrated to either of them, or frequented in either of their names. For as he that eateth and drinketh at the lords table, partaketh with him and his; so he that doth the like at the devils table, linketh himself in the like fellowship with the devil and his adherentes, though the meats that are set on the table be not first solemnly sacrificed to the devil but blessed either in his name or with his ceremonies, who being a wicked spirit affecteth to be honoured in like sort and equal state with the true and mighty God.  Phi. 
S. Paul saith the Gentiles did sacrifice their meats to the devil.  Theo. 
So much the worse for those Christians that did eat them, yet that doth not infer that the creatures at the Lords table were, point by point, in all effects and conditions used and sacrificed to him as the heathens cates were to their Idols. 
The Jesuits prove by the devils sacrifices that their Mass is a sacrifice.  And to draw your argument from the devils table to prove that the bread and wine at the lords table be sacrificed is a strange kind of divinity, if it be not worse. Certainly not the sacrifice, but the Sacrament ordained by Christ to be taken and eaten from his table, doth make us members of Christ: and joineth us all in one fellowship of his mystical body: the Priests sacificing of Christ's flesh doth not help the matter, for aught that we know, or you prove, but by such sleeveless, 
No man partaker of their sacrifice besides the Priest because n● man eateth of it but the Priest.  I will not say witless conceits as these be.  
And yet your own comparison overthroweth your own oblation. For if in Pagan, jewish, and even in Christian religion, as you say, they which eat of the Sacrifice be partakers of the sacrifice, we infer that in your private masses where the Priest alone eateth and no man eateth with him, the people have no part in that sacrifice: & so your oblation, if it be any, availeth no man but your selves, because no man eateth of it besides yourselves, which is more against your profit, than the name of sacrifice would do you good, if you could ●uince it by S. Paul.  Phi. 
God help you masters: ye be so addicted to the belly, that you think of nothing, ●ut of eating & drinking. The sacrifice you admit not, the sacrament you adore not: but if you may eat and drink, then are you safe.  Theo. 
This divinity will better become the devils table whence you lately fet your sacrifice, 
To eat and drink at Christ's table is Christ's ordinance: to sacrifice is not.  than the lords sacraments or the servants of Christ. To eat & drink at his table is not our invention but his institution: and therefore no point of gluttony, as you lewdly surmise, but of piety, which you scant believe: as appeareth by your abolishing that order which Christ left, and devising an other of your own without any warrant from him. For where Christ said, take ye, eat ye, you like not that, but have changed it into Look ye, adore ye, telling the people they do God good service when they give his divine honour to dead & ●●slesse creatures.  Phi. 
No Sir, we teach them to adore Christ and not the creatures of bread and wine. 

Adoration of the sacrament.  
The Jesuits pretending to adore Ch●ist, adore the creatures of bread and wine.    Theo. 
You first imagine the creatures to be Christ, & then you give them divine honour, as if they were Christ: but if they be creatures still, how doth your false imagination excuse you from idolatry?  Phi. 
We be sure they be not. For Christ said of them This is my body, and this is my blood; and therefore honouring that which the Priest holdeth in his hands, and lifteth up after consecration, we be sure we honour Christ and not the creatures of bread and win●.  Theo. 
So S. Paul said, The rock was Christ, and yet to worship that visible rock with divine honour, had been idolatry.  Phi. 
The speeches be nothing like. 
No difference between these two speeches: the Rock was Christ, and this is my bod●e.   Theo. 
Then tell us the difference.  Phi. 
Christ spoke the one actively and presently: the other was but a collection of things passed long before made by S. Paul. And again the one is in the new Testament the other in the old.  Theo. 
You might have added that the one was stone, the other bread: the one in the desert, the other in the city.  Philand. 
Keep your trifling distinctions for yourselves.  Theo. 
They will no way but be joined cheek by cheek with yours. Christ, you say, spoke the one; & who spoke the other in Paul but Christ? Paul said of himself that 
* 2. Cor. 13.  Christ spoke in him: and Christ saith of his Apostles, 
* Mat. 10.  It is not you that speak but the spirit of your father that speaketh in you. And therefore you must receive that which Paul sp●ke 
* 
1. Thes. 2.  
We have plainer word●s that the Rock was Christ than they have that the bread is Christ.  
Paul's speech doth interpret Christ's words.   not as the word of men, but, as it is in deed, the word of god: & that cannot went truth because the word of God is truth.  Phi. 
We do not deny but he spoke truth.  Theo. 
Then have we plainer proof that the stony rock in the desert wa● Christ: than you have that the bread on the Lord's table is Christ. For Christ doth not say in precise terms that the bread was his body, but only, this is my body. And as for the diversity of the two testaments, that maketh nothing to this issue. For if the rock of the old test. were Christ, the bread of the new Test. can be no more: and therefore divine adoration was as due to the rock then, as it is to the bread now.  Phi. 
By no means. For the rock was not transubstantiated into Christ as the bread is.  The. 
If Paul's words be true without changing the rock into Christ, why may not the words of Christ be likewise true without turning the substance of bread into the substance of his body?  Phi. 
We tell you the reason. The one is substantially converted into Christ's flesh, and so was not the other.  Theo. 
This is your fancy, to dream of a difference where none is: the affrmations be like, why should not the adorations be like? And if you could not worship the rock, without committing idolatry though the rock were Christ, how can you give divine honour to the bread and wine since they be Christ even after the same sort that the rock was?  

Why do they not adore the Priest as well as the pixe?  Or, if that comparison do not please you, why do you worship the pixe wherein the bread is, & so the chalice wherein the wine is, & not the priest that by your doctrine doth create & eat Christ?  Phi. 
We worship neither the pixe, nor the chalice, but Christ that is contained in them both.  Theo. 
And is not the same Christ that was contained in them both, enclosed in the priest's body when he eateth and drinketh your sacrifice? 
That which was contained in the pixe is enclosed in the Priest's body.   Phi. 
Yeas.  Theo. 
And as really contained in his body, as in your golden box or gilden chalice?  Phi. 
But yet we adore not the flesh of christ after it is once entered the mouth of man.  Theo. 
You do not I know, but why should you not? Why suffer you Christ in any place to be without the honour, that is due unto him? Will you serve him where please you, & ourskip him at your discretions?  Phi. 
Should we adore him, when we know not where he is?  The. 
You be as sure he is in the Priest as in the pixe: for you see him in neither: Why then do you adore him in the one, and not in the other?  Phi. 

Christ must not be adored at our discretion, but at all times and in all places.  I think you would not have us adore our saviour.  The. 
I would not have you adore him when & where you only list, much less to adore a piece of bread in his steed: be first sure you have him & then adore him wheresoever you find him.  Phi. 
So we do.  Th. 
You do not. You adore him not in the priest.  Phi. 
We see him not.  The. 
Will you not adore him till you see him? How then do you see him in the chalice, or in the pixe?  Phi. 
There we be certain he is.  Theo. 
You be as certain of the other.  Phi. 
The father's will us to adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries, but not in other men's bodies.  The. 
Do they will you to adore the mysteries themselves, I mean the mystical & sacramental signs?  Phi. 
Not the signs themselves, they be but accidents & not to be adored, but the sacrament itself they teach us to adore.  The. 
With divine honour?  Phi. 
With what else?  The. 
Adoration, if it be attributed in any father to the mystical signs is that kind of reverence which we yield to things that be sanctified for Gods use, & not godly honour.  Phi. 
I smell a rat.  The. 


If a rat should eat the host, it would make a foul work among the jesuits.  
No father teacheth that the Sacrament should be adored.   You were best then look to your host: for that of all others, that is a most dangerous beast to your devotion.  Phi. 
Why?  The. 
I will tell you that anon, in the mean time what was it, that troubled your wits?  Phi. 
With a sly distinction of twofold adoration you think to slip the fathers which we will bring against you for the worshipping of the blessed sacrament.  The. 
Is that all your fear?  Phi. 
That is a way to wrangle, & to make the people believe our doctrine touching adoration of the sacrament is not catholic.  The. 
Set aside one father, whom yourselves shall not deny but that he speaketh of the substance of bread & wine: & in the rest, which you bring we will use no such advantage.  Phi. 
What will you not do?  The. 
We will not choke you with that second acception of adoration: show that the fathers adored the sacrament, or taught the people to so do, we require no more.  Phi. 
That I will presently.  
S. Austen saith ep. 118. c. 3. that it is he that the Apostle saith shallbe damned, 
The Rhe. Test fol. 453. nu. 29. [not discerning the body.  that doth not by singular veneration or adoration make a difference between this meat & all others. And again in Psa. 91. No man eateth it before he adore it. And S. Ambro. li. 3 c. 12. de spi. sanct. We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries. S. Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. We adore him on the altar, as the Sages did in the manger. S. Nazianzene in Epitap. Gorgon. My sister called upon him which is worshipped upon the altar. Theodoret. Dial. 2. In confess. 
Half this would serve if any part of it were to the purpose.  The mystical tokens be adored. S. Denys this Apostles scholar, made solemn invocation of the sacrament after consecration. Eccl. Hierar. ca 3. part. 3. in princip. & before the receiving, the whole church of God crieth upon it, Domine non sum dignus, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori. Lamb of god, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. 
* A smooth tale of Robin Hood will prove the adoration of the sacrament as well as this that here ensueth.  And for better discerning of this divine meat, we are called from common profane houses to God's church: for this, we are forbidden to make it in vulgar apparel, & are appointed sacred solemn vestments. Hier. in Epitap. Nepot. & li. 2. adv. Pel. ca 9 Paulinus ep. 12. add Sever. Io. Diac. in vit. D. Greg. li. 3. ca 59 For this is the hallowing of Corporals & chalices. Ambr. 2. off. ca 28. Nazian. Orat. ad Arianos: Optatus li. 6. in initio. For this profane tables are removed & altars consecrated. Aug. Serm. de temp. 255. For this, the very priests themselves are honourable, chaste, sacred, Hier. ep. 1. ad Heliodor. ca 17. li. 1. adv. jovin. ca 19 Ambr. in 1. Tim. 3. For this the people is forbidden to touch it with common hands. Nazian. orat. ad Arian. in initio. For this great care & solicitude is taken that no part of either kind fall to the ground, Cyril. Hieros'. mystag. 5. in fine. Orig. ho. 13. in ca 25. Exod. For this sacred provision is made that if any hosts or parts of the Sacrament do remain unreceived, they be most religiously reserved with all honour and diligence possible, and for this, examination of consciences, confession, continency, & (as S. Augustine saith) receiving it fasting. Thus do we catholics' & the church of God discern the holy body & blood by S. Paul's rule, 
Epist. 118. ca 6  not only from your profane bread & wine (which not by any secret abuse of your Curates or clerk, but by the very order of your book, the Minister, if any remain after your Communion, may take home with him to his own use, and therefore it is no more holy by your own judgement than the rest of his meats) but from all other either vulgar or sanctified meats, as the catechumens bread, & our usual holy bread.  Theo. 
I had thought we should have had adoration of the sacrament proved, & here cometh 
* The Pharisees and the jesuits meet just in this kind of holiness▪  hallowing of copes, corporals, chalices, Altars, priests, pixes, and (not at all, or last of all) the hallowing of souls, which in wisemen's account deserved to go alone or at lest first in the Calendar. For your often & curious cleansing of the outsides of coats, cups, stones, hands & such like implements savoureth of the Pharisees holiness, who supposed then as you do now, that God is highly served with such solemn provision & sacred solicitude, though this be more than ever Christ at his last supper had care for, or mind of, for aught that we find by report of the Gospel. Marry this is not our purpose. You must prove your adoration of the sacrament, let hallowing of Uestments and Altars alone till an other time: and pursue that which is denied.  Phi. 
So we do. Have you not here S. Austen, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Nazianzene, 
This number is sufficient if they speak to the matter.  Theodorete, & S. Denys, that the sacrament should be adored?  Theo. 
Theodorete is not in your books, that he is not sainted with the rest: yet is he an ancient & learned writer: but take your pleasure: The rest well deserve it, and therefore I am not angry with it, though S. Paul extend the name saint to the hearers as well as to the teacher's, & to the living aswell as to the dead.  Phi. 
You would be saints.  The. 
God grant us to be his servants.  Phi. 
You must change your faith first.  The. 
Why? We worship no creatures in steed of Christ, 

They suppose creatures to be Christ: and then at all adventures they adore them in his stead.  
All these fathers are impertinent to this purpose. Not one of them besides Theodoret speaketh of the external Sacrament.  
It is one to adore Christ which is in the mysteries, & an other to adore the mysteries themselves which no father teacheth. The Rhemish Test. sol. 453. Epist. 118. ca 3.   as you do.  Phi. 
Will that lying never be left?  Theo. 
Would God for your own sakes it were a lie, but I fear it is 〈◊〉 true.  Phi. 
Christ we adore, creatures we do not.  Theo. 
The sacraments you adore, and those be creatures: as in Baptism the water, in the Lord's supper, the bread & wine.  Phi. 
We adore the B. sacrament of the Altar, as we learned of the catholic fathers: creatures we adore none.  Theo. 
Of what fathers did you learn it?  Phi. 
I have told you, of S. Austen; S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Nazianzene, Theodorete, & S. Denys.  Theo. 
Set Theodorete aside (who writing in greek useth the word adoration for an external regard & reverence, such as we give to the books & vessels that are sanctified to divine uses, though more amply to the sacraments ordained by God himself: & saith that the mystical signs themselves remaining in their former (& earthly) substance are adored, that is reverently & religiously handled, as becometh so great mysteries:) I say set him aside, & not one of the rest so much as toucheth that which you should prove.  Phi. 
They say the sacrament must be adored.  Theo. 
They say Christ must be adored.  Phi. 
Yea, but in the mysteries, and on the altar.  Theo. 
So Christ is to be adored, in heaven, in his church, & most of all in our own hearts & bodies: will you thence collect that either heaven, or the Temple, or ourselves are to be adored?  Phi. 
But neither heaven, nor the temple are sacraments.  Theo. 
Yet Christ is adored in them, though they be not in like sort with him, & so may Christ be adored in the mysteries, though the mysteries themselves may have no such honour.  Phi. 
S. Austen saith, It is he that the Apostle saith should be damned that doth not by singular veneration or adoration make a difference between this meat & all others.  Theo. 
S. Austen in that place speaketh not one word of adoration. He saith: The Apostle affirmeth it to be unworthily received of them, qui hoc non discernebant à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita, which did not discern it from other meats with the veneration (that was properly or) singularly due (unto it.)  Phil. 

S. Augustine perverted by the jesuits. Aug. ●e Do●tr. Christ. li. 3. ca 9  Very well. Singular veneration is all one with divine adoration.  Theo. 
In your corrupted judgements.  Phi. 
What else is it?  Theo. 
Veneration is a word that S. Austen fourdeth all the signs & sacraments of the old & new Testament, adoration he reserveth only to God. Of veneration he saith, Qui veneratur ●ignum utile divinitus ins●itutum, non hoc● uèneratur quod videtur & transit, sed illud potius, quo talia cuncta referenda sunt. He that reverenceth a sign that is profitable, and ordained by God, reverenceth not the thing which is visible and transitory, but that rather, to which all such (signs) are referred. And so concludeth namely of baptism and the lords Supper. 
Ibidem.  Quae unusquisque cum percipit qu● referantur imbutus agnoscit, 
S. Aug. alloweth veneration but not adoration to this or any other Sacrament.  ut ea non carnal● servitute sed spirituali potius libertate veneretur. Which (two Sacraments) when every Christian receiveth, he knoweth, being once partaker of them, whither to refer them, that he may reverence them with a spiritual liberty, rather than with a carnal servitude.  
And lest you should not understand what difference he putteth between the corporal creature and the heavenly brightness in this, and so in other sacraments, he saith farther: 
Ibidem. li. 3. cap. 5. Not to distinguish the signs from the things is a miserable servitude of the soul. August. de vera Religio. c. 54. Adoration due only unto God.  Ea demum est miserabilis animae servitus signa pro rebus accipere, nec supra creaturam corpoream oculum mentis ad ●auriendum aeternum lumen levare non posse. That is a miserable bondage of the soul, to take the signs (or Sacraments as you do) for the things themselves, and not to be able to lift up the eye of the mind above the corporal creature to perceive the eternal brightness.  
Of adoration he saith, Rectè scribitur hominem ab angelo prohibitum ne se aedoraret, sed unum Deum, sub quo esset ei & ille conseruus. It is very well recorded in the Scriptures that a man was prohibited by an angel to adore him, but only God, under whom he himself was a fellow servant unto God. And therefore he saith, 
* Ibidem.  Ecce unum Deum colo, Behold I worship (& adore) none but God▪ and thence he deriveth the name of religion, 
Ibidem.  Quod ei uni religet animas nostras. Because it relieth our souls on him alone. So that veneration you may give to sacraments, adoration you may not, and yet you finely convey the one into S. Augustine's text jointly with the other, as if they were both found in his words which they are not.  Phi. 
He saith singular veneration.  Theo. 
You say so, but he sayeth not so: His words are, Veneratione singulariter debita, with that veneration which is due (only or) singularly to this Sacrament.  Phi. 
And what is that but adoration? 

August. ep. 118.  
What veneration is due to this Sacrament.    Theo. 
If you might be judges it should be nothing else, but S. Augustine saith, Not to be contemned, is the veneration due unto it. Contemptum solum non vult cibus ille: that meat misliketh only contempt: that is either to be daily received without regard, or to be still refused upon pretence of unworthiness. And that being the case of which S. Augustine disputeth, your cunning serveth you, in steed of examining themselves, before they receive it, which S. Augustine meaneth, to set the people not at all to receive it but to fall down and adore it with divine honour in Christ's place, which is as wilful a contempt of his ordinance, and as shameful an abuse of his sacraments as can be committed.  Phi. 
The same father in an other place saith of the Sacrament, 
In Psal. 98.  No man eateth it before he adore it.  Theo. 
Are you not desperately set, th●t to defile yourselves with open idolatry, will force the Fathers to fit your ●umours against their own speeches? S. Augustine saith of Christ's flesh which he took of the virgin Marie, Nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit. No man eateth that flesh of Christ unless he first adore it: you make no more bones at the matter but strike THE FLESH (of Christ) out of Saint Augustine's words, 
What S. Aug. spoke of Christ's flesh, the Jesuits turn to their host.  and refer adoration to the corporal creature, which the Priest holdeth in his fingers. Is not this, trow you, sound dealing in the greatest mysteries of our salvation, and imminent peril of your damnation, purposely to shut your eyes lest you should see the truth or agnise the rashness of your new found adoration? What have Saint Augustine's words to do with your adoring the mystical signs, when he directly nameth the flesh of Christ, which is both eaten with the spirit, and adored in the spirit: yea the very eating of it is the adoring of it, since it is not eaten but by believing, 
The true eating of christs flesh is all one with the adoring of it.  hoping and rejoicing in it, which are the chief branches of Gods divine honour.  Phi. 
As though the flesh of Christ were not really closed in the form of bread, and corporally eaten with the mouth of man?  Theo. 
One error must needs draw on an other, 
The ground of all their errors & abuses in the Mass is their real presence.  or rather your real and carnal presence is the groundwork of all your errors and abuses in the Mass.  Phi. 
The denial of it is the high way to all your heresies and blasphemies against the doctrine of the church: and for our parts, till you leave that, we look for no better at your hands.  Theo. 
Look to your own feet, lest whiles you watch our hands, your legs slip into the pit of destruction.  Phi. 
We be passed all fear of that.  Theo. 
And so be those, that are past all recovery: but yet for the saving of other men's souls if not of yours, we will first weigh the proofs of your adoration, & after not stick to survey the parts of your Transubstantiation. Go on therefore with your former authorities.  Phi. 
S. Ambrose saith, 
* De spir. sanct. lib. 3. cap. 12.  We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries.  Theo. 
verily and 
* We adore Christ in them: we adore not the mysteries themselves.  so do we, but the mysteries and sacraments themselves we do not adore, neither did Saint Ambrose ever teach any man to adore them.  Phi. 
I see you mistake us. You think we adore the forms of bread and wine: where in deed we do not, but rather we adore Christ the son of the living God, and second person in Trinity in those mysteries as Saint Ambrose sayeth, or as we speak more usually under those 
The accidents of bread and wine be absurdities, they be no mysteries.  forms of bread and wine.  Theo. 
I mistake you not, I know you adore that which is locally and really enclosed within the compass of your host and chalice, supposing it in matter and substance to be the glorious body of Christ, appareled with accidents of bread and wine, as whiteness, roundness, sweetness, moistness, and such like proprieties of bread and wine; but your foundation we say is false, and therefore your building must needs be ruinous. Christ is present in the mysteries not by the material substance of his body closed within the forms of bread and wine, 
How Christ is present in the mysteries.  but by a divine and spiritual virtue and efficience, not mixing 〈…〉, but entering the h●rt● of the faithful, and nourishing them with his spirit and grace to eternal life, the elements abiding in their proper and former essence and substance. And therefore when you adore them, as if they were Christ in nature and substance, which in truth they are not, you worship not Christ, 
This is not to adore Christ but the creatures.  but give his honour to creatures, and in steed of washing your sins away by the death and blood of Christ, you kindle the wrath of God against you, by mistaking his son, and adoring the elements with divine honour in lieu of Christ.  Phi. 
Tush, we regard not these words of yours: we have assurance from Christ himself that it is his body, and so long we pass not for any thing that you can allege or object against us. 
The misconstruction of Christ's words leadeth them to this Idolatry.   Theophil. 
But if you misconstrue his words to make a dead and corruptible creature to be the second person in Trinity, and give it that honour, which is due to the glorious and immortal God, what assurance can you have that Christ jesus will put up this reproach at your hands, and not avenge himself on you, as on proud idolaters?  Phi. 
Are you well in your wits to urge us so often with open Idolatry, where as we show you so plain proofs of our defence?  Theo. 
Plain quoth you? 
Christ is adored in the mysteries though he be not locally enclosed in them.  In good faith they be such as no mean Scholar would stumble at. Christ, you prove, is adored in the mysteries and on the Altar. Why should he not be adored in all places, and in all his gifts, and for all the monuments of his grace and mercy bequeathed us in this life, that he may prepare us for the next? And if this rule be general, how great cause have we to ad●re him in the water, where he cleanseth us from our sins: and at the table, where he feedeth and strengtheneth our souls and spirits with their proper nourishment, which is the precious ransom that was paid to recover us from death and hell, and to bring us to his immortal light and bliss? What Christian heart recounting his abundant goodness and fatherly readiness with his own stripes to heal us, with his own blood to wash us, with his own death to quicken us, will not be resolved into prayers and tears, to yield all honour and adoration to him that doth offer us these treasures at and on his table?  Phi. 
These be goodly words to blear men's eyes, 
We shut him not up in the compass of the host, but by faith we behold & enjoy his presence at his table.  where in deed you deny him to be present either at, or on the Altar.  Theo. 
We confess him to be there present with all his gifts and blessings to him, that will behold him with the eye of faith, and reach out the hand of his soul to apprehend him, in greater might and majesty, than you do, when you shroud him with your forms of bread and wine, and pale him round with a pixe as it were with a sepulchre. Marry local dimension or inclusion within the compass of the host or chalice we appoint him none: His truth is annexed to the Sacraments, and his power united to the creatures after a wonderful and inspeakable manner, 
This presence is fruitful and effectual, theirs is not.  by the mighty working of the holy ghost, but yet we must not direct his divine honour and service to any part of the Altar, or circumference of the visible creatures: we must rather life up our hearts as the faithful were always admonished in this sacrament, 
We must lift up our hearts not to the host, but unto heaven.  and take heed that we do not basely bend our eyes on the bread or wine to seek Christ in them, and underneath them, much less worship them in steed of him, which is the next way to dishonour him, and deify them against the very rules and Principles of our faith.  Phi. 
But S. Chrysostom saith, We adore him on the altar, as the Sages did in the manger: 

Chys. in 1. Cor. homil 24. Nazianz. in epitaph. Gorgoniae.  
Christ is honoured and served on the Altar, though he be not corporally fastened to the host.   and S. Nazianzene saith of his sister Gorgonia, she called on him which is worshipped on the Altar.  Theo. 
What words soever Chrysostom and Nazianzene use to express the place where Christ is served and adored, yet this is evident, that they attribute adoration not to the visible element or sacrament but unto Christ, who may well be said to be worshipped on the Table or altar, for so much as there is the fruit, force and e●fect of his heavenly grace and truth proposed unto all, and from thence the prayers and thanks of all are offered unto him by the religious heart and voice of the Pastor that standeth at the lords table to be the mouth of all, and yet you deal untruly with both those fathers as you do almost with all the rest of the writers that pass your pen.  

Chrysostom corrupted by the jesuits.  Chrysostom's words are, Tu non in praecepe id, sed in Altarivides. Thou seest (his body) not in a manger but on the Altar. Now between seeing & adoring there is good difference, if you be not so blind, that you can see nothing.  Phi. 
He speaketh it to that end, that we should adore it, as the Sages did when they found him in a manger.  Theo. 
He hath some words tending to this end, that we should adore the body of Christ, since the wicked and barbarous Magi did yield him that honour, but he joineth no such words together as you cite: he saith not, we adore him on the altar, but let us that be citizens of heaven, at least imitate those Barbarians.  Phi. 
That is in adoring Christ.  Theo. 
As if we doubted of that? But where is, on the altar, which you have added of your own, 

Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 24. We must get up to heaven with the wings of faith before we can rightly adore Christ, as chrysostom would have us to adore him.  
We may behold the host with less ado, if that had been Chrysostoms' meaning.   without your author's consent?  Phi. 
He sayeth, thou seest him on the Altar.  Theo. 
But neither with corporal eyes, nor under the forms of bread and wine. And that well appeareth in the very same place when he saith, Ascend igitur ad coeli portas, & tunc quod dicimus intueberis. Climb up to the gates of heaven, and then thou shalt see that which we now say. To which end he told them before that becoming Eagles in this life they must fly up to heaven itself or rather above the heavens. For where the carcase is (saith Christ) there will the Eagles be. The lords body (is) the carcase in respect of the death (which he suffered.) Eagles (Christ) calleth us to show us that he must fly on high, which will come to this body, & ever mount upward, & have the eye of his mind most bright, to behold the son of righteousness: He that teacheth you to ascend to the highest heavens there to adore Christ never meant you should adore the h●st in the priests hands in steed of Christ: and as he never meant it, so he never spoke it, though you have played some ligier de main to make his words sound to that sense.  Phi. 
nazianzens' sister called on him that (is) worshipped upon the altar. 
Nazianz. in epitaph. Gorgoniae.   Theo. 
She did so: but when she made her prayers to Christ there was neither Priest by, nor pixe there, that you should dream she made her prayers to the host. 
Christ is truly said to be honoured on the altar, because his mercies are thence delivered unto us and our prayers from thence offered unto him sitting in heaven.  Nazianzene saith she went to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the dark of the night, & kneeling close to the altar she did invocate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, him that is honoured thereon: not meaning the host, which at that instant was not on the Altar, but Christ who is truly said to be honoured on the altar or Table, because his mercies are there laid forth in the mysteries, and the prayers and supplications of all the faithful offered chiefly from that place unto him, though he sit in heaven according to the material substance of his human body.  Phi. 
He is honoured on the Altar; that is say you the Altar is the place whence honour is given unto him, what sleights you have to avoid the fathers?  Theo. 
Have you no worse to enforce them, and you shall do them less wrong than you do. When the woman of Samaria said to Christ, 
joan 4.  Our fathers worshipped (God) in this hill, did she mean that God was in the hill, or that the worship was there d●ne unto him? When it was said to Moses, 
* Exod. 3.  Ye shall serve God upon this mountain: was that mountain before hand allotted to God, or to his service? So Christ is honoured on earth, 
Christ is honoured on earth, and yet that doth prove him to be personally on earth.  though he be in heaven, because the earth is the place where he is honoured and served. And yet we doubt not but Christ himself is also present even in the mysteries and on the Altar or Table of the Lord, albeit not in that corporal and carnal manner which you conceive. And therefore though the words carry a double sense, yet we admit them both, so you adore Chri●t and not the creatures of bread and wine in his steed, which Nazianzene was far from allowing, and his sister from doing.  
For speaking in the same place of the mystical elements, 
Nazianzens' sister had the Sacrament about her, which she did not adore, but him that was served on the sacred table.  which you would have the people to adore as Christ, he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If any where (about her) she found part of the figures of the sacred body and blood which her hand had laid up in store, watering that with tears (not adoring it with divine worship) she departed presently cured of her disease. That which you affirm to be the real and natural flesh and blood of Christ, she had about her, as many men and women used in the primative church to carry the same about them, and yet she did not adore that which she had in her hand, but him that is served and honoured on the Altar or table of the Lord.  Phil. 
You pare these places with certain circumstances I know not how. But S. Denys the Apostles scholar, 
Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 3.  made a solemn invocation of the Sacrament after Consecration in these words: But thou, O divine and most holy Sacrament, show (thy self) plainly to us, and brighten the eyes of our mind with thy singular light that can not be covered. You ask proof for adoration of the Sacrament, 
* We will show you where you have corrupted this father in express words.  we show you where the Apostles scholar prayed to the blessed Sacrament in express words, and higher adoration than prayer there can be none. What would you more?  Theo. 
We would have you regard if not your consciences before God, yet your credits before men.  Phi. 
Do we not so think you; when we join with Saint Paul's scholar, and teach the people to do as he did?  Theo. 
O wicked and wilful corruption!  Phi. 
Corruption? Why? What? Wherein?  Theo. 
The prayer which he maketh to the son of God, you wrist to the corporal and external creatures.  Phi. 
No sir, that shift will not serve. 
* If these be not his words, than you be furiously bend to forge.  His words be, But thou O divine and most holy Sacrament, which he spoke (after consecration,) and yet you will not acknowledge them, you be so furiously bend against the blessed Sacrament.  Theo. 


You never read them once.  
The jesuits say this invocaetion of the Sacrament was made after consecration, as if Diony●ius had been mumbling a Mass, and not writing a book. If the Greek word had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is not, that was no cause for you to wrest it to the Sacrament.   After consecration what's that? Was he at mass when he made this prayer?  Phi. 
He made this invocation of the Sacrament after Consecration.  Theo. 
Did ye ever read the words?  Phi. 
Twenty times.  Theo. 
Where was the host, when he made this prayer?  Phi. 
What can I tell? To the host he made it.  Theo. 
Was he praying at the Altar, or writing in his study when he uttered these words?  Phi. 
What is that to us?  Theo. 
You say, he prayed to the host, and that after Consecration: where he good man was busy at his book, and beseeching God to lighten his understanding that he might write the truth.  Phi. 
Wheresoever he was, he saith, O thou divine and most holy Sacrament.  Theo. 
Did he write in Latin or in Greek?  Phi. 
In Greek. What then?  Theo. 
The word Sacrament is not Greek.  Phi. 
No. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Greek word: but that in Latin is the Sacrament.  Theo. 
Grant the Greek word were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are there no mysteries besides the Sacrament?  Philand. 
Yeas. There are mysteries that are not the Sacrament.  Theoph. 
You shall otherwise not only enlarge the limits of your mass to contain your seven Sacraments, but also multiply the number of your seven sacraments, to seven thousand times seven. For all secrets and wonders in heaven, earth and hell, which pass the reach or knowledge of the natural or regenerate man, be mysteries.  Phi. 
In deed a mystery is a secret, as well as a Sacrament.  Theo. 
And that in evil things as well as in good. As 
a 2. Thes. 2.  the mystery of iniquity, 
b 
Apoc. 17.  
There are many mysteries which are not the sacrament of the Altar.   the mystery of the woman and beast, on which the whore of Babylon sat.  Phi. 
All this is true.  Theo. 
And as in evil, so in good things, Saint Paul saith often, The mystery of God and of Christ. As when he signifieth to the Colossians his care for them to 
c Colos. 2.  know the mystery of God even the father, and of Christ, and so the 
d 1. Tim. 3.  mystery of faith, 
e Ephes. 6.  of the Gospel, 
f 
1. Tim. 3.  
The divine & human natures of Christ are most wonderful mysteries.   of Godliness, and such like.  Phi. 
Very well.  Theo. 
As these be mysteries because they be secrets above our natural capacity though revealed unto us by God in his word, so is the nature of God a most incomprehensible mystery, namely the mystery of the blessed trinity, which is neither expresseable in our words, nor conceivable with our hearts.  Phi. 
This we doubt not of.  Theo. 
So is there the mystery of Christ's incarnation, of his death and passion, of his resurrection and ascension, and of a thousand such, which Christ calleth the 
g Mat. 13.  mysteries of the kingdom of God, and Paul meaneth when he saith, Let a man so esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and disposers of God's 
h 1. Cor. 4.  mysteries. And for that cause the whole Gospel is called 
i 1. Colos. 1.  a mystery hid since the world began and from all ages, but now made manifest to his Saints.  Phi. 
This is not to our purpose.  Theo. 
I think it be not: you have utterly perverted the words of Dionysius, (if that be his work, and those were his words which you allege,) and now you are loath to see it.  Phi. 
Convince us before you condemn us.  Theo. 
What other conviction need we than your own conclusion? Dionysius speaking to Christ saith, at lest as you suppose, Thou divine and most holy mystery, replenish the eyes of our souls with (thy) singular and unextinguished light. You, because the word mystery when it is applied to corporal and external creatures doth sometimes signify a sacrament, have rob Christ of his honour, 
The Jesuits ignorance in wresting Dionysius.  and given it to the element of bread, and slandered that writer, whatsoever he was, for an open Idolater like to yourselves. Are not the people well holp up to trust such gamesters as you be, that lead them to so dangerous impiety with such manifest impudency?  Phi. 
Your railing vain is come upon you.  Theo. 
And what vain is come on you that will rather make a shipwreck of your own and other men's salvations, than you will seem to relent from your errors? 
The jesuits means to defend their errors, be as wicked as their errors.   Phi. 
It is no error.  The. 
It is an impious and heinous error: and you bolster it up with as evil & wicked means, that is by corrupting and forcing other men's writings to bear out your doings.  Phi. 
Dionysius in that whole chapter treateth of nothing but of the Sacrament.  Theo. 
And the Sacrament consisting of two parts, 
He may treat of the Sacrament, & yet speak to Christ because Christ is the truth and perfection of the Sacraments.  an earthly and an heavenly: the heavenly part of the sacrament is Christ. Why might he not therefore make his prayer unto Christ to direct his pen, before he assayed to treat of those mysteries?  Phi. 
So he did, but yet intending to pray to Christ, he speaketh to him in the Sacrament.  Theoph. 
It is one thing to pray to the sacrament as you though falsely say S. Denys did, and an other thing to pray to him that is every where present in that he is God and hath a special kind of operation by the power and grace of his flesh and blood in the sacred mysteries as he is man united in the same person with God. And yet these words do not import him to be in the sacrament. Certainly Christ's divine and human nature were most wonderful mysteries before this Sacrament was ordained: and all the words that your author useth if they were, 
Do you no● pervert the words when you force them for adoration of corruptible creatures against the author's m●●ning?  as you cite them, are only these, Thou divine and most holy mystery, which agree to Christ without any respect of the Sacrament, more properly and truly than to your host or chalice.  Philand. 
Yet they may be taken as spoken to the sacrament: and therefore we did not pervert them, we did but prefer that construction before the other.  Theo. 
That is, where divine honour was given to christ, you derive it from him to the host.  Phi. 
Not from him, but finding him truly and corporally present in the sacrament, there we honour him where we find him.  Theo. 
Your doings we know: but Dionysius words have no such sense.  Philand. 
They may have, and that sufficeth us.  Theo. 
But if by them you will prove so great a matter as this is, which we now have in hand: they must necessarily enforce your exposition and not indifferently bear an other as well as yours or rather better.  
This answer might suffice, if Dionysius had used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as you suppose he did: but now his text is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But O most divine and holy expiation (or Sacrifice) revealing the enigmatical coverings, which are figuratively adjacent unto thee, be opened clearly unto us: Or if any man like rather to have it an Apostrophe, 
A second exposition of Dionysius his words.  to a thing lacking life, such as the learned are well acquainted with, and the Scriptures often use: he may interpret it nearer to the right signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and say, but O most divine and sacred rite or institution, referring it to that manner and order of celebrating the Lords supper, which Christ first ordained, and may properly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 

Dionysius distinguisheth the elements from that which he speaketh to. jos. 10. 3. King. 13. Esa. 1. Psal. 24.  
The imperative mood is no prayer except the person be● such as we may not otherwise speak unto but by prayer.   Howsoever it is evident he maketh no invocation of the host or chalice, nor speaketh to them, but, calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, enigmatical veils or integuments figuratively adherent or annexed to the perfection of the mysteries.  Phi. 
Run you for refuge to the rhetoricians?  Theo. 
As though the scriptures were not full of the like speeches? joshua said, Thou sun stand still in Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Aialon. And so the man of judah, O Altar, Altar, thus saith the Lord, behold. And isaiah himself began his prophesy with, Hear O heavens, and hearken O earth.  Phi. 
Those were speeches, not prayers; as this is.  Theoph. 
They be all imperative moods, as well as this, and so is that saying of David, life up your heads, ye gates, and be ye lift up, you everlasting doors, and the king of glory shall come in; which yet is no prayer to the doors. The mood of itself is not precative except the person be such, as we must not command but only entreat: and being used to things without life it showeth the desire of our heart touching them, not any supplication unto them. And therefore you do not only the divines but also the Grammarians wrong, when you conclude an invocation of the Sacrament out of Dionysius words, because the verbs be imperative. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 containeth the whole action, institution, and celebration of the lords Supper, 
Christ is not really covered with the veils of bread and wine, but figuratively represented and truly received by them.  yea the inward grace as well as the outward elements: and Dionysius might say to Christ's ordinance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be opened unto us, without invocation of the host or Chalice, as well as David said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be you lifted up, to the gates: and yet made them no Gods.  Phi. 
Yet by this place you see, Christ is covered with the forms of bread and wine, as with garments, and that is word for word our opinion.  Theo. 
Add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, figuratively as your author doth, and then both your real presence is overthrown, and the doctrine which we teach clearly established. For we confess that Christ worketh in us, and presenteth himself unto us in these mysteries, as it were in certain veils and coverings. Which mystically by way of signification and spiritual operation contain and cloth his grace and truth: but not really nor by material or corporal inclusion, as you affirm: 
Dionys eccles. hierarch. cap. 3.  and so himself expresseth his mind in this very chapter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The reverent (or venerable) signs, by which Christ IS SIGNIFIED and emparted unto us, being set on the Altar: Christ is signified and received by these signs and figures, and to him, not to the sacrament spoke Dionysius (if that were his work,) but that Christ is locally or substantially closed within the forms of bread and wine, or that he prayed to the host and Chalice, Dionysius hath no such sense nor words.  Phi. 
To Christ he spoke, we doubt it not, marry when he was covered with signs and figures of bread and wine.  Theo. 
Signs and figures the ancient fathers do not take for shows and accidents as you do, but for substantial and usual creatures, such as you may not adore.  Phi. 
We say no.  Theo. 
Of that anon: in the mean time, well you may think that had you been in Dionysius place you would have prayed to the Sacrament, but his words import no such matter.  Philand. 
Why should not he as well as the rest of the godly? 
The Rhe. test. fol. 453.  The whole Church 
* This is right jesuitical religion to cry thus upon a dumb & dead creature. No blasphemy.  crieth upon it, Domine non sum dignus, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori: Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.  Theo. 
Whom mean you by the whole Church; yourselves, or all the Godly since Christ?  Philand. 
Never ask that question: they did as we do, and we do as they did.  Theo. 
If you speak of yourselves, than here is the witness of your own mouth, that you CRY UPON IT (I mean on your host which in substance is a base and corruptible creature,) O Lord, O God, O Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. 
jere. 2.  What greater sin did they commit which said to a stock, thou art my Father, and to a stone, thou hast begotten me; whom the holy Ghost hath traduced for a memorable and yet detestable crew of Idolaters? 
The jewish & heathen Idolaters were never so gross  Whether it is greater to be a father, or to be a God? to beget, or to take away the sins of the world? They said the one, you say the other: who can forbid the banes but that you should be coupled with them, if not preferred before them as more outrageous in dishonouring God than they were?  Phi. 
Do we not this to Christ, and is he not worthy of it?  Theoph. 
Why then do you cry on it, and not on him?  Philand. 
We be persuaded that when we call on it, we call on him.  Theo. 
So were they that took a stock for their father, and a stone for their maker. They thought they worshipped God, and not the Image.  Philand. 
But we be sure that Christ made this to be himself, when he said, this is my body.  Theo. 
He said, I am the door, I am the vine, and yet neither door, nor vine are really and personally the son of God.  Philand. 
He spoke those things in parables, and by way of resemblance: this he spoke in plain truth without all figures: 
If it be a figurative speech as anon shall be proved, you shall cough me the rankest Idolaters that ever were on the face of the earth.  and therefore this must be substantially turned into Christ, though that be not.  Theoph. 
You make your real and corporal presence a refuge for your erroneous and absurd assertions: But if that be false as well as the rest, then are you plunged over head and ears in the mire and sink of sin and heresy.  Phi. 
If God be not in heaven, we shall never come there: but if he be, we can not miss our way. For hath the whole Church think you lain in sin and heresy till your new doctrine came lately from Geneva?  Theo. 
In deed I think this reason is even as good as the most of those which your friends have freshly sent us from Rheims; but abuse not yourselves with such stately follies: GOD may well be in heaven and is no doubt; and yet you never come there for refusing the right way thither.  Philand. 

The Jesuits crack they have the whole church with them, when they have not so much as one father for the greatest points of their religion.  We go the same way that the whole church since Christ's time went before us.  Theoph. 
This pride so bewitcheth you, that you can not see how far you be fallen from the faith of Christ's Church, which was in ancient and uncorrupted ages.  Philand. 
As though we did not join with them in this and all other points of Religion.  Theoph. 
You join with them as dark-night doth with daylight.  Philand. 
Have we not their full consent for those things which you impugn?  Theoph. 
As namely for adoration of the sacrament, where you pretend the whole Church, and show not one man that ever taught of the Sacrament that It should be adored.  Philand. 
Was not the whole Church taught to say unto It, and cry upon It, Domine non suum dignus, Lord I am not worthy?  Theo. 
Prove that this or any other invocation or adoration was used TO IT as you say: and you shall go free for all. 
The Rhe. test. pag. 21. nu. 8. Domine non sum dignus.   Phi. 
Origen, ho. 5. in divers. When thou eatest, (saith he) and drinkest the body and blood of our Lord, he entereth under thy roof. Thou also therefore humbling thyself say, Lord I am not worthy. So said 
* Liturg. S. Chrysost. Graec. sub finem. Origen and chrysostom abused for invocation of the Sacrament.  S. chrysostom in his Mass.  Theoph. 
This they were taught to say, but to what were they taught to say it?  Philand. 
To the Sacrament.  Theo. 
Who saith so besides you?  Phi. 
Origen and Saint chrysostom.  Theoph. 
Perhaps they taught the people that kind of prayer when they did communicate at the lords Table: but did they teach the people to say so to the Sacrament?  Philand. 
Even thus to cry UPON IT, and thus to say UNTO IT, Lord I am not worthy.  Theo. 

Look the places when you will, and you shall find it to be otherwise.  We would gladly hear that of their own mouths, we trust not yours.  Philand. 
Look the places and you shall find it to be as we say.  Theo. 
We have viewed the places and find you to be Liars.  Phi. 
Are not those origen's words which we rehearse?  Theo. 
Origen hath the words, which you cite, but he teacheth not the people to direct them to the Sacrament.  Philand. 
To whom then?  Theoph. 
To whom, but to christ the son of God?  Phi. 
And he is in the sacrament.  Theo. 
Their assertions, not your additions, are the things we ask for. That these and all other parts of divine honour are due to christ, no christian may doubt; but that the same may be directed and applied to the host, that is your blasphemy, no father ●uer taught it.  
Origen discussing the Centurion's fact and faith telleth his audience that Christ entereth under the roofs of all believers two ways; 
How Christ at this day entereth our roof. Orig. hom. 5. ad. divers.  first by his ministers, then by his mysteries. Intrat & nunc Dominus sub tectum Credentium duplici figura vel more. The Lord even at this day entereth the roof of those that believe after two sorts or manners. For when holy and acceptable pastors of the Church to GOD enter our howsen, even then and there the Lord entereth by them, and be thou so affected, as if thou receivedst the Lord himself. another way is, when thou receivest that holy meat, 
Christ entereth the soul and not the mouth of man.  and eatest and drinkest the body and blood of the Lord, for then the Lord entereth thy roof also. Thou therefore humbling thyself, imitate the Centurion and say: Lord I am not worthy, that thou shouldest come under my roof.  
This must be said, as well when the preacher entereth our house, as when we receive the sacrament: for it is plain by Origen that christ cometh under our roof in both these cases, 

We must say Lord I am not worthy, to Christ, & not to the Sacrament: for the Centurion said it to Christ's person. Christ is more truly and substantially in us than in the Sacrament.  
That Christ dwelleth really and corporally in us, See chrysostom homil. 83. in Mat. Cyril. in johan. lib. 10. cap. 13. & li. 11. ca 26. Hilarius de Trinitate lib. 8. but that he dwelleth so in the Sacrament the jesuits shall never prove.   and we are not worthy in either of them or in any other case, that the son of God should come under our roof. As than it were madness to deify the Preacher, because Christ vouchsafeth to come in him and with him, or to salute him with the divine honour due to christ and to say to a mortal man, Lord I am not worthy: so can it be no less impiety to say to the dead creatures in which or with which we receive christ from his table, Lord I am not worthy.  Phi. 
Do you think that Christ is none otherwise in the Sacrament, than he is in a mortal man?  Theo. 
He is more truly, really and naturally in those men that be his members than he is in the elements that be used at his table.  Phi. 
O shameful heresy! Is any mortal man transsubstantiated into Christ, as the elements are by power of consecration?  Theo. 
That which I say is most true; men are the members of Christ, bread is not: Christ abideth in them and they in him, in the bread he doth not: he will raise them in the last day, the bread he will not: they shall reign with him for ever, the bread shall not. And therefore take back your shameful error of transsubstantiating the elements into christ, since he is more really in us than in the pixe or the chalice, and yet we are not substantially converted into him.  Phi. 
I will never believe this whiles I have a day to live.  Theo. 
Neither do I mean in this place to enter that discourse: yet for the confirmation of it, I send you to chrysostom, cyril, and Hilary, who will teach you so much in plain words, that christ is in us really, naturally, corporally, carnally, substantially, which of the Sacrament you shall never be able to prove. For the sacrament is no part of his mystical body, as we are, and therefore we are knit unto him even by the truth of his and our nature, flesh, and substance, as members of the same body to their head, the Sacrament is not, but only annexed as a sign to the heavenly grace, and virtue of Christ mightily present, and truly entering the soul of every man that is fi●lie prepared with faith and repentance to receive and lodge so worthy a ghost.  Phil. 
The Sacrament is turned into the real and natural flesh of Christ, and so are not we.  Theoph. 
If that were true, when the Sacrament is turned by natural digestion into the nourishment of our bodies, the flesh and blood of Christ must likewise be converted into the substance of our bodies: 
Christ entereth not our mouths, when he cometh under our roof.  but that is so blasphemous and impious that you dare not abide it; and therefore Christ entereth not our mouths, when he cometh under our roof, but possesseth our souls & replenisheth them with his heavenly presence & power of grace and life: neither must we say to the Sacrament, Lord I am not worthy; since that is an earthly and corruptible creature: but to Christ himself who hath promised in his Gospel that he and his 
* I●an. 14.  father will come and dwell with us, and performeth the same by the hearing of his word, and receiving of his Sacraments, by which means he cometh and 
* ●phes. ●.  dwelleth in our hearts by faith, as S. Paul affirmeth, and not in our mouths or bellies by any local and real comprehension as you imagine.  Phi. 
We do not deny that Christ cometh by his word unto us; but the Sacraments have a special presence of his, which the word hath not.  Theo. 
The sacraments take their force only and wholly from the word, neither is the word any whit the stronger or better for the visible signs, but our weakness is stayed and supported by them and they endued with power and virtue by the word to sanctify the receiver, where it is believed. And therefore Christ cometh and dwelleth in us, as truly by his word as by his sacraments, and if you compare them, more truly by his word, than by the signs and seals of his word.  Phi. 
We eat his flesh and drink his blood in the sacrament, in the word we do not.  Theo. 

Christ dwelleth in us as truly by his word, as by his sacraments  We eat his flesh & drink his blood more truly in the word, than in the Sacramental and mystical signs. S. Hierom saith, 
* Hier. in Psal. 147.  Ego corpus jesu evangelium puto: & quando dicit, qui non commederit carnem meam, & biberit sanguinem meum licet & in mysterio possit intelligi, tamen verius corpus Christi & sanguis eius sermo Scripturarum est. The body of jesus I think to be the Gospel, & when he saith, he that doth not eat my flesh and drink my blood though this may be understood of the Sacrament, 
The flesh of Christ is eaten more truly in his word than in the sacraments.  yet the word of the Scriptures is more truly the body and blood of Christ. S. Austen saith: 
* 
De Cons. dist. 2. § ut quid paras.  
August. de civi. 〈◊〉. 21. ca 25.   Believe and thou hast eaten: to believe in him, is to eat the lively bread: and that he calleth of the twain the truer kind of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. For repeating these words of our saviour, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him, he saith, Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed revera co●pus Christi manducare. Christ showeth what it is to eat his flesh, not by way of a Sacrament, but in deed, (or truly.) So that the flesh and blood of Christ are MORE TRVELY in the members and words of Christ than in the Sacraments; and yet yourselves teach no man to say to the Preacher, or the Scriptures, Lord I am not worthy.  Phi. 
chrysostom in his Mass said the very same words, to the Sacrament.  Theo. 
How know you what he said, that died so long before you? 
No such words are found in Chrysostoms' Liturgy.   Phi. 
You shall find them in his Liturgy.  Theo. 
Well we may hereafter, when you have put them in; but as yet we find no such words at all in his Liturgy.  Phi. 
The Greek exemplar hath them.  Theo. 
Not those which either Erasmus or Leo Thuscus had when they translated it into Latin: if you have gotten new copies contrary to the old, reason is you publish them, and prove the credits of them before we regard them.  Phi. 
So we will.  Theo. 
And with all you must show that he speaketh these words to the Sacrament: otherwise they conclude nothing for you, 
The words may be there, & yet not spoken to the sacrament.  no more than origen's words did in the like case, when he taught men to say them to Christ at the sacred communion.  Phi. 
That is your evasion: for both Origen and S. chrysostom said it to the Sacrament.  Theo. 
That is your intrusion: for neither Origen nor Chrysostom hath any such reference.  Phi. 
See the books.  Theo. 
Never appeal to the sight of the books, but produce the words. This is your cunning in your Rhemish Testament to bid us often 
a Pag. 21. l. n. 12 pag. 463. lin. 11.  (See) the fathers, and 
b Pa. 452. li. 30. The Jesuits bid us see the fathers, but they do not tell us what we shall find there.  (so the rest) but we have seen them, where you come in thickest with them, and there find nothing for your false and erroneous fancies. And therefore either allege their words, when you use their names, or say you saw them not: we list not at your bidding to go seek for oysters in the Ocean.  Philand. 
You fear to be confounded by them, and that is the cause you will not (See) them.  Theoph. 
They be not our, but your allegations, and did they make for you, we should soon have tidings of you: marry now their words coming short of your assertions, to bear out the matter you send the reader to the names and works of many Fathers, where he must pick out what he can at his finger's ends, 
It is not enough to will us to see the fathers: they must say to what end they allege them.  and in the mean time not be able to charge you with corrupting them, since you bid him (See) them, but told him not what he should find in them. This is a way to quote what authorities you list, be they never so impertinent, and yet to amaze the simple with the number, and weary the learned with not expressing what words you take hold of, and what they seek for: which in questions of faith were very needful.  Phi. 
They say we tell you, 
chrysostom prayeth to Christ in heaven, not to the sacrament.  avoid it how you can.  Theo. 
They say no such thing: and though Origen, as you have heard be far enough from it, yet Chrysostom in the place which you cite is farther off, I mean, from directing his prayers to the sacrament.  
Making his supplications to God after consecration, he saith, 
* Liturg Chrys.  Ipse Domine caelitus respice ad servos tuos inclinantes tibi capita sua. Thou Lord look from heaven on thy servants that bow their necks unto thee. And again, Attend Domine jesu christ Deus noster de sancto habitaculo tuo, & de throno gloriae regni tui, 
Ibidem.  & veni ad sanctificandum nos qui in excelsis una cum patre sedes, & hic nobiscum invisibiliter ades. Behold Lord jesus Christ, our God, FROM thy holy habitation, 
He would have Christ behold the people from heaven, not from the sacrament.  and FROM the throne of the glory of thy kingdom, and come to sanctify us, who sittest in the heavens with thy father; and art here with us invisibly. He desireth the son of God to behold his servants from heaven, not from the sacrament, and from thence he looketh for sanctification, not from the patent or Chalice.  Phi. 
He saith that Christ is also present with us here on earth, though after an invisible manner, which we take to be under the forms of bread and wine.  Theo. 
That Christ is present with us here on earth, we firmly believe, to our great comfort. Where two or three, saith our Saviour, are gathered together in my name, 
Mat. 18. Mat. 28.  I am in the midst of them: and again, Lo● I am always with you until the end of the world: but that he is corporally present under the forms of bread and wine, that is neither avouched by chrysostom, nor admitted by us; it is your vain and fruitless fancy. 
How Christ is present with us.   Phi. 
How can his body be present but bodily?  Theo. 
These words of Chrysostom infer not, that Christ's body is present, but that Christ is present. And since Christ consisteth of two natures, the divine may be present though the human be not. Christ absent, saith Austen, is also present. For unless he were present, 
August. in johan. tract. 50.  he could not be held of us ourselves. But because it is true that he saith, Lo I am with you for ever unto the end of the world, he is both departed, and yet here. He is returned (whence he came) and hath not yet forsaken us. 
His divinity is present with us.  For his body he hath carried into heaven, but his (divine) majesty he hath not taken from the world.  
Neither is his divine power only present with us, but also we have his human nature many ways with us in this world. 
Idem Ibidem.  Habes Christum in praesenti & in futuro. In praesenti per fidem, in praesenti per signum Christi, in praesenti per Baptismatis Sacramentum, 
His humanity present with us many ways, though not in substance.  in praesenti per altaris cibum & potum. Thou hast Christ, saith Austen, in this world, and in the next. In this world by faith, in this world by the sign of Christ, in this world by the Sacrament of baptism, in this world by the meat and drink of the altar. By these things we have him in this world not really, locally, or corporally, but truly, comfortably and effectually, so as our bodies, souls and spirits be sancti●●ed and preserved by him against the day of redemption, when we shall see him and enjoy him face to face in that fullness and perfection which we now are assured of by faith, and prepared for by cleanness and meekness of the inward man.  
The whole Church therefore never 

The Rhe. test pag. 453.  
The ancient Church did exactly distinguish the sacrament from Christ.   cried upon the Sacrament, Lord I am not worthy, Lord beè merciful to me a sinner: Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world have mercy on us: You do sinfully slander them, they did exactly and precisely distinguish the corruptible creature from the eternal creator, and taught all men to lift up their hearts from the elements, which were before their eyes, to him that is in heaven, and shall come from thence and from no place else to judge the world.  
Saint Austen will have the rude ones to be taught that the Sacraments, are 
a De Catech. rudibus. cap. 26.  Signacula rerum diuinar●m visibilia, sed res invisibiles in eyes honorari: Visible scales of things divine, but the things visible to be honoured in them. And as if the case were so plain that no man could well doubt thereof, he saith, 
b De Baptis. lib. 3. cap. 10.  Si ad ipsas res visibiles quibus Sacramenta tractantur, animum conferamus, quis nesciat eas esse corruptibiles? Si autem ad id quod per illas agitur, quis non videat, non posse corrumpi? If we look to the visible things (or elements) by which the Sacraments are performed, who can be ignorant that they are corruptible? But if we look to that which is done by them, who doth not see, that that can not be corrupted? Saint Ambrose saith, 
c Ambr. de Sacrament. li. 4. cap. 3.  Venisti ad Altar, vidisti Sacramenta posita super Altar, & ipsam quidem miratus es creaturam. Tamen creatura solemnis & nota. Thou camest to the Altar and sawest the Sacraments placed on the Altar and maruelledst at the very creature: yet is it an usual and known creature. Origen purposely creating what part of the Sacrament did sanctify the receiver, saith; 
d Orig. in 15. Matt.  Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei & obsecrationem, juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit & in secessum eijcitur. Nec materia panis, sed super ●llum sermo est qui prodest non indign Domino commedenti illum. Haec de typico Symbolicoque corpore. The meat which is sanctified (at the Lord's table) by the word of God, and prayer, as touching the material (parts) which it hath, goeth into the belly and so forth by the privy: neither is the matter of bread it, that profiteth the worthy receiver, but the word rehearsed over it. This I speak of the typical and figurative body.  
For this cause the great Council of Nice directed the whole Church to lift up their understanding above the bread and wine which they saw; 
The whole Church cried on the people to lift up their hearts.  and by faith to conceive the lamb of God slain for the sins of men and proposed and exhibited on the lords table in those mysteries. Their words be 
e Concil. Nice.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let us not basely bend our minds on the bread and cup, that are set before our eyes (at the lords Supper) but lifting up our thoughts let us by faith behold 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth in as well as on.  on (or in) the sacred table the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world. Which admonition the Church ever after observed by crying upon the people to lift up their hearts, not to the Sacraments which they saw, but from them to him that lived and reigned in heaven; whom they adored in equal degree with the father and the holy Ghost; and whom they beheld and touched with the eyes and hands of their faith, but not with their corporal limbs or senses.  

f 
August. in johan tract. 50.  
Christ is both seen and touched by faith.   Quomodo in caelum mittam manum ut ibi sedentem teneam? Mitte fidem & tenuisti. How shall I send up my hand to heaven, to reach (Christ sitting there? Send thy faith (saith Austen) and thou HOLDEST HIM (fast enough. 
g Ambr. in Luc. li. 6. ca 8. de filia princ. Synag. vesi●●ci.  Fide Christus tangitur, fide Christus videtur: non corpore tangitur, non oculis comprehenditur. By faith (saith Ambrose) Christ is touched, by faith Christ is seen: he is not touched with our body, not viewed with our eyes. And therefore chrysostom saith, 
h Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 24.  He must fly (not to the Sacrament, but) on high that will come to this body: 
* Ibidem.  even to heaven itself, or rather above the heavens: for where the body is, there also (will) the Eagles (be.)  Phi. 

Christ is on the table, because his death is solemnised in the mysteries on the table.  The council of Nice saith, The Lamb of God is on the sacred table: where then did they seek him or made they prayers unto him, but on the Altar?  Theo. 
They lifted up their hearts to him that sat in heaven, and from heaven look down upon them, and their prayers, before they could please God, were directed to the same place and person that their hearts were. You must therefore either fasten their hearts and faiths to the Sacrament, or suffer their prayers together with their affections to ascend to heaven 
i Colos. 3.  where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God, and 
k Phil. 3.  from whence we look for (our) Saviour, even the Lord jesus Christ.  Phi. 
All the places which are yet alleged against you, you have shifted off, by referring the speeches to Christ himself sitting in heaven, and as you say not in the sacrament: But Theodoret's words are so clear, that no shift will derue. He speaketh of the very mystical signs and Sacraments which are seen with eyes, and touched with hands, 
Theod. dial. 2.  and of them he saith: Intelliguntur ea esse, quae facta sunt, & creduntur, & adorantur ut quae ill● sint, quae creduntu●. The Sacraments, are understood to be the things which they are made, & are believed and ADORED as being the same which they are believed.  Theo. 

Not one of the fathers which they bring speaketh of the external sacrament save only Theodoret.  Only Theodoret of all the fathers that ever mentioned adoration spoke of the Sacrament itself. The rest direct their words to Christ reigning in glory, not to the host or Chalice in the priests hand. He in deed speaketh of the mystical signs, which the rest did not.  Philand. 
Then yet there is one Father for the adoration of the Sacrament: you said we had none.  Theo. 
Would you prove so high a point of Religion, as this is, to be Catholic by one only Father, and such an one as you think not worthy to be called a Saint?  Phi. 
These exceptions are but dilatory, and quite besides the matter. 
The mystical signs must be adored, but not with divine honour.  Do you grant that he saith the mystical signs must be adored?  Theo. 
He saith so.  Philand. 
And such upstarts as you are, would be credited against him, when you say the Sacrament is not to be adored.  Theoph. 
We reason not about our credit, but about your conclusion.  Philand. 
That is too plain for your store.  Theo. 
Why do you then conceal it so long?  Phi. 

These men can play with shadows very prettily.  You shall soon hear it, and have your belly full of it. The mystical tokens be adored saith that ancient Father Theodorete. Mark now how nimbly we come within you, & overthrow you in plain field. If you deny it, we have here antiquity for it: If you grant it, then are you worse than miscreants for holding all this while against it.  Theo. 
With such weapons I think Alexander the great did conquer the world.  Phi. 
When you come to a non plus, than you fall to idle talk. But leave digressing, and give us a short and direct answer, which we know for your hearts you can not.  Theo. 
You know much; but if you knew yourselves and your own weakness it were better.  Phi. 
Did I not tell you, this place would overthrow you?  Theo. 
Because he saith the substance of bread and wine must be adored.  Phi. 
He saith no such thing; 
The mystical tokens remaining in their former substance must be adored.  but the mystical tokens must be adored. And what are the mystical tokens but the mysteries themselves, which are all one with the Sacrament?  Theo. 
Can you take the top and the tail, and leave out the middle so cunningly?  Phi. 
We leave out nothing.  Theo. 
Theodoret's words are, 
Theod. Dial. 2.  Neque enim sigra mystica post sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura. Manent en●m in priore substantia, & figura & forma: & videri & ta●gi possunt sicut & prius: Intelliguntur antem ea esse quae facta sunt, & credu●tur & adorantur ut quae illa sint, quae creduntur. The mystical signs after consecration do not departed from their own nature. For they remain in their former substance, and figure and form, and may be seen and touched as they were before: but they are understood to be those things which they are made, and are believed AND ADORED as being the things which they are believed.  
The mystical signs, 
If they will adore the substance of bread, Theodoret's words will help them forward, but not otherwise.  not departing from their own nature but remaining in their former substance are adored. By this you may prove; if you be so disposed, that the creatures of bread and wine must be adorens, which perhaps in your Church is no fault, because it is so often: But the Church of Christ abhorreth it as a wicked impiety to adore any dead or dumb creature. And therefore you must be driven as well as we, to seek for an other, and farther meaning in Theodorete: otherwise you will shake the foundation of your own faith with your own antiquity, more than you shall do ours.  
Our answer is easy. 
Adored is sometimes as much as ●eue●enced.  The mystical signs, he saith, are adored, but not with divine honour: and adoration with the Grecians as also with the Scriptures, when it is applied to mortal men or creatures, signifieth only a reverent regard of their places or uses.  
Your own Law saith: 
De cons. dist. 3. § venerabiles in glossa. ¶ cultu.  In hoc sensu possumus, quamlibet rem sacram adorare, id est reverentiam exhibere. In this sense we may adore any sacred thing whatsoever, that is give it (due) reverence. So that you utterly overthrow both your adoration and your Transubstantiation, when you brought Theodorete to tell us that the substance of bread is adored (that is reverenced) and yet remaineth after Consecration. For if it remain, what adore you but the substance of a dead creature? 
The jesuits authorities for adoration of the Sacrament prove no such things  And that if you do, how many steps are you from open Idolatry? Thus though we crack not of our conquests as you do, we return your authorities for adoring the sacrament as either impertinent or insufficient, & give us cause to consider that your worshipping it with divine honour is no catholic or ancient verity, but a pernicious and wicked novelty.  Phil. 
Is it wickedness to worship Christ?  Theop. 
You defile the name of Christ, 
The real presence.  & spoil him of his worship, by giving them both to senseless creatures.  Phi. 
How often shall we beat this into your dull heads, that we give this honour to the Sacrament, and not to senseless creatures?  Theo. 
And how often shall we ring this into your deaf ears, 
This is my body, doth not infer the real presence.  that the Sacrament in corporal matter and substance is a senseless and corruptible creature?  Phi. 
Did not Christ say this is my body?  Theo. 
You must prove the speech to be literal, as well as the words to be his.  Phi. 
Is not the letter plain, this is my body?  Theo. 
The letter is so plain, that it killeth the carnal interpreter; and hath driven you whiles you would needs refuse the figurative and spiritual constructions of Christ's words, to these absurdities and enormities, which have even overwhelmed your Church.  Phi. 

Not the words, but the exposition of the words is the thing that we strive for. The Jesuits may soon bring a thousand authorities for this point, and not one to the purpose.  Can you wish for plainer words than these, this is my body?  Theo. 
I could wish that in expounding these words you did rely rather on the catholic fathers, than on your uncatholic fancies.  Phi. 
All the fathers with one voice toyne with us in this doctrine.  Theoph. 
You do but dream of a dry Summer. Not one of the ancient fathers ever spoke of your real presence, or the literal sense of these words, on which you build the rest.  Phi. 
Will you have a thousand places for that purpose; or if variety of writers do rather content you, will you have three, or four hundredth several fathers, all ancient and catholic in divers ages and countries that shall depose for our doctrine in this point?  Theo. 
I can enter a course to save you pains, and to make a readier dispatch if you will be ruled by me.  Phi. 
What is it?  Theo. 
Bring us but one father for 800. years that ever taught your transubstantiation, and we will count it catholic.  Phi. 
What talk you of one? You shall have one hundredth of as ancient and catholic writers, as any were in the Church of christ for a thousand years after his ascending to heaven.  Theo. 
You were best take it, when you be well offered. One fair and sufficient authority shall please us better, than a cartloade of names abused, and places perverted.  Phi. 
It is as easy for us to bring them by whole hundreds. A man that once supplied the same room which you do now, 
The papists in this question think to conquer with number if not with strength of places.  hath produced two hundredth of them in his Diacosion Martyrion: Vernierus, an other of our side, hath alleged 318. several and sundry writers: as many as there were Bishops in the great Council of Nice: Garetius, a man of singular reading hath gathered four hundred forty five good and substantial Authors, even from Melchizedech, to this present age, besides Poets, women, Counsels, Miracles, visions, jews, Ethnics, and heretics, which all bear witness to our doctrine. And if you have not seen the books, I will lend you them for your instruction: I could be content I tell you to be at any cost to win a soul, and wish to you no worse than to myself.  Theo. 
Your kindness without cause, is but service without thanks. I have seen your Diacosion Martyrion, your great & universal Council militant touching the truth of the most divine sacrament of the Eucharist assembled by Vernierus & your nine orders & Ranks of I know not whom, digested by Garetius: besides the labours & travels of many others your adherents: 
The papists beap up places for their real presence by hundreths, & not one to the purpose.  And reading them all, I find not one father that ever dreamt of your material & corporal conversion of the elements into christ for 800. years & upward. Hyperbolical speeches I find in Chrysostom, & some hard similitudes in damascene & others: but a manifest testimony for the real & carnal presence, which you defend, I find none: and as for the fathers which be any thing ancient they go clearly and exactly with us in this question.  Phi. 
With you? By this a man may perceive you never saw them, or at lest never read them. Myself can allege you 500 places, whereof you shall not answer one, 
It were more wisdom for them to understand what they allege, than to allege they know not what.  but by mere shifts & jests & of tropes and figures and such like mockeries.  Theo. 
It were pains better bestowed for you to understand what you allege, than to allege that which you understand not. You may wrest and misuse 500 places of the fathers, as your friends before you have done, in this point, & yourselves in other questions have showed the like activity. But that the substance of the bread vanished by consecration, & the substance of Christ's body really succeed under the same dimensions & accidents of bread & wine, & entereth our mouths locally comprised within those forms; for this you shall never show us any one father greek or latin, within the compass of 800. years after Christ.  Phi. 
A thousand authorities can we bring you with a wet finger that shall clearly convince the presence of Christ in the sacrament.  Theo. 
And not one of them shall conclude that manner of presence which you maintain. 
We strive not for Christ's presence in the mysteries, but for the manner of his presence.   Phi. 
As for the manner of his being there, it forceth not much, so you grant him to be really and verily present.  Theo. 
His presence there can do you little good, except the manner of his presence be likewise expressed and avouched by the places which you would bring.  Phi. 
If he be present, ergo the substance of his flesh is present: and that must needs be corporally & locally comprised in the forms of bread & wine.  Theo. 
What father saith so besides yourselves?  Phi. 
They all say, he is present.  Theo. 
And so do we.  Phi. 
In words you say it, but when you come to the push, you deny the truth and effect of his presence. 
The presence which the jesuits hold the fathers never hea●d of.   Theo. 
We do not look you should understand us that understand not yourselves. You have framed of your own heads a certain manner of Christ's presence in the supper without the direction or consent of any learned or ancient father: and that of all others the grossest and absurdest that could be devised: and now you no sooner hear the name of Christ's body or blood in the mysteries, 
Garetius, Vernierus, and the rest, if a father do but name the body of Christ, bring him in by and by for a witness on their side, and then they muster them by hundreths.  but you straightway grow to a special conceit, that your real and carnal presence is there confirmed and confessed. And this made your builders of Babel, as they posted through the Fathers, to note every place and person, that did but mention The body of Christ as a witness for Transubstantiation: where if it would have pleased you and your fellows to have weighed the rules and cautions of the fathers together with their speeches and exhortations & not to have hunted after your own fancies in their phrases, but marked & remembered their instructions, how they would be taken & understood, when they speak of the christian mysteries, you should have saved a great deal of labour, which now you should have saved a great deal of labour, which now you have spent to no purpose, & gained security from this difficulty, which hath sotted your schools and churches with a most pernicious and yet a monstruous error.  Phi. 
And we say that you be so blinded with presumption and rebellion against the Church of God, that you will not yield to all the fathers that ever wrote of this matter since Christ's time, but because they now and then speak of signs and figures, you 
* You turn all f●●m the thing, themselves to the signs, & that is the cause of your error.  turn all to tropes and metaphors, as if neither Christ himself, nor any of his Apostles, or their successors, the Godly teachers and Pastors of his church had ever spoken properly or plainly of this sacrament, but all in clouds and riddles, such as neither Priest nor people, that should come after, could possibly conceive, and none to this day had understood, till you came lately to trouble the world with heresy and iniquity.  Theo. 
Take your pleasures, your tongues be your own, who can tame them if you will not contain them? You have learned of your fathers to 
a Psalm 64.  whet them like sword, and to 
b jerem. 18. Wisd. 1.  smite with them: and to shoot forth your arrows, even, bitter words; but the mouth that rageth with lies (& slanders) as the wise man forwarneth, destroyeth the soul; and in the mean time your errors are nothing diminished or excused by your taunts or teeth-gawles.  
As touching the matter itself, Sacraments of their own nature, and by their first and chief erection are visible signs of invisible graces; so that if they be no signs, they be no sacraments: and though the signs must be diligently distinguished from the things, yet for good causes in teaching and writing do the signs bear the names of the things themselves, 
These too rules must be observed in reading the father's touching this matter, else we shall infinitely err.  whose signs they are, in so much that no father speaking or writing of the bread or wine after they be once made sacraments, giveth them any other name, than the body and blood of Christ; not that in earthly matter or essence they be really converted into those divine things, as you falsely gather, but for that remaining in their former & usual both nature and substance, they have in them, & carry with them the fruit, effect, and force of Christ's flesh wounded, & blood shed for the remission of our sins. And because the people should regard not the creatures which they see, but the graces which they believe, therefore the Fathers every where without exception call the elements by the names of the inward and heavenly virtues, that are annexed to them, and conferred with them by the truth of his word, & power of his spirit. This is the first rule, which you should have observed.  

To mistake the signs for the things themselves, must needs bread a monstruous error.  The next is that whensoever they teach and propose the dignity, propriety or efficacy of the Sacrament, they mean not the creatures, which our eyes and tastes do better judge of, than their tongues or wits can teach us, but that other divine, lyfe-giving and soule-saving part of the sacrament, which our hearts by faith take hold on, and possess more really and effectually, than if it were chammed in our mouths, or buried in our stomachs, as you grossly conceive of those things which be most high and heavenly. These two Rules remembered, a very mean scholar may soon discharge the burden of all your allegations. For either you mistake the one part for the other, 
A●l their allega●●ns are answered with the●e two observations.  supposing that to be corporal which in deed is spiritual: or else you urge the name which the sign beareth for similitude, as ●arn●stily to all intents as 〈◊〉 were were the thing itself, which causeth you to 〈◊〉 so many texts, and to stray so far from truth, that no sound can recall you.  Phi. 
Away with your new found observations: The catholic church hath the spirit of truth promised for her direction, and therefore the will none of your wise inventions to qualify the father's speeches. Learn you rather at her hands to believe the words of Christ, 
The literal pressing of those words is the ground of al● their error.  who first appointed this Sacrament, and pronounced it to be himself, without sign or figure, when he said, this is my body, and this is my blood, not spiritual or metaphorical, but the same body, which was broken, and the same blood which was shed for remission of sins: and that I trust you will confess was his natural, and local, hath body and blood.  Theo. 
The question is not, 
Christ did make the bread a God, but added grace to the sign that it might become a sacrament.  whether that were his natural body, which suffered on the cross, but when he said of the bread, this is my body, whether he substantially changed the dead element into himself, & made the creature become the creator, or whether he annexed his truth to the sign, and grace to the Sacrament which required both the word of Christ, to make the promise: and his power, to perform the speech. And therefore we believe and acknowledge the words of our Saviour to be very needful in ordaining this Sacrament, even in such manner and order as they were spoken: that the signs might have the fruits and effects of his body and blood: But that he changed substances with the bread and wine or deified the creatures, that his speech doth not infer: and that as yet we do not believe, except you can show us how the flesh of Christ, which was first made of a woman, is now become to be made of bread, and a dead and senseless creature exalted to be the son of God.  Phi. 
We do not say the bread is substantially converted into Christ, 
If bread be not made the son o● God, then sure the bread is not made Christ.  or made the son of God: but the bread is abolished, & in the place thereof cometh the glorious flesh of our Lord and Saviour, who is the Son of God. And in that sense we hold the creator is now where the creature was: but the dead element is not made the Son of God: you would feign catch us at such an advantage.  Theo. 
How you can avoid it, 

If the bread be Christ it must needs be made Christ: for before it was not Christ.  
Christ doth not say, this is changed for or with my body, but this is my body.   I yet perceive not: for if the bread be now Christ, which before it was not, ergo the bread is made Christ, and by consequent a dead element is now become or made the Son of God, which I think will hardly stand with the very first grounds of Christian religion.  Phi. 
You press the letter against both reason and truth. For the one is said to be converted or changed into the other, because the one displaceth and succeed the other: & so is it a change rather of the one for the other, than a conversion of the one into the other: if you take conversion properly, as the Philosophers do.  Theo. 
Christ death not say, where the bread was, there is now my body, but this (bread) is my body. And since before consecration it was not his body, and now by repeating the words, is become his body: the conclusion is evident, that by your opinion the bread is made Christ, and so become the son of God.  Phi. 
You think to snare us with schoole-trickes: but setting your sophisms aside, we plainly believe the Sacrament is Christ.  Theo. 
You must believe the bread is Christ, which as yet the Articles of our Creed will not suffer us to do, 
If the bread be Christ, ergo it is God: for he is God.  I mean, not to think that a dead and dumb creature may be God.  Phi. 
Do we say the bread is God?  Theo. 
You must aver it, if you stick to the letter of Christ's words, for he said of the bread, as you enforce it, this is myself: now, he was God.  Phi. 
I thought I should be even with you at Lands end. Christ did not say this bread is my body, 
THIS in Christ's words must needs note somewhat.  but this is my body, where now is the force of your argument?  Theo. 
Even where it was.  Phi. 
Why? Christ said, this is, not meaning bread, or any other creature.  Theo. 
That this must be somewhat, else nothing was the body of Christ, & so you lose not only the bread, but also the body,  Phi. 
Nay he said, this is, and that must needs be somewhat, it can not be nothing.  Theo. 
It is well you have found it. I said so before you. Then this is my body. What this? Was it bread that he spoke of: or something else?  Phi. 
He spoke of that, 
This must be this somewhat, and not this nothing.  which he had in his hands.  Theo. 
You mean, not long before.  Phi. 
In deed you say he had at that present, when he spoke the words, nothing in his hands, and so you would have nothing to be his body.  Theo. 
Hinder not our course with matter impertinent to this place. The demonstrative THIS noteth that which Christ then gave to his Disciples, as well as that which (you think) he then held in his hands. Choose whether you will, of force the thing must be all one. For that which he held, that he gave, and of that which he first held and after gave, 
The jesuits be loath to tell us what is meant by this in the words of Christ.  he said, this is my body.  Phi. 
He did so.  Theo. 
What was it?  Phi. 
Somewhat it was, whatsoever it was.  Theo. 
What somewhat do you say it was?  Phi. 
What if I cannot tell?  Theo. 
Then must you seek farther for your changing of substances: The words of Christ, if you know not whereof he spoke, prove no conversion of the bread into his body. For unless THIS be taken to import the bread, the bread by those words can not be changed: and if not by these, then surely by none.  Phi. 
I see your drift: you fet about to force me to confess that by the strict coherence of our saviours words 
This indeed is the right literal sense of our saviours words, and since that is apparently false, the figurative sense must take place.  the bread is Christ: & since that proposition in precise speech is untrue, you would come in with your figures.  Theo. 
And your drift is as open, that having devised a real and carnal presence to yourselves by colour of Christ's words, and perceiving the same to be no way consequent to the letter, which you pretend: lest you should be disproved to your faces, you will not admit the perfect and plain context of Christ's words: but stand hovering about other sophistical illusions, which will not help you. For we have the full confession of scriptures & fathers against you, that the pronoun (THIS) in Christ's words must be restrained to the bread and to nothing else.  
The Lord took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke (no doubt the bread that he took) and gave to the Disciples (the selfsame that he broke) saying, 
Matth. 26. The connexion of the gospel re●erreth THIS to the bread in the words of Christ.  take ye, eat ye (this that I give you) This is my body. What THIS could our Saviour mean, but, THIS that he gave, THIS that he broke, THIS that he took, which by the witness of the Scripture itself was bread? If you suppose that he took bread, but broke it not: or broke it, but gave it not: or gave it his Disciples to eat, but told them not this, which he gave them, but some other thing besides that was his body, you make the Lords supper a merry jest, 
THIS of itself inferreth nothing, and therefore must be guided by the circumstances of the text.  where the later end starteth from the beginning and the middle from the both. The pronoun THIS of itself inferreth nothing, and therefore except you name the bread which Christ pointed unto, when he spoke these words, you confirm not the faiths, but amaze the wits of your followers.  
S. Paul proposing the lords Supper to the church of Corinth expresseth that very word which we say the circumstances of the Gospel import. As 
a 1. Cor. 11.  often as ye shall eat (saith he) This bread, and drink this cup, you show forth the Lords death till he come. The 
b 1. Cor. 10.  bread, which he broke, is it not the communion of Christ's body? 
a 1. Cor. 11.  Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup: for whosoever shall eat this bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body & blood of the Lord. 
Saint Paul in plain speech ioyneth● THIS to the bread Al the fathers refer THIS to the bread.  So that as well by the coherence of the former words in the description of the Lords supper, as by the manifest adjection which S. Paul putteth to the demonstrative, we conclude our saviour pronounced of the bread, that it was his body.  
The referring of THIS to the bread all the catholic fathers that ever wrote with pen in the church of God, acknowledge with one consent. justinus, 
c Iust. Apol. 2.  We be taught, that the sanctified food (which nourisheth our flesh and our blood) is the flesh and blood of that jesu. Tertullian, 
d Tertul. adver. jedaeos.  So Christ taught us, calling bread his body, and discussing the words of the supper, 
e Idem li. 4. contra Marcionem.  Why, saith he, doth (Christ there) call bread his body? Austen, 
f De cons. dist. 2. § qui manducas.  That which your faith requireth to be taught, the bread is the body of Christ, and the cup his blood. Cyprian, 
g Cypr. de unctio. Chrismat.  Our Lord at his table gave (to the Disciples) with his own hands bread and wine: on the cross he yielded his body to the soldiers hands to be wounded, that (his Apostles) might teach (all) Nations) how bread and wine were (his) flesh and blood. Ireneus, 
h Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.  How shall it appear to them that the bread (on which they give thanks) is the body of their Lord, and the cup his blood, if they grant not Christ to be the son of the creator of the world? 
i Idem. li. 4. c. 57  How did the Lord rightly, if an other were his father, taking bread of this condition, that is usual amongst us, confess it to be his body? Hierom, 
k Hier. ad Hedibiam. quaest. 2.  Let us learn that the bread which the Lord broke & gave to his disciples, is the Lords body, himself saying to them, take ye, eat ye, this is my body. Athan. or at lest the commentary that is extant in his name, 
l Athan in 1. Cor. cap. 11.  What is the bread? the body of Christ. Epiphan. 
m Epiph. in Anchorato.  Of that which is round in figure & senseless in power, the Lord would say by grace, this is my (body.) cyril, 
n Cyril. catechis. mystag. 4.  Christ thus avoucheth and saith of the bread, this is my body. Theodorete, 
o Theod. ●ial. ●.  In the very giving of the mysteries, he called bread his body.  

The Jesuits lose all hope of their transubstantiation, if THIS in the words of Christ do not note the bread.  And of all others yourselves may not shrink from this resolution of Christ's words: the surest hold of your real presence, though it be not much, standeth only on this settle. For what words have you besides th●se, to prove that the bread is changed from his former substance? verily none. Then if in these words, which should work the change, there be no mention at all of bread: how can that, which is no way comprised in them, be changed by them? So miraculous a change can not be wrought by silence, but rather (if any such be) by the power of Christ's words, and in those words must the thing at least be named, that shall be changed. Again the demonstrative THIS must needs note that which was there present on the lords table, before the words of consecration were wholly repeated: and the flesh of Christ could not be present under the likeness of bread without or before Consecration: ergo the pronoun inferreth not Christ, but the bread, which by your own positions is not abolished, but 
p De can● dis●. 2. § ant benedictio●e●, Gl●ssa ibidem.  in ultimo instanti prolationis verborum, in the very last end & instant of uttering these words. And therefore remain in his own nature when the first word was pronounced.  
Which some not the meanest men of your side foresaw very well howsoever you since have taken other counsel, and therefore they say: 
q Gerson. contr. Floretum li. 4.  Dicendum est, quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panis, We must behold, saith Gerson, that the pronoun THIS, doth demonstrate the substance of bread: and Steven Gardiner: 
r Gard. contra diabolic. sophist.  Christus ait evidenter hoc est corpus meum demonstrans panem: Christ sayeth plainly this is my body, pointing to the bread. Notwithstanding afterward he changed his mind in this, as in many other things & came to 
s In his Marc. Antoni. Consr.  Individuum vagum: as if Christ had said THIS (what is it, I can not tell, but it must needs be somewhat) is my body.  
Occam and other profound fellows of your side bethinking themselves how your opinion might best agree with the words of Christ, say the pronoun THIS must be referred to the 
t Occam. in 4. s●ntent. dist. 13.  body of Christ: as if our Saviour had said, this (my body) is my body. To make all cocksure, the colonel of your scholmen, I mean the gloze resolveth the doubt on this wife: 
u De cons. dist. 2. § tim●rem Glossa ibidem.  Solet quaeri quid demonstretur per pronomen hoc, It is a common question what is meant by the pronoun THIS: whether bread, or the body of Christ? Not bread, for that is not the body of Christ: nor yet the body of Christ, for it appeareth not, that there is any transubstantiation, till the words be all pronounced. To this demand I say that by the word THIS, 
Then have the jesuits small hold in the literal sense of Christ's words for their transubstantiation.  nothing is meant, but it is there put materially (without any signification at all.) Thus you turned and tossed the words of Christ so long till you brought all that the Lord did and said at his last supper to plain NOTHING. With such unchristian toys were your schools fraughted, 
That this is the right purport of Christ's words it cannot be doubted.  and the world deceived: such monsters you hatched when once you left the direction of the Scriptures and Fathers, and fell to broaching your own guesses. But you must either admit our explication (this bread is my body) for the right ordering and perfitting of Christ's words, or else descent from the manifest Scriptures, from all the catholic Fathers, and with shame enough from your own fellows and fancies.  Phi. 
We stick not so much at the filling up of the words which Christ spoke, as at the constering and expounding of them. You delude them with tropes and significations, 
So long as the letter is true we may not fly to figures: but if that be false we kill our souls except we ●lie to figures.  as if Christ had been speaking parables, and not ordaining sacraments. We say there must be a real truth and active force in them to perform the letter as it lieth. For in Scripture so long as the letter may possibly be true, we may not fly to figures.  Theo. 
In that you say right. We must embrace the sense which is occurrent in the letter before all others, if it agree with faith and good manners: but if it cross either of them, we must beware the letter, lest it kill: and seek for an other and deeper sense which must needs be figurative. That direction S. Augustine giveth to all men, when they read the Scriptures. 
* 
Aug. de d●●tr. Christiana lib. 3 cap. 10. When the speech must be figurative. The literal coherence of these words (this bread is my body) is impossible, blasphemous and barbarous.  
To reprove the misconsterer is to reverence the speaker.   Iste omnino modus est (locutionis inveniendae propriáne an figurata sit) ut quicquid in sermone divino neque ad morum honestatem, nec ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest, figuratum esse cognoscas. This is the perfect way (to discern whether a speech be proper or figurative) that whatsoever in the word of God can not be properly referred either to integrity of manners or verity of faith, thou resolve thyself, it is figurative.  Phi. 
That prescription is very sound: but it furthereth not your figurative sense. For the letter of these words, which we stand for, is neither against faith nor good manners.  Theo. 
The literal acception of these words as they lie, this (bread) is my body, is first impossible by your own confession, next blasphemous by the plain level of our Creed, and lastly barbarous by the very touch and instinct of man's nature.  Phi. 
Charge you Christ with so many foul oversights in speaking the words?  Theo. 
The words which Christ spoke, be gracious and religious we know: but where there may be brought a double construction of them, a carnal or a spiritual: a literal or a Sacramental, the literal construction, which you will needs defend to deface the other, is we say reproved as no part of our saviours meaning, by those three bars which we proposed.  Phi. 
You propose much, but you prove little.  Theo. 
I should prove even as much as you do, if I should prove nothing: but that which I proposed, shall not want proof.  
The first your own friends will help me to prove. Your Law saith, 
z 
De cons. dist. 2. § panis est in Altari. Glossa ibidem. Not possible by their own confession, that bread should be the body of Christ.  
To say that bread is christ in proper speech is horrible blasphemy.   Hoc tamen est impossible, quod panis sit corpus Christi: Yet this is impossible, that bread should be the body of Christ. Why strive you then for that which yourselves grant is not possible to be true? Why forsake you the mystical interpretation which is possible? what greater vanity can you show than to cleave to that sense, which you see can not stand? If it be bread, how can it be Christ? If it be Christ, how can it be bread?  
The second is as clear. For if bread in proper and precise speech be the flesh of Christ, ergo bread is also the feed of David: ergo bread was fastened to the cross for our sins: ergo bread was buried, rose the third day from death, and now sitteth in heaven at the right hand of God the Father: nay, no question, if bread be Christ, then is bread the Son of God, and second person in the sacred Trinity: which how well your stomaches can digest we know not, in truth our hearts tremble to hear an earthly, dead, and corruptible creature, by your literal & carnal devotion, advanced to the Lord of life & grace, the maker of heaven and earth, yea the living and everlasting God: and yet if bread be truly and properly Christ, these monstruous impieties you can not avoid.  
Thirdly what could you devise more injurious and odious to christian mildness & manners, 
To eat flesh in proper speech is against nature and far from all piety.  than the letter of these words: eat you (this is) my flesh, drink you (this is) my blood. Had you been willed in as plain terms to crucify Christ, as you be willed to eat his flesh, you would not I trust have presently banded yourselves with the jews to put him to death, but rather have staggered at the letter, and sought for some farther and other meaning: Ye be now willed to eat his flesh & drink his blood which is a precept far more heinous & horrible in christian behaviour and religion, if you follow the letter: as Austen affirmeth. 
a August. contra advers. legis & Propheta. lib. 2. cap. 9  It appeareth more horrible to eat man's flesh than to kill it, to drink man's blood than to shed it. And again, (The Capernites) 
b Idem contra eundem. lib. 1. cap. 14.  were more excusable, that could not abide the words of Christ, which they understood not, being (in deed) horrible (in that they were spoken) as a blessing, not as a cursing: 
c Cyril. in johan. lib. 4. cap. 22.  They thought, saith cyril, Christ had invited them to eat the raw flesh of a man, and drink blood, which things be horrible to the very ears. Why then press you the letter, which is heinous, & forget that the speech can not be religious except it be figurative?  
verily S. Austen concludeth the speech to be figurative for this only reason. 
d 
August. de doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16.  
To eat flesh is an heinous act: ergo Christ's words are figurative This is S. Austin's reason, if the Jesuits can re●ure him, let them.   If the scripture seem to command any vile or ill fact, the speech is figurative. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you: facinus velflagitium videtur jubere, Christ seemeth to command a wicked & sinful act: figura est ergo, It is therefore a figurative speech, commanding us to be partakers of the Lords passion & sweetly & profitably to keep in mind that his flesh was crucified & wounded for us. If then the real eating of Christ's flesh with our mouths, and actual drinking of his blood with our lips be wicked and heinous, why press you the letter of these words eat you, this is my body: drink you, this is my blood, against truth, against faith, against nature, neither possibility, nor christianity, nor common honesty suffering your exposition to be good, & S. Austen in plain terms concluding, It is therefore a figure of speech.  Phi. 
Sir, you be misconstered all this while. The verb, which coupleth both parts of the proposition together, 
Where Christ said, this bread is my body: the jesuits say, this must be no bread before it can be my body.  doth not here signify this to be simply that, but this to be really changed in that, as if our Lord had said, THIS (bread) is (now become) my body, that is substantially changed into my body.  Theo. 
Sir you shuffle the words of Christ to serve your dreams, & yet you scape not the rocks which you thought to shun. If the bread must be changed in substance, that is become no bread, afore it be the body of Christ, ergo bread is not the body of Christ, and so your construction is a plain contradiction to the letter which you would interpret. For Christ said, this (bread) is my body: that cannot be true, say you, unless the bread lose first his substance, and cea●e in deed to be bread: and so where Christ said (this) bread is my body, you expound his words in this sort, that it must first be no bread, afore it can be his body.  
Besides in absurdity there is no difference whether you say, 
It is as great blasphemy for the bread to be turned into Christ, as to be Christ.  bead is Christ, or bread is made Christ, & changed into Christ. For that which is made Christ, without all question, is Christ: & so the same blasphemies are consequent to this exposition, that were dependent on the former.  Phi. 
Well, yet the bread may be abolished, and Christ's body succeed in the place where the bread was, without any of these inconveniences.  Theo. 
Thither are you feign to fly, when you be hardly pressed with the sequels of the literal sense: 
The jesuits would feign shift to have the letter stand true, but it will not be.  but in the mean time you forget that you be clean gone from the words of Christ, which you pretended to follow. He said this is my body, you, to expound his speech say THIS must first vanish away and then my body shall succeed in the same place, and be covered with the same accidents, though THIS neither in show, nor substance, 

The Jesuits urging the letter st●ppe farthest from the letter.  
It is a world to see their Schoolmen toss the words of Christ from post to pillo●: and at length to leave them as men in a Maze.   be my body.  Phi. 
This is sophistry, which the catholic fathers were never acquainted with.  Theo. 
If it be any, it is yours & not ours: you first forsook the exposition of Christ's words which the learned and godly fathers with one accord witnessed & & delivered: & then stumbling at the letter, you hatched your carnal & local presence against Scriptures and fathers: and when the words of Christ would not sit your fancies, you racked & wrenched them till you brought both them to nothing, and yourselves to a maze, that you knew not what you said: where as if you had continued their interpretation, you had cleared the words of Christ from all perplexities, enjoyed the fruits of the Lords table without peril of Idolatry or impiety, eased yourselves of those absurdities, which you be now plunged in up hard to the ears.  Phi. 
What interpretation mean you?  Theo. 
That which the Fathers generally believed & publicly taught in the church of Christ.  Phi. 
And what exposition was that, 
Not one of the ancient fathers ever affirmed the words of Christ to be literal.  but the same which we now urge, & you resist?  The. 
Show but one ancient father that ever affirmed the words of Christ, at his last Supper were properly spoken, or literally to be taken, and we will receive your sense.  Phi. 
What? you will not?  Theo. 
What need you repeat it, when you hear us offer it?  Phi. 
Not a father, that ever avouched these words of Christ, this is my body, to be properly spoken, or literally taken?  Theo. 
Not a father, that is ancient.  Phi. 
How would you lie, if you might be let alone? I can name you presently a good number of them that in exquisite terms shall affirm the words of Christ to be literal. 
Those later grecians that pre●le the letter do it to far other purposes than the jesuits do.   Theo. 
Shall they be ancient?  Phi. 
I can not tell what you mean by ancient, you would have them belike before Christ was borne.  Theo. 
As though there were not difference both in the ages and credits of those writers, that have gone before us in the church of Christ.  Phi. 
They shall be ancient.  Theo. 
Damascene perhaps & Theophilact.  Phi. 
Yea Epiphanius, Euthymius and many others.  The. 
Many others: is a note above ela: These four affirm that Christ did not say, this is the image or figure of my body: but this is my body: which we confess was needful for the first maintainer and institutor of the Sacrament to say: Marry by those words our Saviour did not mean to abolish the substance of bread, or wine, but to 
Why Christ was to say this is my body, and not this is the figure of my body.  unite the force and fruit of his flesh crucified, and blood shed for our sins, to the elements, that receiving the one, we might through faith, be partakers of the other, by the working of his spirit, and power of the word which he then spoke: much less did these later writers (the eldest of them being more than 700 years after Christ) intent to gainsay the fathers that were before them of greater judgement and deeper knowledge: howsoever in show they seem loath, that Christ's words should be recalled to a bare and naked figure, which for our parts, we do not.  Phi. 

All the ancient fathers with one consent affirm the words of Christ to be figurative.  A bare figure? nay they will have no figure in the words of Christ: & to that end they urge the very letter, as excluding all tropes & figures which you now take up in a spleen to frustrate our proofs.  Theo. 
Did the Fathers mean to frustrate your proofs, when they took up this doctrine many hundrethes, before you or your real presence were heard of?  Philand. 
Do they teach the words of Christ, eat, this is my body, to be figurative?  Theo. 
I have showed you causes sufficient to fray the godly from the letter, which doth rather kill than quicken the carnal interpreters, yet am I content to forego them all, if in expounding the words of Christ figuratively, the catholic and ancient fathers do not make expressly with us and against you directly.  
Tertullian. 
a Tertul. lib. 4. contr. Marc.  The bread, which was taken and given to the Disciples, Christ made his body by saying, this is my body, that is, the figure of my body. Why doth (Christ) call bread his body? (Martion) understandeth not this was an old figure of the body of Christ speaking by jeremy: they laid their hands together against me, saying, come, let us cast wood on his bread, that is, the cross on his body. Therefore the lightner of antiquities in calling the bread his body, fully declared what he would then (at his last Supper) have the bread to signify. Augustine discussing the words of Moses, the soul of all flesh is his blood. 
b Aug. in Leuit. quaest. 57  The thing, saith he, that doth signify commonly taketh the name of the thing, that is thereby signified: as it is written, the seven ears of corn (which Pharaoh dreamt of) be seven years, he said not they signify seven years: & the seven kine be seven years & many such speeches. So was it said (by Paul) the rock was Christ: he said not, the rock did signify Christ, but as if it had been the selfsame thing, which by substance it was not, but by signification. Even so the blood because it signifieth the soul, is after 
Idem contra Adimant. cap. 12.  the manner of Sacraments called the soul. 
The manner of Sacraments is to have figurative speeches.  I can interpret this precept to consist of a sign (or figure) for the Lord did not stick to say, this is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. And speaking in Christ's person, he sayeth, 
d Idem in psal. 98.  This body which you see, you shall not eat, neither shall you drink the blood, which they that crucify me, shall shed; I have commended a Sacrament unto you: that (Sacrament) spiritually understood shall quicken you. 
e Idem de doctr. Christ. li. 3. c. 16  It is therefore (as you heard before out of the same Father) a figure) of speech) commanding us to be partakers of the Lords passion. For the Lord at his supper, saith he, 
f Idem in psa 3.  commended and delivered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood. Cyprian, 
g 
Cypr. de unctio. Chrisma●.  
The Lord taught his disciples at his last supper how the signs and the things might have the same names.   The Lord at his last supper gave bread and wine with his own hands, on the cross he gave his body to be wounded by the soldiers hands, that sincere truth secretly printed in his Apostles might teach the Nations, how bread and wine were (his) flesh and blood, and how the causes agreed with their effects, and different names and kinds might be reduced to one essence, and the (signs) signifying and the things signified might be called by the same names.  
Origen, 
h Orig. in Leuit. hom●●. 7.  There is in the very Gospel a letter that doth kill: not only in the old Testament is there a deadly letter found, but in the new Testament there is a letter that doth kill him, which doth not spiritually conceive the things that be spoken. For if you take this saying, (except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood) according to the letter, this letter killeth. And again▪ 
i Idem in cap. 15 Matth.  Not the matter of bread, but the word recited over it, doth profit the worthy receiver. This I speak of the typical and figurative body. Ambrose, 
k Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysterii● cap. 9  It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried, this therefore is the Sacrament of that true flesh. The Lord jesus himself saith, this is my body. Before the blessing of (these) heavenly words it is called an other kind of thing, after consecration the body of Christ is (thereby) signified. 
l Idem in 1. Cor. 11.  In eating and drinking (at the Lord's table) We signify the body and blood (of Christ) that were offered for us. 
m Idem de Sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 5.  The new Testament is confirmed by blood, in a figure of which (blood) We receive the mystical cup. The priest (in the church service) faith, Make this oblation ascribed reasonable and acceptable for us, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord jesus. Hierom, 
n Hyer. in 26. Matth.  When the Pascal lamb was eaten jesus taketh bread which strengtheneth the heart of man, and goeth to the true sacrament of the passover, that as Melchisedec had done offering bread & wine in a profiguration of him, so he likewise might represent the truth of his body & blood. 
o Idem in 14. Marci.  For jesus took bread and giving thanks broke it, transfiguring his body into the bread. Chrysostom, 
p Chrysost in psal. 22.  This table hath he prepared for his servants, that he might every day for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ, show forth in a Sacrament unto us bread and wine after the manner of Meschisedec. 
q Idem ad Caesarium Monachum.  Before it be sanctified, we call it bread, but the divine grace once sanctifying the same by the ministery of the priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, & counted worthy to be called the lords body, though the nature of bread continue there still. So that 
r Author. operit imperfect. in Mat. homil. 11.  in the sanctified vessel, there is not the true body of Christ, but a mystery of his body is there contained. Nazianzene, 
s Nazianz. in oratio. de pasch.  Let us be partakers of the passover, figuratively notwithstanding as yet: though this passover be more manifest than the former.  Theodoret. 

Theod. dial. 1. Our Saviour at h●s last supper changed the names, not the substances of the elements: them must needs the speech be figurative.  Our Saviour in deed changed the names, & called his body by the name of the sign, and the sign by the name of his body. The reason whereof is manifest to those that are acquainted with the divine mysteries. He would have the receivers of these heavenly mysteries, not look to the nature of the things, which are seen: but hearing the alteration of names, believe the change which is there made by grace. For he that called his natural body wheat & bread, & named himself a vine: the same Lord honoured the signs & elements of bread & wine) which we see, with the name of his body, & blood, not changing the nature (of the signs) but casting grace unto nature. Prosper, 
u De consecrat. dist. 2. § hoc est. Prosper.  The divine bread, which is the flesh of Christ, is after a sort called the body of Christ, being in deed (but) the sacrament of Christ's body. Which words your own law thus expoundeth. The 
Glossa Ibidem.  divine bread which truly representeth the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but improperly: wherefore it is said after a sort (which is) non rei veritate, sed significant mysterio, not in exactness of truth, but in a mystery of signification. So that this is the meaning, it is called the body of Christ: that is (the body of Christ is thereby) signified. Bede, 
y Beda in Lucan, cap. 22.  The solemnities of the old passover being ended, Christ cometh to the new, which the church is desirous to continue in remembrance of her redemption, that in steed of the flesh and blood of a lamb, he substituting the sacrament (or sacred sign) of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine, might show himself to be the same, to whom the Lord swore and will not repent, thou art a Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Druthmarus, 
z Christ. Druthmar. in Mat.  The Lord gave his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sins, that being mindful of his deed, they might always in a figure do that, which he was to do for them, & not forget his love. This is my body, that is in a sacrament. Wine maketh glad & increaseth blood, and for that cause the blood of christ is aptly figured thereby. Bertram, 
a Bertram de corp. & sang. Dom.  That bread & wine is figuratively the body and blood of christ: the manner thereof is in a figure & representation: in mysterio, non veritate: in a mystery, not in truth & plain speech.  Phi. 
You think to win the spurs, but you may chance to lose boots and all. These places, which you bring, have a show before the simple, but there is no pith nor substance in them: and with one puff we can blow them all away.  Theo. 

Though the Jesuits have not one ancient father for their literal sense, yet they will help the matter with bragging.  It must be such a puff then, as wherewith you first blew away christ and his gospel, and brought in your own decrees, to overrule both God and man with the breath of your mouths.  Phi. 
You scoff: my meaning is that I can cross them all with one answer.  Theo. 
If they were spirits, you might drive them away with crossing, but being ancient and godly fathers they will tell on their tales to your reproof, cross you what you will or can, in their ways.  Phi. 
I will not cross it in their way, but in yours.  Theo. 
When you will: wherefore serve my feet but to toss it out of the way, or at least to step over it, that it hinder not my way?  Phi. 
All these fathers affirm, the bread to be a sign & figure of Christ's body: 
The jesuits will have the figure & the truth to be all one.  This we grant, and thereto add, that it is both a figure, and the truth itself. You may be gone, you have your errand. Did I not tell you, I would soon dispatch you?  Theo. 
You be very pleasurable whatsoever the matter be: but had you no better skill to dispatch men of their lives, than you have to defeat us of ou● authorities, many a thousand should now live, that you have slain.  Philan. 
You would run to by-quarrels; but I must hold you to the stake.  Theo. 
In deed that was always the surest answer, that you gave us. The rest was nothing: no more is this.  
For first it is apparently false that in Sacraments the sign & the truth may be all one thing. 
Though the figure might be also the truth, as it cannot, yet a figurative speech can no way be proper.  Next if that might be, yet doth it not disappoint any one of these testimonies. For they do not only witness that the bread is a sign of christs body, but also that Christ's words were figurative, and that in delivering the mysteries he called the bread his body, by way of signification, similitude, representation, after the manner of Sacraments, in a sign not according to the letter, but in a spiritual and mystical understanding, and if you respect the precise speech, improperly, and figuratively. 
Will it please the jesuits to learn that the speech is figurative, ●rgo not proper.  And though the sign might happily be one thing with the truth itself, as you affirm without all truth; yet may not a figurative speech be properly taken, nor the letter urged against the spiritual meaning, lest that which was spoken to quicken the inward man, subvert the faith and endanger the soul, which in mistaking a figure of speech must needs ensue, as S. Augustine showeth. 
b De doct. Christiana li. 3. ca 5.  In principio cavendum est ne siguratam locutionem ad literam accipias. Ad hoc enim pertinet, quod ait Apostolus, litera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat. Cum enim figurate dictum sic accipitur tanquam proprie dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur. Neque vllamors animae congruentius appellatur. The first thing that you must beware is this: 
To take a figurative speech according to the letter killeth the soul.  that you take not a figurative speech according to the letter. To that belongeth the Apostles admonition, the letter killeth, the spirit quickeneth. For when we take that which is figuratively spoken, as if it were properly spoken, it is a carnal sense: Neither is there any thing more rightly called the death of the soul.  
In vain then do you think to shift off the matter with this foolish conceit, that one and the same thing may be both a truth and a figure. For were that so, yet can not a figurative speech be literally taken without killing the soul: and the Fathers which I produced affirm the mind and speech of our Saviour, in calling the bread his body, was spiritual, figurative and mystical by way of signification, such as is used in Sacraments, not literal nor carnal according to the strict s●und and order of the words: 
The sign in no sacrament can be the thing itself.  Marry now your answer, besides that it is altogether idle, is utterly false. For in this sacrament as in all others, there is great difference betwixt the signs and the things themselves, and the distinct properties of each are so sensible, that if your wits be not laid up for holy days, you can not but perceive them. The signs are visible, the things invisible; the signs are earthly, the things heavenvly the signs corruptible, the things immortal: the signs corporal, the things spiritual. 
The sign & the truth must be two things.  The signs are one thing, the truth is not the same, but an other thing, and even by plain Arythmetike, they be two things, and not one.  
The Eucharist, as Ireneus teacheth, 
c Ire. li. 4. ca 34.  Consisteth of two things, an earthly & an heavenly. 
d De cons. dist. 2. § hoc est.  This is it that we say, this is it that we seek by all means, saith Austen, to approve (to wit) that the sacrifice of the church is made of two and consisteth of two things, sacramento & re sacramenti: of the sacred sign: and the thing itself. For sacraments are 
e August. contra Maximinum li. 3. ca 22.  signa rerum, aliud existentia, aliud significantia, signs of truths, being one thing in themselves, and signifying an other. 
f Chryso. in Genes. hom. 35.  It were no figure, saith chrysostom, if all things incident to the truth were to be found in it: much less if it were the truth itself. 
g Aug. epist. 23.  Sacraments have a certain similitude (but no identity) with the things whose signs they be. If therefore 
h De doct. Christiana, lib. 3. cap. 5.  To take the signs for the things be a miserable servitude of the soul, as Austen noteth, what is it to affirm the signs to be the things themselves but a wilful blindness of heart, choosing rather to rush into any brake with danger both of credit and conscience, than to acknowledge the truth once disdained and refused?  Phi. 
I have yet an other answer in store.  Theo. 
If that be no better than this, your store is little worth.  Phi. 

The sixth of S. john's Gospel directeth the words of Christ at his last supper.  The most part of the Fathers which you bring, speak not of Christ's words, when he did institute the Sacrament, but declare his meaning in the sixth of Saint john's Gospel when the Capernites stumbled at his doctrine.  Theo. 
You may keep this still in store for the goodness of it. Tertullian, Austen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostom, Theodorete, Prosper, Bede, Bertram, Druthmarus and your own law speak directly of the sacrament: and so doth Origen, when he calleth the bread on the Lord's table, the typical and figurative body: only that place of his mentioneth the sixth of john, where he saith, If you take this saying according to the letter, this letter killeth.  Phi. 
Marry Sir that place is the chiefest: & how closely you could convey it in amongst the rest, to make men believe he spoke that of the sacrament, which is nothing so.  Theo. 
Why? doth not the 6. of S. john foretell and declare the same kind of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, which was after performed by Christ at his last supper when he said, This is my body, this is my blood?  Phi. 
Doth it say you?  Theo. 
I do not say, Christ speaketh in the sixth of john of the material elements of bread and wine, 
The 6. of S. john doth not teach the eating of the signs at the lords table, but the eating of the things themselves.  which were then first ordained to be pledges of his invisible graces, when the Supper was first instituted: and therefore not spoken of before that time: but this is it which I affirm, and in this the learned and ancient Fathers agree with me, that where this mystery consisteth of two parts, an earthly matter, and an heavenly virtue: the sixth of Saint john treateth not of the signs, but of the things themselves: not of the figures representing, but of the truth represented: not of that which is corporally proposed, but of that which is Ghostly received in the lords supper, which is the better and diviner part of this Sacrament: and that the Disciples there learned, in what sort themselves and all the faithful after them should eat the Lords flesh and drink the Lords blood at his table, to be thereby quickened, nourished, and incorporated with him, 
The things themselves that are proposed and received at the Lords table were fully declared by our Saviour in the 6. of S. john.  as members of his mystical body. So that if any doubt arise, not touching the creatures of bread and wine, but touching the flesh and blood of Christ, which are the Principal parts of this mystery, the solution and explication of every such doubt must be fet from the place, where the Lord first revealed this secret, rebuked the Capernites for the misconstruction of his words, and taught his Disciples how they should be both fruitful partakers of his flesh, & rightful interpreters of his speech.  Phi. 
You would feign have it so: but we mean to bar you that chance.  Theo. 
You cannot bar us, 
The fathers are all of that opinion.  but you must bar Chrysostom, Cyprian, cyril, Austen and others, that confess the same truth before us.  

i Chrysost. hom. 83. in Mat.  How chanced, saith chrysostom, the (Disciples) were not troubled when they heard this: take, eat, this is my body? Because (their master) had debated the same matter largely and profoundly before. 
The same matter before debated.  For at first when he spoke of these things many were offended at the very words. So Cyprian, 
k Cypr. de caenae Domini.  To the sons of Abraham doing the works of Abraham the high Priest bringeth forth bread and wine saying this is my body. There arose before this, 
The same speech handled in the 6. of john.  as we read in the Gospel of john, a question touching the novelty of this speech, and at the doctrine of this mystery the hearers were amazed. So cyril, 
l Cyril. in johan. lib. 4. cap. 14.  The (Capernites) before they believe, question busily with him. Therefore the Lord did not tell them how that might be, but exhorteth them to seek for it with faith: marry to the believing disciples, he gave pieces of bread, saying: take ye, eat ye, this is my body: Likewise the cup he delivered round, saying: drink ye all of this. Thou seest, that to those which asked without faith, he did not open the manner of this mystery, but to those which believed, yea when they did not ask, he declared the same: And Augustine: 
m August. contra advers. legis & Prophet. lib. 1. cap. 24.  When Christ spoke of the Sacrament of his body and blood, they said this speech is hard. Who can hear it?  
You see by the constant opinion of these Fathers, that our Saviour in the sixth of john taught his Disciples what manner of eating his flesh and drinking his blood they should expect at his last Supper, and that they therefore started not at these words this is my body, because they learned of him before what to look for, and well remembered his interpretation of himself, when the Capernites staggered at the like speech. Then perforce what sense the words of Christ in the sixth of john do bear, the same must the words of the supper retain: but there Christ teacheth the spiritual eating of his flesh by faith, his words be figurative: ergo the Lords supper doth not import any corporal eating of his flesh, nor literal exposition of his words. And why? The performance may no way differ from the promise. The promise made by Christ in the sixth of john (the bread which I will give is my flesh) was figurative: 
If the flesh of Christ be ●aten in the lords supper as he taught it should be in the 6. of john, then must the words of the supper be expounded by the 6. of john: and the one being figurat●iue, the other cannot be literal.  The words then of the Supper THIS (which I now give) is my body performing the same must likewise be figurative. For Seals do not alter or infringe, but strengthen and confirm that which was promised. The creatures of bread and wine Christ ordained at his last Supper to be Sacraments and Seals of his former promises uttered in the sixth of john, ergo they change not his meaning expressed before: That was spiritual & figurative: therefore the words of the Supper can not be corporal nor literal. And the words of Origen expounding the sixth of john, are a just proof, that if in the words of the Supper you follow the letter, that letter killeth.  Phi. 
This can not be. Christ in the sixth of john, you say, teacheth a spiritual and figurative kind of eating his flesh, and in delivering the Sacrament we be sure he spoke of a corporal not of a spiritual eating his body. For when our Lord said take, eat, this is my body, did he not mean they should take it with their hands, and eat it with their mouths? And therefore either the one place doth not serve to expound the other, 
The bread must be eaten corporally at the lords table though the flesh of Christ cannot be eaten there or elsewhere but only spiritually.  or else in both places is prescribed a real and corporal eating the flesh of Christ, & drinking his blood: which we rather embrace as the likeliest.  Theo. 
In those words take and eat, spoken at the last Supper, he meant, no doubt, the corporal taking and eating of that creature which he gave them: and when he added this is my body, which he told them before they must eat, if they would have any life in them, he recalled to their minds, as Chrysostom noteth, the doctrine he had taught them of eating his flesh and drinking his blood: in which because they were well instructed by the Capernites error and their master's declaration of himself (that the words, which he spoke, were spirit and life) they neither started nor stumbled at his speech, 
The bread must be eaten corporally: & the flesh of Christ spiritually: ergo the bread is not his body but by a figure of speech usual to this & other sacraments.  but presently perceived the Lord was ordaining a Sacrament to confirm their faith, and not hiding his flesh under accidents or any other coverts to enter their mouths, for which grossness the Capernits were before reproved.  
Christ's exposition therefore in the sixth of john, was purposely made to confute the carnal jews, who when they heard of eating man's flesh and drinking blood, dreamt of no kind of eating and drinking but with their bodily jaws & lips, and for that cause murmured, as if they had been invited to some barbarous & brutish act: & next to teach the disciples that endured his words, in what sort they should look for a diviner & purer kind of eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking his blood, 
The lords Supper addeth Seals and assurances to the promise made in the sixth of john, but altereth not the doctrine.  by believing, hoping and rejoicing in his flesh, that was wounded, and blood that was shed for their sins. This he assured, and ratified unto them, by ordaining afterward a Sacrament, which they should visibly see, but invisibly understand: & corporally receive, but spiritually interpret: in believing the same by the power of his word and spirit to have in it, & carry with it the fullness of his truth & mercy, openly sealed with those pledges of his promises, & instruments of his grace, lest their faith should faint by reason of his departure & absence from them, or their hearts fail them as if they were destitute of his protection & favour, amidst so many troubles as should enclose them.  Phi. 
If you 
You must needs have it so, except you will dissent from all your fellows and from the fathers.  will needs have the sixth of S. john to pertain to the Sacrament: then is there, say we, a real & corporal kind of eating established in that chapter. For Christ in plain speech saith, 
joan. 6.  my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed.  Theo. 
It is well that you bethink yourself at last: you were about to dissent both from the fathers & from your own fellows. For the fathers, as I have showed you, confess that the Disciples were by the words of Christ in this place instructed how they should eat his flesh & drink his blood, even in the sacrament: 
The Papists very greedily tie the 6. of john to the sacrament, little thinking it would overthrow their real presence.  & that made them understand him when he said, take, eat, this is my body, drink ye all of this, this is my blood; and as for the men of your side, they run all to this issue, that the sixth of john not only treateth of the sacrament, but also strongly concludeth your real presence, and external eating of Christ's flesh with bodily parts, as with teeth, throat, and such like: in so much that if you go that way, which you were about, you go alone.  
Your friend Master Harding with a present courage, as his manner is, saith: 
o Artic. 5. diuis. 2. contra episcop. Sarunt.  We can not find where our Lord performed the promise which he made in the first chapter of john: the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, but only in his last supper. Steven Gardiner his Master uttered even the very same words before him. 
p Part. 3. object. 1. In Marco Constantio.  Promisit Dominus se daturum nobis in pane carnem suam, dicens, panis, qu●m ego dabo, caro mea est, quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. Sed quod promisit Christus, non legimus cum praestitisse nisi in coena. 
That Christ performed this promise ONLY in the supper, is as false, as it is true that he did there perform it.  The Lord promised that he would give us his flesh in bread, when he said, the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. But that which Christ promised we do not read that he performed, except it were in the Supper. And though they both overlash, when they say he performed it only in the supper, yet in this you may not vary from them, that he performed that promise of his, & verified that doctrine of his in the supper. For so the fathers said before them as I have proved: and so your late Testament upon the sixth of S. john saith of all their side, 
The Rhe. test. fol. 236. nu. 53. [you shall have no life.  The catholics teach these words to be spoken of the sacrament.  Phi. 
We do so.  The. 
Then what exposition the learned & ancient fathers made of Christ's words in the 6. of john, 
If the 6. of john be figurative, than the words of the supper are also figurative: but the 6. of john is figurative: ergo. Clemens. Alex. 〈◊〉 lib. cap. 6 Te●tula●● resu●rectis. carnis.  the same they intended & referred to the words of the supper: But the words of christ teaching us in the 6. of john that we must eat his flesh & drink his blood, before we can have my life in us, are by the common consent of all the father's Allegorical, mystical & figurative, ergo the figurative interpretation of Christ's words in the supper is catholic.  Phi. 
Think you we are so foolish as to beleeu that the fathers were the authors of your figures?  Th. 
Choose whether you will believe us or no, we speak no more than we mean to prove.  
Clemens Alexan. The Lord in the gospel of john when he said, eat ye my flesh & drink ye my blood, he called that by an allegory, meat & drink, which is evidently meant of (our) faith & (his) promise. Tertul. He pronounced his flesh to be that heavenvly bread, urging them all along (that discourse) with an allegory of needful foodes to remember their fathers that preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt before the divine vocation. Origen, 
Orig. in Leuit. hom. 7.  Our Lord and Saviour saith except you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, you shall not have life in you My flesh is truly meat & my blood is truly drink. He that can no skill of these things may perhaps turn his ear from them, as they did which said: how can he give us his flesh to eat? who can hear it? & they departed from him. But you, if you be the children of the church, if you acquainted with mysteries (& Sacraments) of the Gospel acknowledge the things that we say, 
The figurative sense is the spiritual sense: the literal is carnal.  they be the Lords. Acknowledge that there be figures in the divine books, & therefore examine them as spiritual men, not as carnal, & understand what is said. If you construe these things as carnal men, they hurt you, they do not nourish you. Chrysostom, The words that I speak to you are spirit, that is, spiritual, having nothing that is carnal in them. If a man should carnally take them he should gain nothing. 
Chrysost. in I●han. homil. 46.  What is carnally to understand then? Simply as they be spoken, neither to seek any farther. 
To understand the words simply as they lie is to understand them carnally.  For the things that we see, must not so be judged of, but all mysteries (& Sacraments) must be considered with the inward eyes, that is spiritually.  Phi. 
Spiritually we grant we must understand them, but not figuratively.  Theo. 
What is spiritually, but figuratively? Eating and drinking are corporal actions, not spiritual; and properly performed with the parts of our bodies, not with the powers of our souls. 
The words in S. john. are figurative because eating and drinking are referred not to the bodies but to the souls of the faithful.  Since then by the constant confession of all the fathers, the Lord throughout this chapter did not refer eating & drinking to the bodies of his Disciples, but unto their souls: and meant their faith, & not their teeth: it is apparent that the words of our Saviour are allegorical and figurative, I mean translated and derived by an allegory from the body to the mind, from chamming to believing, from swallowing to remembering, to be short, from the flesh of his Disciples to their spirits, and in that respect called spiritual. The manner of eating there specified is spiritual, the words there used are mystical, to wit, not literal but allegorical: and so the Fathers mainly teach.  
Basil, 
u Basil. in psal. 33.  Taste & see how sweet the Lord is. We have often marked that the powers of the soul are called by the same names by which the members of the body are. Because than our Lord is the true bread, & his flesh is meat indeed, it must be that the sweetness of that delicious bread be felt of us by means of spiritual taste. 
The inward man eateth the flesh of Christ.  There is a certain mouth of the mind and ●oule within man, which is nourished by the word of life, the bread I mean which came from heaven. Origen, 
x Orig. in cantica canticorum homil. 2.  To every part (or power) of the soul Christ becometh everything. Therefore he is called the true light, that the eyes of the soul may have wherewith to be lightened, therefore the word, that the ears (of the soul) may have what to hear, therefore the bread of life, that the taste of the soul may have what to release. 
The soul must release the bread of life.  Tertullian, 
y Tertul. de res●●rect. carnis.  The words that I have spoken to you, be spirit and life. Making his word to quicken by reason his word is spirit and life: he called the same word his flesh, because the word was made flesh, and so for the procuring of life was to be desired (yea) TO BE DEVOURED WITH HEARING, CHEWED WITH UNDERSTANDING, AND DIGESTED WITH BELIEVING. 
This way Christ is eaten, and not with teeth & jaws.  Cyprian. 
x Cypr. de caen● Domini.  The master of this ordinance (and feast) said that except we did eat (his flesh) and drink his blood, we should have no life in us; directing us with a spiritual instruction and opening our wits for the conceiving of so great a matter, thereby to let us understand that our abiding in him is eating & (our) drinking is as it were an incorporating with him in that (mutual) services are yielded, wills joined, and affections united. 
What it is to eat Christ.  The eating therefore of this flesh is a certain coveting and desiring to abide in him. Athanasius. 
a Athan. in hec quicunque dexerit verbum in ●ilium hominis.  Therefore doth he mention his ascending into heaven, to pull from them their corporal cogitations (and thinking on his flesh,) and that they might thenceforth learn that the flesh of which he spoke, was celestial food from heaven, and spiritual nourishment which he giveth. Augustine. 
b August. tract. in johan. 25.  Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? BELIEVE AND thou HAST EATEN. 
c Ibidem tract. 26.  To believe in him, this is to eat the living bread. HE THAT BELIEVETH EATETH. He is invisibly fed, because he is invisibly regenerated. He is inwardly a babe, inwardly new. In what part he is renewed, in that part is he nourished. Bernard that in respect of antiquity lived but yesterday can teach you the meaning of this place. 
d Bernard. in psal. qui habitat. sermo. 3.  When they heard him say, except you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood; they said this is an hard speech, and departed from him. And what is to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but to communicate with his passions, and imitate that conversation which he led (here) in flesh?  
The text itself doth in sight convince so much: 
The very text confirmeth the father's speeches johannis sexto,  The Lord often times expoundeth his own words purposely to this effect, 
e vers. 27.  Work not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which dureth to eternal life, 
f vers. 29.  and this is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 
g 
vers. 35.  
Non ambulando sed credendo ad Christum currimus. August tract. 26. in johan.   I am that bread of life, he that cometh to me (not by walking but by believing) shall not hunger, he that believeth in me shall never thirst. Hunger and thirst are no way quenched, but with eating and drinking. Then how can the believer but still hunger, and still thirst, except we grant that he, which believeth, both eateth and drinketh? 
h 
vers. 53.  
Believing proved to be eating.   Verily verily I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood you have no life in you. He then which hath life▪ per consequence eateth the flesh of christ and drinketh his blood: but he that believeth hath eternal life, as our Saviour affirmeth in the same place with no less vehemency, 
i vers. 47.  Verily verily I say unto you, he that believeth in me hath everlasting life; ergo he that believeth eateth the flesh and drinketh the blood of Christ. For if eating and drinking in this place were referred, to the mouth and teeth, how could judas, or any other of the wicked that is once partaker of the lords table, perish? The words of Christ be plain. 
k vers. 51.  Your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness, and are dead: If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever: 
l vers. 54.  whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. But the wicked notwithstanding the corporal chamming of this Sacrament die the death of sinners, 
The wicked do not eat though they grind with their teeth & swallow with their jaws never so fast.  ergo they neither eat the ●lesh of Christ, nor drink his blood, not because their teeth or jaws fail them, but by reason they want faith which is the right and proper instrument of spiritual eating. Since than man 
m Rom. 10.  believeth with his heart unto righteousness, as Paul teacheth, not with his jaws nor lips; ergo the soul of man, which only believeth, only doth eat the flesh of Christ; and our bodies which have no means to believe, can neither eat nor drink in that sort and sense that our Saviour there speaketh of.  
You cannot with honesty step from so manifest, both Scriptures and Fathers, as these be that I have brought; or if you can dally with so good and grave witnesses in so weighty matters, I trust the Godly will be fully resolved that the manner of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, 
The manner of eating Christ's flesh is spiritual by faith and understanding the words expressing it be allegorical.  which the Lord himself first proposed in the sixth of john, was not LITERAL NOR CORPORAL, as the Capernites understand him and were deceived, but ALLEGORICAL AND spiritual. ALLEGORICAL in respect of the words which be not there precisely taken in their usual signification for grinding with the teeth, and straining down the throat, but figuratively spoken, and import as much as confessing & embracing with hart and inward affection. SPIRITVAL, because not our mouths, but our minds, not our bellies, but our spirits are nourished with the flesh and blood of Christ, and that not by chewing or swallowing, but by remembering and believing that his body was wounded, and his blood shed for our perfect and eternal redemption.  

If the Supper be correspondent to the doctrine of our Saviour in the 6. of john, the manner of eating Christ's flesh must be spiritual by faith, not corporal with teeth, & the words, this is my body, figurative.  Now the Lords Supper is correspondent not contrary to the first of john, as we saw before by the verdict of the fathers, & confession of yourselves: therefore the Lords table teacheth no literal nor carnal, but a spiritual & mystical eating of the ●lesh of Christ and drinking of his blood: which you cannot observe so long as you press the letter of these words: Take, eat, this is my body. For taking and eating in the Supper be corporal actions, even as breaking the bread and delivering the cup are. Then if the words this is my body be literal, the consequent is inevitable that the flesh of Christ is really taken with hands, actually bruised with teeth, corporally lodged in the belly: But this error the Lord in his own person confuted, and the Catholic fathers refel as impious, irreligious and heinous, ergo the words of the Supper this is my body, be not literal, but rather answerable to the doctrine proposed in the sixth of john, which is nothing less than literal.  Phi. 
You make but a double manner of eating Christ's flesh, where you should make a triple. A carnal, spiritual, 
This is a poor shift: for sacramental eating is no more but eating the sacred sign of that heavenly food.  and Sacramental. A carnal, which the capernites dreamt of, when they supposed they should have eaten raw flesh to sight and taste as they did other meats. A spiritual, by faith and understanding; in which sort, every good man may eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood at any time without the mysteries. A Sacramental, as when we eat the flesh of Christ under the forms of bread and wine: though we neither see nor ●ast flesh or blood. Of these three sorts the sixth of S. john's Gospel refelleth only the carnal, which the Capernites grossly fell to, when they heard our Saviour speak of the Sacrament.  Theo. 
I blame you not, if you be loath to be counted Capernites. They were reproved by our Saviour as gross mistakers of his speech; 
The jesuits would feign g●t from the Capernites if they could tell how.  and lewd forsakers of his fellowship: but would God you were as willing to leave their error, as you be to refuse their name.  Phi. 
We be farther, than you from their opinion. And you be rather Capernites: that ask how can he give us his flesh to eat, and will not believe any eating of Christ's body with the mouth, except your eyes and tongues may first discern and taste the same.  Theo. 
We ask not him, how he can do any thing that he will; but we ask you, how you know that both his will and his word are changed since he rebuked the Capernites for their grossness?  Phi. 
We do not say that either his will or his word are changed.  Theo. 
Then the doctrine of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which he del●uered in the sixth of john, remaineth in the same force and strength, that it did at first, when he revealed it to his disciples.  Philand. 
It doth.  Theo. 
And the same exposition of his words, which he then annexed to them, abideth good for ever.  Phi. 
What else?  Theo. 
And he, that deuiseth● or teacheth any other manner of eating his flesh or drinking his blood at his last Suppper, 
What Christ spoke of the soul the Capernites understood of the body: let the jesuits therefore dress and hide the ●lesh of Christ how they can from their ●ight and taste, so long as they will eat it with teeth & jaws they shallbe Capernites.  than is there declared and confirmed by himself, is either a Capernite or worse.  Phi. 
He is.  Theo. 
But that eating which he there taught, was by faith and understanding; and they that murmured at him and departed from him thought he had meant eating with the mouth and teeth: What l●ck you then of the Capernites error, when you affirm that the natural and substantial body of christ is really eaten with teeth, and locally descendeth into the stomach, which is the way that all other meats do pass, when they nourish the body?  Phi. 
We defy both you and them: we do not incline to their error. We eat christ in a mystery by faith: and though we taste & see nothing, but bread & wine, yet do we prefer the truth of his promise before the judgement of our senses, which you do not. And therefore you falsely slander us, when you charge us with the carnal opinion of the capernites.  Theoph. 
I can yield you no freer choice, than if you like not their company, to leave their error. You must not look to misconstrue the words of christ as they did, and take scorn to be called as they were.  Phil. 
I tell you, we do not tear the flesh of christ with our teeth, as they thought they should.  Theo. 
You hold that the flesh of christ entereth your mouths, 
It skilleth not how Christ's flesh be covered, but with what part it is eaten soul or body.  and is really bruised (though somewhat favourably) with your teeth, and locally descendeth down your throats into the closet of your bellies. What differ you now from the capernites? what kind of eating were they rebuked for, if not for this?  

Man hath but two kinds of eating as himself consisteth of two parts: for each part one.  More kinds of eating, than by mind or by mouth, with faith or with teeth, that is, corporal, or spiritual, you cannot imagine. Man hath no more parts but a soul and a body, therefore he can use no kind of eating, but either with his soul, or with his body. You must new frame men, which is past your reach, before you can challenge this division as unsufficient: each part hath his kind and sort of eating. Now which of these twain did the Capernites fasten on; the spiritual or the corporal kind of eating the flesh of Christ? Not the spiritual, for they 
n 
john. 6.  
Which of those twain will the jesuits choose, but they must either forge their corporal eating with teeth, or join arm in arm with the Capernites.   believed not as the Scripture saith of them, and they which lack faith, lack the right and true means of spiritual eating. Besides, our Saviour went about to teach them the spiritual eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, for so doth himself expound his own words, and his whole Church after him did testify that his meaning. If then the Capernites lighted on the same manner of eating, which christ proposed to them, they deserved rather praise than blame: but they mistook the words of christ, and were rebuked of him, ergo they thought on the corporal eating of christs flesh with teeth and jaws, which is the self same point that you affirm in your doctrine.  Phi. 
We neither 
Then you differ from the Capernites in seeing but not in eating the flesh of Christ. Whether a man may not carnally eat that which he neither seethe nor tasteth: let the jesuits consult the Cooks.  see nor taste the flesh of christ, which they dreamt they should, and therefore we be most free from their madness.  Theo. 
You cham the flesh of christ actually with your teeth and swallow the same d●wne your throats: and these be the proper actions and right instruments of external and capernitical eating, your eyes and your taste be not: else blind men and such as by reason of sickness can taste nothing, by your divinity can eat nothing: and meats so devised and handled by art that we can neither by sight nor taste discern them, if your Rule be good, be neither corporally taken nor eaten, which is so false that we need not refute you, cooks and Pastlers will laugh you to scorn. Grinding with teeth and swallowing down the throat that it may descend to the stomach is the very definition of carnal eating: and since you concur with the capernites in those two points, notwithstanding you vary from them in sight and taste, yet your opinion establisheth a corporal eating of christes flesh and a literal perverting of his words no less than theirs did.  
And which of the learned fathers I pray you, did ever put this difference between the words of christ & the capernites error, that where they thought they should have both eaten & seen his flesh, the Lord meant that indeed they should as they thought eat the same with their teeth and jaws, marry they should not see nor taste it. Was this the meaning of our Saviour when he said, The words that I speak to you be spirit and life? Did his Church after him so construe his words? 
o Athan. in illud quicunque dixeris verbum in filium hominis.  The things that he spoke were not carnal but spiritual, saith Athanasius. 
p Chrys●n Iohan. homil. 45.  They were spiritual having nothing in them that was carnal, as chrysostom and Theophilact witness. 
q Orig. in Leuit. hom. 7.  Examine them as spiritual men, saith Origen, not as carnal. 
Theophi. in 6. johannis.  The letter doth kill h●m that doth not spiritually weigh the things that are spoken. 
r Cypr. de caena Domini.  Christ giveth us a spiritual instruction, saith Cyprian: and Austen, 
s August. in psalm. 98.  Understand you spiritually that which I have spoken. 
t Oecume. in 6● johannis.  Christ here calleth the spirit, the spiritual understanding of those things that he spoke, saith Oecumenius. 
u Beda. in 6. johannis.  What is spirit and life, saith Bede? They must be understood spiritually. What is now left for you and your fellows but either to be coupled with the Capernits for your literal pressing the words of Christ and corporal eating of his flesh, 
If Christ meant the soul of man should eat his flesh by faith, they be capernites that bring their mouths to eat it, though they neither see it nor taste it.  or else to prove, which you can hardly do, that your teeth and jaws be not carnal as the Capernits were, but spiritual. Your mouths and bellies I trow be flesh and not spirit; members of the body, no parts of the mind; in them consisteth neither faith nor devotion, and therefore unless you can transubstantiate your souls into your jaws, and your hearts into your throats, your receiving of Christ in at mouth, and chamming his flesh with teeth that it may pass to your stomachs, is neither spiritual nor mystical, but a carnal and right capernitical kind of eating.  Phi. 
Why do you twit us with the Capernites whom we so often have disclaimed? They feared lest they should eat raw flesh: we have no such fear.  Theo. 
The flesh of Christ, which you eat, can not be real if it be not raw: and therefore your stomachs may be stronger to digest it than theirs were, but you eat the flesh of a live man with your mouths which they feared they should, and were deceived.  Phi. 
They thought they should have eaten Christ by piece meal.  Theo. 
And is your opinion any whit the better, because you eat him whole at one morsel?  Phi. 
This is profane scoffing.  Theo. 
Take heed that yours be not worse than profane eating of that which is divine & holy. 
There may be many differences in eating, but all eating the flesh of christ with teeth & jaws is capernitical.   Phi. 
We eat his flesh in a mystery.  Theo. 
What mystery lieth in your mouths and bellies?  Phi. 
Is it not a great mystery that Christ is eaten under the forms of bread and wine?  Theo. 
None at all, if you set your teeth and jaws on work to eat him as the Capernites thought they should, when they perverted the words of Christ.  Phi. 
They supposed they should have seen and tasted man's flesh, which is horrible.  Theo. 
Eating as I have showed you, doth consist not in seeing or tasting, but in chamming and swallowing: & since you therein consent with the Capernites, though you could allege twenty diversities between their manner of eating & yours, yet both are corporal and contrary to that doctrine which Christ delivered in the sixth of Iohn ● For that, as I have proved, was intended and referred to the souls and spirits of men, not to their throats or entrails: and therefore well in covering the body of Christ, and deluding your senses, you may differ from the Capernites: but in preparing your teeth and jaws for the flesh of Christ, and in drawing his words from their mystical and figurative sense, you join with the Capernites against all the Catholic Fathers that ever wrote in the Church of Christ.  Phi. 
Have we, think you, 
* Not one that is ancient.  no fathers with us, as well for the literal construction of Christ's words, as for the 
* For that you misconstrue some that be ancient, but their true meaning is against it.  corporal eating of his flesh in the Sacrament? Corporal I call it, not because we see it or taste it, as we do other meats, but because we be sure it entereth our mouths when we receive our rights, and is really contained in our bodies.  Theo. 
You may abuse some fathers to make a show: but otherwise you have no ground in them either of your literal understanding Christ's speech, or corporal eating of christs ●lesh.  Phi. 
Have we not? 
* more Saints than ever were in the Calendar.  S. Damascen, S. Epiphanius, Theophilact, Euthymius and others earnestly press the literal construction of christs words against your signs and figures: and as for eating the flesh of Christ with our very mouths, S. Austen, S. Chrysostom, S. Leo, S. Gregory, S. Cyril, Tertullian & others are resolute, whom I trust you will not condemn for Capernites. By this way the simple learn what to look for at your hands, that will outface so plain a truth.  Theo. 
He that will be good at outfacing let him study your Testament, and he need none other teacher: but what truth is it that we outface?  Phi. 
Never father, you said, avouched the literal sense of Christ's words.  Theo. 

Four late grecians urge the letter, but to no such end as the jesuits do.  I said, no ancient father; of which number I do not account these late Grecians to be. And therefore if they did contradict that which Tertullian, Austen, Origen, chrysostom and others did teach long before them, we would not regard them: but as yet I see● no such thing proved by them.  Phi. 

Damas●ib. 4. cap. 14.  The proof is easy. S. Damascene rehearsing the words of Christ, This is my body, immediately addeth, not a figure of my body, but my body; not a figure of my blood, but my blood. S. Epiphanius likewise, (Christ) said, take, eat, this is my body. 
Nice●. Synod. 2. actio. 6.  He said not take, eat the Image of my body. And Theophilact, 
Theophil. in 26. Matth.  Bread is the very body of our Lord and not a figure correspondent. For he said not this is a figure, but this is my body. And so Euthymius, 
Euthymius in Matth. cap. 64.  Christ said not these are signs of my body, but these are my body. These be manifest places: and yet such is your impudency that you affirm no father ever urged the literal force of Christ's words.  
And so for the corporal eating of Christ's flesh with our mouths: S. Augustine saith, 
Aug. ●pist. 118.  It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in the honour of so great a Sacrament, our lords body should enter into the mouth before other meats. And S. chrysostom, 

Chrysost. homil. 29. in 2. Cor.  
De cons. dist. 2. § quid sit.   Our mouth hath gotten no small honour receiving our lords body. And S. Gregory, (The blood of the lamb) is sucked not only by the mouth of the heart, but also by the mouth of the body. And S. Leo, 
Leo. serm. 6. de ie●●io 7. mensis.  That is received by the mouth which is believed by the heart. And Tertullian, 
Tertul. de resurrect. carnis.  (Our) flesh doth feed on the body▪ and blood of our Lord▪ And S. Cyril, 
Cyril. lib. 4. cap. 14. in Iohan●  It was needful that this rude and earthly body should be recovered to immortality by touch, taste and food of the same kind with itself. You ask for fathers: here they be both many in number and ancient in time to discharge us that we be no Capernites: and to refel your foolish vaunt, that all antiquity were of the very same mind that you are now. 
It may be you never understood them.  It may be you never heard the places before: If you did not I will pardon your ignorance so you repent your rashness.  Theo. 
yes sir, I have seen them, and ●● may be weighed them better than ever you did. And notwithstanding your magnificence, it will appear you be not free from ignorance, whatsoever you be from impudency.  Phil. 
I will burn my clothes to my shirt if ever you answer them.  Theo. 
But save your skin from the fire, though you spare not other men's blood nor bones.  Phi. 
We 
* It is no s●ame for us to suffer as Christ did, nor glory for you to do as judas did.  use you but as heretics should be used.  Theo. 
If it be heresy for us to serve god according to the Gospel of his son, what is it for you to serve him with your own medlees?  Phi. 
You would fly the field rather than your life, but I must keep you to it.  Theo. 
You run so fast from God and your Prince that you may soon overgo us, if we would fly, but as yet I see no cause.  
Damascene, Theophilact, and Euthymius press the letter of christes speech not to derive thence your carnal and guttural eating of christs flesh, 
The meaning of Damascen and others after him in pressing the letter.  nor to control that which Tertullian, Austen, Origen, chrysostom, and others (men of far greater learning and authority than these) taught long before them in the church of God, but to show, that bread and wine be not only tokens and bare signs of Christ's flesh and blood but also carry with them and in them the virtue power and effect of his death and passion. 
Euthymius in Matth. cap. 64. He urgeth the words lest the signs should seem to be without virtue.  Euthymius, Christ said not these be the signs of my body and blood, but these are my body and blood. We must therefore NOT LOOK TO THE NATURE of the gifts which are proposed, BUT TO THE VIRTUE. Against them which defend, that this Sacrament doth only figure, not offer: signify, not exhibit grace: the letter may well be forced to prove the divine power and operation of the mystical elemenets: Against us which hold the visible signs in substance to be creatures: in signification mysteries: in operation and virtue the things themselves, whose names they bear●, this illation concludeth nothing. Yet for the better explication of himself and others using the like kind of speech: Theophilact addeth this word ONLY. Mark that the bread which is eaten of us in the mysteries, 
Theophil. in 6. johannis.  Non est TANTUM figuratio quaedam carnis Domini, is not an only figuring of the Lords flesh, but the Lords very flesh. For he said not the bread which I will give, is a figure of my flesh, 
Not a figure only, that is not an idle sign without fruit and effect.  but is my flesh. Their meaning was as we see by their own words to teach more than idle signs, or ONLY figures in the Lord's supper, because together with the name go the virtues and effects of Christ's flesh & blood, united in manner of a Sacrament to the visible signs. And this their assertion neither troubleth our Doctrine, nor strengtheneth your error.  
Again these writers may very well say the Sacraments of the Gospel BE NO FIGURES but TRVETH ITSELF, 
No figures of things to come.  in that respect, as figures be taken for samplers of things to come. Such were the figures of the law, which did premonstrat the coming of christ in flesh, 
All figures abolished by the coming of Christ in flesh.  & ceased at his coming. And so the mysteries of the Lords table were not figures of things expected, but evidences of the truth there sitting in person, & the next day to be nailed to the cross, thereby to fulfil & abolish all figures: & our sacraments are now not signs of farther promises, but memorials of his mercies already performed. Do this saith christ, (not in figure of an other truth to come) but in remembrance of me (which am come:) for memory you know stretcheth only to things past and done: and in this sense the letter may be safely pressed, and your carnal conveyance nothing relieved.  

The defenders of Images would not have the sacrament called an Image of Christ.  I find a third cause that might induce them to force the letter in this sort, & yet no way confirming your gross supposal, which is this. When the Greek church fell at variance for Images, they which held that Christ ought not to be figured after the likeness of our bodies, amongst other reasons alleged this for one, that the Lord at his Supper 
* Extat in 2. Synod. Nicen. actio. 6.  for a true and effectual Image of his incarnation, chose the whole substance of bread, not any way like the proportion of a man, lest it should occasion Idolatry. The defenders of Images, whose side Damascene took, pressed with this objection durst not flee to your annihilation of the substance of bread and adoration of the Sacrament, with divine honour: which no doubt they would have done with great triumph, had those two points of your Doctrine been then counted catholic, but yielding and by their silence confessing, that the substance of bread remained in the supper, 

The cause why the Grecians pressed the letter is nothing near the Jesuits real presence. Damasce. lib. 4. cap. 14.  
This Epiphanius was as earnest for painted and carved Images as the elder was against them.   and was not adored (for so the contrary part opposed) at length for very pure need came to this shift: that the mystical bread was not ordained to resemble and figure Christ's human nature, nor so called by christ at his maundy who said not, this is a figure of my body, but my body; nor a figure of my blood, but my blood: and when Basil and Eustathius were produced affirming the bread and wine to be figures and resemblances of Christ's flesh and blood, the patrons of Images replied that was spoken always before, never after consecration. Wherefore Damascene first began this myncing and straining the words of Christ, not to build on them any real or corporal conversion of the bread into the flesh of christ, but in favour of his artifical pictures and Images he could by no means abide that the mysteries should after consecration be called Images, and figures of Christ's body.  
The next that traced this path after Damascene was Epiphanius: not that ancient and learned Bishop of Cyprus, but a prattling Deacon in the bastard Council of Nice, whose furious and fanatical answer to the Council of Constantinople, (that made this objection) declareth more tongue than wit, more face than learning. 
* Nicen Synod. 2. actio. 6.  Christ did not say take ye, eat ye the Image of my body. Read whiles thou wilt (saith he) thou shalt never find that either the Lord or his Apostles, or the Fathers called that unbloody Sacrifice, which the Priest offereth, AN IMAGE. Thus doth he bray forth 
* This Epiphanius might have been a jesuit for his lusty craking.  defiance to the whole world without truth, without shame. For chrysostom saith, 
a Chrysost. in Matt. hom. 83  If jesus were not once dead, whose image and sign is this Sacrifice? This 
b Idem hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb.  Sacrifice is an image and sampler of that Sacrifice. And Gelasius, 
c Gelas. consra Eutichen.  Surely the IMAGE and resemblance of the body and blood of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries. We must therefore so think of the Lord Christ himself as we profess and observe in his IMAGE. And likewise Theodoret. Ortho. 
d Theod. dial. 2.  The mystical signs which are offered to god by his Priests whereof dost thou call them signs? Eranist, Of the body & blood of the Lord. Ortho: It is very well said. Confer then the image with the pattern and thou shalt see the likeness. Dionysius calleth it both an 
Dyonis. ecclesiast. hierach. cap 3.  image and a figurative sacrifice. Nazianzene excusing himself, 
Naz●anz. in Apolog●●●●. ●. Apost●l. cons●●●. li. 6. ca 3.  How should I, saith he, presume to offer unto God that external sacrifice; the image of the great mysteries? Clemens, Offer you in your churches the image of the royal body of Christ. Macarius, 
Macar. h● 27.  In the Church are offered bread and wine the images of his flesh and blood.  
The 〈◊〉 ●a●hers keep the same word & the same sense. Ambrose, 
Am●r●s. d●n●f●●ie. E. 1. ca 48.  In the law was a shadow: in the Gospel is an image, in heaven is the truth. Before was offered a lamb or a calf, now Christ is offered, here in an image: there in truth where he entreateth his father as an advocate for us. Austen, 
k August. o●●ogintarum quae●ionum. cap. 61. The sacrament is an Image of Christ's death and passion.  Christ gave an image of his burnt offering to be celebrated in the church for a remembrance of his passion. The rest say the like: but what need we farther refutation of so ridiculous and unshamefast a brag, such causes, such counsels: such poppets, such Proctors. The very children in the church of God know that the divine mysteries by the general definition of a Sacrament be visible signs of invisible graces, and as Augustine interpreteth the word 
l 
De cons. dist. 2. § Sacrifi●ium. Sigebert. in an. 885.  
Regino li. 2. an. 868.  
Chrono. Can●●●. If these Grecians had been of the jesuits opinion the matter had not been great, but now they are not.  
How the late Grecians that press the letter may be understood.  
The Jesuits trust more to their practices then to their authorities, otherwise their hold were very slender.   Sacramentum: id est, sacrum signum, a Sacrament, that is a sacred sign. So that unless they be signs they can possibly be no sacraments, & neither sacraments nor signs can they be without or before consecration which this stout champion had not yet learned, & therefore his verdict in matters of religion, except his cunning were greater, may be well refused.  
As Damasene and your prating Epiphanius were more than 700. years after Christ, so Theophilact and Euthymius are far younger. The first of them was Bishop of the Bulgarians, who were converted to the fareth 868. years after Christ: the second your own chronology placeth after Gracian and Lombard 1100. years short of Christ. Were then these later Grecians wholly with you, what gain you by them? If you would oppose them to Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Austen, Gelasius, Thedorete & others of purer times and sounder judgements, you could win nothing by that bargain: the choice were soon made, which to take, which to leave; but in deed you do them wrong to return them for transsubstantiators: they never knew what it meant. They say the mysteries of the Lords table be not only figures but have the truth annexed: No figures (of grace differed) but seals of mercy performed in Christ and enjoyed of us: no called figures or images of Christ's flesh after consecration, but bearing as well the names as the fruits and effects of the things themselves whose sacraments they be. This maketh nothing for your local enclosing of Christ under accidents, neither for your corporal mingling of his flesh with your flesh, which are the two points that we chiefly detest in your real presence.  
Thus the greatest storm, from which you thought, no roose could rescue us, is half overpast, and no hurt done: if the rest fall as fair besides us, it will be high time for your to leave disputing, and fall to practising, as the rest of your fellows do, which be lurking at home to infuse a rebellion, or stirring abroad to boil it up to his height. Your kingdom will never reflorish by pen and paper: you must lay more plots, and make new marriages: Your time is short, your rage great.  Phi. 
When you be confuted by reason, then begin you to charge us with treason: but answer the places which we bring you, or I will leave you, I have somewhat else to doing.  Theo. 
I think it be the truest word you spoke this month; but an answer, if that be all you look for, you shall not lack●.  

The father's abused th●t are alleged for the ●e●. eating the fle●h of christ with teeth and ●awe●.  The fathers whom you allege for eating the real & natural flesh of Christ & drinking his blood with your mouths & throats, are foully abused, & their words ignorantly misconstered, if not purposely perverted.  Phi. 
Are you there at host? I see by your winding, you will run to their meaning.  Theo. 
What wrong is that, if by their own rules, I recall you to the right conceiving of their word●?  Phi. 
If you may make rules for religion, we shall have some wise work of it, I dare undertake.  Theo. 
If themselves made rules to direct their hearers lest their words should happily be mistaken, you show both your religion & wisdom in refusing the same.  Phi. 
We refuse them not, if they be theirs.  Theo. 
If they be not, you may the sooner repel them.  Phi. 
Well then, what are they?  The. 
There shall not be many of them: one will serve this turn.  Phi. 
That one then what is it?  The. 
The signs have the names of the things themselves, & therefore out of the places which you have brought you may not conclude, that the natural flesh of Christ is actually eaten with teeth, 
The rule in interpr●teth all the fathers that seem to say the flesh of Christ is eaten with our mouths. This Rule for the signs to bear the names of the things themselves, is proper to Sacraments.  or his blood really drunk with your lips, but rather that the visible signs & elements which are corporally received into your mouths & stomachs have the virtues of those things whose names th●y bear after consecration.  Phi. 
I thought we should have some such shift: but trust me, this of all others is the fondest & absurdest that you could make. For what ground of faith shall persist unshaken, if you give men this scope, to confess the n●m●s, but not the things? So the jew may reply, when Christ is proved to be the true M●ssias, that he is so called, but not so in deed. So any heret●k may delude the whole scriptures, if words shall stand as empty sounds, without their sense. See to what misery you be driven, whiles you withstand the blessed Sacrament, how far better were you to adore the same with us catholics than to run into such heretical briars?  The. 
Your sumptuous exhortation is but a ridiculous judification of yourselves & others. We do not say that in matters of doctrine words may be received without their natural & due signification: but in Sacraments we say, the signs remaining in their former substance are called by the names of the things themselves, & therefore you must take good heed that you do not rashly conclude that of the one which was spoken of the other: lest you fall into that servitude & sickness of the soul, which S. Austen warned you of before.  Phi. 
Would you appoint, when the father's words shallbe constered of the signs, 
Their own rules in all reason are to limit their own speech.  & w●en of the things?  The. 
Neither we nor you: themselves are the ●ittest men to limit what they spoke of the signs, & what of the things.  Phi. 
And do they say, they spoke this, which I allege, of the signs?  The. 
They do.  Phi. 
●f I should stay here till that be proved, I should never go hence.  Theo. 
The matter is not so hard to be proved as you make it. 
This must be understood of the s●gnes & not of t●e things themselves o● else there is a contradiction in the ●athers.  For if they mainly teach that Christ's flesh, is not eaten with teeth, not swallowed with jaws, not received into the compass of the belly, they must either contradict themselves, which they do not: or those speeches which you bring, must be understood of the signs called by the names of Christ's flesh & blood, though in truth they be not those things, but sacraments of them, as they by their own cautions will instruct you.  Phi. 
I can not abide this going about the bush.  Theo. 
Indeed madmen will through the midst, though they tear their flesh to the bones for their labour.  Phi. 
Do you think us mad?  The. 
It is greater madness to s●ea your own souls with the rigour of other men's phrases, when they give you warning to the contrary, than to wound your own bodies with the sharpness of any thorns.  Phi. 
We press not their speeches against their prescriptions, you rather would frustrate their meaning with your figures.  The. 
Let them tell their own tales, 

Three things that may be doubted of in the sacrament.  
The names of the elements changed after consecration.   what they teach concerning the parts of this Sacrament, & then it will soon be seen whether you or we pervert them. There be three things in the bread & by like proportion in the wine that may be doubted of, the name, the substance, the power & operation. When we see which of these three be changed, and which unchanged, the mist of error will soon● be scattered.  
The name we prove to be changed by the general confession of all the fathers, 
a Theod. dial. 1.  Our Saviour, saith Theodoret, changed the names and called the sign by the name of his body. Christ 
b Tertul. adver. I●daeos.  called bread his body, saith Tertullian. 
c Cypr. de unct Chrismatis.  The signifying (elements) and the things signified are called by the same names, saith Cyprian. 
d Ambr. de Sacramentis lib. 5. cap 4.  Before the words of Christ, saith Ambrose, that which is offered is called bread, when once the words of Christ be rehearsed, it is now called not bread, but (his) body. 
e De consecrat. d●st. 2 ¶ hoc est quod.  The bread, saith Prosper, is called the body of Christ being in truth the Sacrament (that is the sacred sign) of Christ's body. Chrysostom, 
f Chrysost. ad Caesar. M●n●●l.  After sanctification it is discharged from the name of bread, and counted worthy to bear the name of the Lords body, notwithstanding the nature of br●ad still remain. Rabanus, 
g Rola●. de Ins. cl●ri●. lib. 1. cap. 31.  Because bread strengtheneth (our) bodies, therefore is it ●itly termed the body of Christ. Bertram. 
h B●rtram. de corp. & sa●g. Dom.  The signs be called the Lords body & blood by reason they take the name of that thing whose sacraments they be.  
The general rule is plainly set down by the famous Clerk S. Austen in these words. 
i 
August. ad Boni●ac. epis●. 23.  
Can there be a plainer rule to keep us f●om ras● mistaking the fathers?   If Sacraments had not a certain likeness and resemblance to the things, whose sacraments they are, they should be no sacraments at all. And for his similitude they commonly bear the names of the things themselves. As therefore the Sacrament of christs body is after a sort the body of christ, and the sacrament of christes blood (after the same sort) the blood of christ: even so the sacrament of faith (meaning thereby baptism) is saith. We he buried, saith Paul, with christ through baptism into his death. H● saith not we signify that (his) burial, but he saith plainly we 〈…〉. The sacrament of so great a thing he would not call but by the 〈…〉 thing itself. Upon this very ground be concluded, 
k Contra Adimant. cap. 12.  as you heard 〈…〉 L●●d doubted not not to say, this my body: when he gave the sign of his body. What manuel then if the catholic Fathers used often the names of the body & blood of Christ, where the material elements of bread and wine must be understood, since this is the certain rule of all sacraments, and the common order of all ancient divines writing of the lords supper, 
The fathers after consecration never called the bread by any other name than the body of Christ, though the substance of bread still remained.  to call the gifts proposed at the lords table the body and blood of Christ. The wilful contempt of which observation hath miserably snared and hampered you and your fellows every where referring and forcing that to the natural flesh of Christ, which by the learned and godly fathers was spoken and meant of the visible signs called by the names of the body and blood of Christ.  
The second thing that you stick at, is the substance of bread, which we say remaineth and abideth as well after consecration as before. You will have it either vanish to nothing, or else to be turned and converted into the very flesh of Christ there present God & man under the whiteness, roundness & such like shows & appearances of bread, 
The bread remaineth after consecration in his proper and former nature and SUBSTANCE  left only to content the sight and palate, lest the raw flesh of Christ should displease your eyes or offend your taste. This is your doctrine, and this we say is not catholic. The church of Christ never held, that the substance of bread perished or ceased after consecration, it is a late devise: you can bring no father that is ancient for this assertion: they never taught, they never heard, they never dreamt any such things. They taught that the mystical signs were creatures well known, not strange and miraculous accidents, that the substance of bread was not changed, but remained still after consecration: and this they taught in as plain words as heart can imagine, or tongue express: let the Reader be judge, if I ●aye not the truth.  
Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome, for his antiquity reverenced of us, for his place not to be refused of you, writeth thus against Eutiches, 
l Gelas. contra Eutichen.  The sacraments, which we receive, of the body & blood of Christ, are a divine thing, & by them are we made partakers of the divine nature, & yet for all that ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread & wine to be. Theodoret, 
m Theod. dial. 2.  The mystical signs do not after sanctification departed from their own nature, for they remain in their former substance, figure & form. Ambrose, 
n Ambros. de sacramentis. lib. 4. cap. 3.  Thou camest to the altar, & ●awest the sacraments thereon, & wonderest at the very creature: yet it is a solemn & known creature. Ireneus, 
o I●en. li. 4 c. 32.  Christ counseling (or willing) his disciples to offer to God the first fruits of those creatures, took that bread, which is a creature, & gave thanks saying, this is my body. 
p Et cap 34.  We must therefore in all things be found thankful to God the creator, offering the first fruits of those creatures, which be his: and this oblation the Church only maketh in purity to the creator, offering to him of his own creatures with thanks giving. Origen (The Lord's bread) according to the material (parts) thereof goeth into the belly, 
q Origen. in 15. Matth.  and thence to the draft: (so that) it is not the matter of bread that doth profit the receiver, but the word rehearsed over it. Epiphanius, 
r Epipha. in Anchora●o.  That which our Saviour our took in his hand, and said this is my (body,) we see to be neither proportional nor like to his image in flesh, nor his invisible Deity: for this is of a round figure, & hath no power of sense: but our Lord we know to be wholly sense, wholly sensitive. Cyprian, 
s Cypr. de Caenae Domini.  Since the Lord said, do this in my remembrance, this is my flesh, & this is my blood: as often as with these words, & this faith we do (that he did) this substantial bread & cup sanctified with a solemn blessing is profitable for the life & safeguard of the whole man: being both a medicine to heal our infirmities, & a sacrifice to cleanse our iniquities. Chrysostom, After consecration 
t Chrysost. ad Ces●r. Monach.  it is delivered from the name of bread, & reputed worthy to be called the Lords body, notwithstanding the nature of bread still remain. Austen, 
u Aug. serm. ad infants.  These things are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, & an other thing understood. That which is seen, speciem habet corporalem, hath a corporal shape (or kind:) that which is understood hath a spiritual fruit. 
x Idem de doctr. Christ. li. 3. ca 5.  This is of all other a miserable servitude of the soul to mistake the signs for the things themselves, & not to be able to lift up the eye of the mind above the corporal creature, to behold the light that is eternal. The council of Constantinople, 
y Extat in 2. Synod. Nicen. actio. 6.  Christ commanded the whole substance of bread, chosen for his image, to be set on his table, lest if it resembled the shape of a man, idolatry might be committed. Bertram, 
z Bertram de corp. & sanguine.  The signs, as touching the substances of the creatures, are the same after consecration, which they were before.  
Can you look for plainer or director witnesses? Do they not all join together in one profession and succession of truth, that the mystical signs after consecration be known, corporal, and senseless creatures, abiding in their proper and former, yea their whole nature and substance? 

We ourselves can speak no plainer words than the fathers did before us against the jesuits error.  
The power & operation of the signs.  
Their power and operation changed, causeth the change of their names though their substance remain.   Be not these words significant and pregnant, directly confuting your real enclosing and corporal ea●ing of Christ under the shows and accidents of bread and wine?  
The third thing that I said was to be considered in the elements of bread and wine, is their power and operation. For since the substance of the creatures is not changed, the signs could not justly bear the names of the things themselves, except ●●e virtue, power, and ●ffect of Christ's flesh and blood were adjoined to them, and united with them after a secret and unspeakable manner by the working of the holy Ghost: in such sort that whosoever duly receiveth the sign, is undoubtedly partaker of the grace: offered unto all, but enjoyed only by those that with faith and repentance cleanse the inward man from that corruption of flesh & spirit which Christ abhorreth.  
Cyprian of Sacraments in general writeth thus. 
a Cypr. de unctio. Chrism●●.  To the elements once sanctified, not now their own nature giveth effect, but the divine virtue worketh (in them) more mightily: the truth is present with the sign, and the spirit with the Sacrament: so that the worthiness of the grace appeareth by the very efficiency of the things. Of the lords Supper in special thus he saith. b There is given the food of immortality, differing from common meats: Corporalis substantiae, etmens' speciem, retaining the kind (or truth) of a corporal substance (for your shows, without substance were not yet known) but by secret efficiency proving the presence of the divine virtue. This common bread changed into flesh and blood, procureth life and groweth to our bodies, & so by the usual course of these things, the weakness of our faith is succoured, and ●aught by a sensible argument, that the effects of eternal life is in the visible Sacraments, & that we be vnit●● to Christ no● so much by a corporal, as by a spiritual transition. Ambrose, 
c Ambr. de sacramentis lib. 6 cap. 1.  Perhaps t●ou wilt say, I ●ee the likeness, I see not the truth of blood. But it hath a resemblance. 
d Ibidem. li. 4. cap. 4.  For as thou tookest a resemblance of his death, so dost thou drink a resemblance of his precious blood, to this end that there should be no horror of blood, and yet it might work the price of our salvation, and the grace of our redemption might remain. 
e Ibidem. lib. 6. cap. 1.  Therefore for a similitude thou receivest the Sacrament, sed ver ae naturae gratiam, virtutemque consequeris, but thou obtainest (thereby) the grace & virtue of the true nature. Gelasius, 
f Cel●s. contra E●tichen.  By the sacraments (which we receive) we be made partakers of the divine nature: they truly represent to us the virtues and effects of that Principal mystery. Hilarius, 
g Hilar. de Tri●it. lib. 8.  These things tasted & taken bring this to pass, that Christ remaineth in us: this is 
h Idem in psal. 127.  The virtue of that table to quicken the receivers. Leo, 
i Leo de cons. dis●. 2. ● in quibus.  In that mystical distribution of the spiritual nourishment that is given, this is taken that receiving the virtue of the heavenly meat, we may be changed into his flesh, who was made flesh for us. Chrysostom, 
k 〈◊〉 hom. 83. in M●●●h.  Let us come to the spiritual dug of this chalice, and suck (thence) the grace of the spirit. 
l August. tra●t. in ●●●an. 26.  Austen, The Sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the Sacrament is an other thing. 
m I●em de cons. dist. 2. § qui manducat.  Every man receiveth his part, whereby grace itself is called parts, and where 
n Idem. in psal. 77.  the Sacraments were common to all, grace was not common to all, which is the virtue of the Sacraments. And again, The (Capernites) 
o Idem. tracked. in johan. 27.  thought he would have given them his body, but he told them he would ascend to heaven: no doubt he meant whole. When you shall see the son of man ascending● where he was before, surely then shall you see that he doth not give his body that way which you imagine, surely then shall you perceive that his grace is not consumed with biting. Euthymius, 
p 
Euthym. in Ma●●. cap 64.  
We must not look to the substance of the signs, but unto the virtue of them.   He doth change these things unspeakably into his very body, that quickeneth, and into his very precious blood, and into the grace of them both●: We must therefore not look to the nature of the things proposed (at the Lord's table) but unto the virtue of them. Wherefore Theodoretes words are most true, 
q The ●d. dial. 2.  The signs which are seen, Christ did honour with the names of his body and blood; not changing the nature (or substance of them) but casting grace unto nature. And so did Ambrose mean when he said: 
r Ambros. de sacra●en●is. ●ib. 4. cap. 4.  If there be so great strength in the word of the Lord jesus, that all things began to be, when they were not: how much more shall it be of force, that (the mystical elements) should be the same they were before, and yet be changed into an other thing? The same in earthly matter and substance which they were before, changed in virtue, power and working, whereby we see they bear not only the names, but also the fruits and effects of those things, whose Sacraments they be.  
This is their doctrine touching the visible part of this Sacrament, 
The natural and true flesh, of Christ is eaten with teeth.  which is seen with eyes, felt with hands, and drused with teeth: of that there is no doubt but it entereth our mouths and resteth in our bowels: and that, for the causes which I before rehearsed, a●●er consecration is eu●ry where called by th●m the lords body: but that the natural flesh of Christ, which is th● other and inward part of the Sacrament, entereth the mouth, or abideth the teeth, or passeth down the throat, or lo●geth in the stomach: this is a position wholly repugnant both to Fathers and Scriptures.  

s 
Mark. 7.  
Nothing can enter both t●e hart and the belly.   Do you not know, saith Christ, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into a man▪ can not defile him: because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly. Then by the judgement of our Saviour nothing can enter ●oth the h●a●t & the b●lly: but the flesh of Chris● entereth into the heart, ergo 〈…〉. 
t Cor. 6.  The belly, saith Paul, is for meats & meats for the belly, and God will destroy both it and them: the body of Chr●st G●d w●ll not destroy, it is therefore no meat for the belly. If not for the ●●lli●, than not for the mouth, 
u Mat. 15.  because every thing that entereth the mouth goeth into the belly, and so forth to the ●raught. But so basely to th●nk of the fl●sh of Christ is apparent and 〈◊〉 wickedness: e●go the flesh of Christ neither fills our bellies, nor entereth ou● mo●●●●: 
x Mark 7.  For nothing that entereth the mouth, can either defile (or sanctify) Meat●s, 
1. Cor. 8.  saith Paul (whi●h pass by the mouth) do not commend us unto ●od, neither doth the kingdom of God (which is our sanctification● con●●● of m●ats, and drinks: 
Rom 17.  but Christ 
a Heb. 13.  with his blood doth sanctify the people: and 
b Io● 6.  he that eateth my fl●sh & drinketh my blood, saith ●e, remaineth in me and I in him, and hath eternal life, ergo ne●ther his flesh nor ●●s blood enter ou● m●uthe●. To be short, 
c Ephes. 3.  Christ dwelleth not in bellies by local comprehension, but in our hearts by faith: his fl●he seedeth not ●ur bodies for a ti●e, but our souls for ever: his words were spoken not of our mouths, which bellevue not: ●ut of our spirits, which have no flesh nor bones: and consequently neither teeth to grind, nor jaws to swallow, but only ●aith and understanding.  
Let all this be ●●●de, if the learned and ancient Fathers do not conclude the same. chrysostom, 
d Ch●●sost. hom. 43. in lo●n.  Care not for the nourishment of the body, but of the spirit. (Christ is the bread) which ●ee●●th not the body but the soul, and 
e Idem ex variis 〈◊〉 in Mat 9  filleth not the belly, but the mind. Ambrose, 
f Ambros. de ijs qui ●●steriis 〈◊〉.  Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ. 
g De consecrat. 〈◊〉 2 ● non es●a●is.  It is therefore no bodily, but Ghostly meat. NOT THIS BREAD, which entereth into the body, but the bread of eternal life is it that upholdeth the substance of our soul. Cyprian, 
h Cyprian. de Caena Do●●.  As often as we do this we whe● not our teeth to bite, but we break the sanctified bread with a sincere faith. Cyril, 
i Cyril. lib. 3. in I●han. cap. 28.  Let us therefore (as our Saviour saith) labour not for the meat, which goeth into the belly, but for the spiritual food, which confirmeth our hearts and leadeth us to eternal life. Austen, 
k Aug●le cons. dist. 2. § verum sub sigma.  It is not lawful to devour Christ with teeth. 
b Idem de verbis Domini in E●●●g. L●c●●, sermo. 33.  Prepare not your jaws, but your hearts. We take but a morsel, & our hart is replenished. Therefore not that which is seen, but that which is believed, doth feed. 
m Idem. tract. in johan. 25.  Why providest thou thy teeth & thy belly? Believe & thou hast eaten. Be●tram, At the Lord's table 
n Bertram. de corp. & sanguine Domini. Christ is pressed with teeth swallowed with jaws, or received into the belly. Their own law de●esteth it for an heresy.  we look not on that which is broken in pieces, which is pressed with teeth, which feedeth the body, but only that which is taken spiritually by faith. Doth the meat (which the faithful receive in the church) as touching that which is corporally taken, that which is chammed with teeth, that which is swallowed with jaws, that which is closed in the compass of the belly, put us in assurance of eternal life? This way (no question) it feedeth our flesh, which shall die, neither yieldeth us any kind of incorruption. For this, which the body receiveth, is corruptible: that which faith beholdeth feedeth the soul, and performeth us everlasting life.  
If these fathers be not able to remove you from the corporal eating of christs flesh with teeth & jaws, hear in how plain terms your own Law doth check this grossness of yours. 
o De cons. dist. 2. ¶ non isle panis. & ¶ ●ribus gradibus. Glossa ibidem.  The flesh of Christ is not incorporated with us, descendeth not into the stomach, passeth not into the nourishment of the body, for it is the food of the soul, not of the body. And where Pope Nicholas drove Berengarius in his recantation to say, that the flesh of Christ was truly chammed between the teeth of the faithful: Your Gloze could forebear no longer, but cried out, 
p De cons. dist. 2. ¶ ego Berenganius. Glossa ibidem.  Nisi sanè intelligas, except thou take good heed to these words, thou shalt fall into a greater heresy than ever Berengarius held. Then blame not us Philander for saying this your assertion is not catholic, the Provost marshal of your own side, not long since, said it was heretical.  Phi. 
Have you done?  Theo. 
I have if you list to begin.  Phi. 
What a stir is here to bring beggars to the stocks, & all not worth a straw?  Theo. 
In deed Friars are the nearest kinsmen that beggars have: they both live by shifting, & gain by dissembling, save that Friars are always within doors, when beggars are without: But what is it that doth so much offend you in my speech?  Philan. 
You run along with Scriptures and Fathers, as if all were yours.  Theophil. 
I show you a truth confirmed by the Scriptures, avouched by the Fathers, and confessed by your own fellows: If that displease you, your mouth is out of taste.  Philand. 
Have you the truth? so hath the Devil: for you be his members in that you be Heretics.  Theo. 
This is but a jades trick, when you feel the spurs, to fling out behind. The more you reason the more you find that you have run the race of your own devices without the fathers: and now you can not resist, you fall to reviling and cursed speaking.  Phi. 
We can with one lift lay all your authorities in the mi●e. 
You must not only answer, but your answers must be sound and good.   Theoph. 
Your can is great, but your liquor small. I dare promise for you, that you will struggle what you can to be rid of the burden.  Phi. 
With three bare words I will answer your three parts, and all your proofs.  Theo. 
They may be so bare, they will do you no good: but at adventure what are they?  Phi. 
That the signs after consecration carry the names, and effects of the things themselves: I grant it to be very true, but it answereth not the places which I did object: And as for the substance of bread remaining, which s●me Fathers seem to affirm, we say substance is there tak●n not for the very substance itself, which is really changed into the body of Christ, but for some other thing.  Theo. 
What other thing?  Phi. 
Not for that which you mean.  Theo. 
Let my meaning alone, and speak you to their assertion that say the bread and wine remain after Consecration in their former and proper nature and substance. 
A man may better take hot for cold and ●ower for sweet, than substance for accidents.   Phi. 
Substance is there taken for nature.  Theo. 
Nature is so general that it compriseth both the substance & accidents of every thing. If then the signs remain in their former nature, they must retain both their former substance, and their former accidents.  Phi. 
Their substance they do not: their qualities they do, as sight, taste, bigness and such like properties.  Theo. 
But the places which I cite, affirm, they retain both; and namely their proper and former substance.  Phi. 
That is, their former qualities.  Theo. 
Doth substance signify qualities?  Phi. 
In these places 
* And so chalk doth signify cheese.  it doth.  Theo. 
Why more in these than in others?  
Substance in all learning is divided against accidents: how then cometh substance by your learning to be taken for accidents?  Phi. 
It is so. For otherwise those sayings were all one with heresy, if substance should be taken in his proper signification.  Theo. 
Yea marry: now you come to your right colours. If the father's words should not be violently wrested from their perpetual & natural signification, you cannot possibly avoid, but they taught ●hat doctrine for Catholic, which you now reject for heresy.  Phi. 

* 
First their words be plain: and their meaning is plainer, as shall appear when we come to the drift of their conclusion.  
Never Catholic father said the substance of bread was abolished by consecration as the jesuits say.   They never taught it.  The. 
Themselves be dead, and do not speak: their words in which they spoke, whiles they lived, make as directly for us, as we can spoke any: unless you turn all that ever they said, the upside down, and take figures for truths, substance for accidents, creatures for shows, teeth for faith, & heaven for earth. Which privilege of interpreting scriptures and fathers clean contrary to the sense, if you can procure or justify, I will be your surety, all the Protestants in Christendom shall never touch the least hair of your heads, in all the follies, which you defend.  Phi. 
We do not force them against their meaning. Then show your exposition to be true by other points of their doctrine, and parts of their writings, which must infallibly force you to that construction.  Phi. 
So we do.  Theo. 
With places as shamefully abused as these.  Phi. 
No by innumerable and inevitable authorities.  Theo. 
Bring but one father that shall say the substance of bread and wine is ceased or abolished by consecration, and you shall have free leave to do what you will, with all the rest.  Phi. 
We can bring infinite.  Theo. 
You may the sooner choose out one.  Philan. 
You would put us to bring other proofs, before you have answered those that are already produced. I brought you sir father's affirming the fl●she and blood of Christ were received with our mouths: you would leap to new matter, and shake them off at your finger's end: but I will none of that. First make even with the old scores before you enter on a new reckoning.  Theophi. 
You were the cause of that digression, and not I. You replied to my proofs and pursued not your own.  
And yet you need not say your places are unanswered, yourself have confessed the weakness of your own authorities, & yielded them as unsufficient to bear the weight of your conclusion, what other answer would you have? 
If the signs b●a●e t●e n●mes of the things themselu●●: ●hen the le●●●s authorities are unsufficient to conclude th●t Ch●●st is eaten wi●h our teeth.   Phi. 
Have I dissabled mine own proofs?  Theo. 
Your own conclusion you have.  Phi. 
Would you make me so mad?  Theo. 
I think you were more sober then, than now. For than you agrised a truth, and now you resist it again.  Phi. 
What did I agnise? Do you think I was a sleep, that I would con●u●e my sel●e?  Theo. 
No the clearness of truth was such, that you could not shadow the beams of it, and therefore in a bravery you did admit it, though now you would to your owlelight again.  Phi. 
This is counsel to me: I know not what you mean.  Theo. 
D●d you not confess it to be very true th●t in this sacrament the signs after consecration did carry the names and effects of the things themselves?  Phi. 
yes, I did.  Theo. 
Reca●t you that?  Phi. 
I do not.  Theo. 
Then are the places, which you brought for the re●l eating of Christ's flesh with your mouths and teeth, returned back without your conclusion. For the signs which are called after consecration by the names of christs body and blood, 
We must ascend to heau●n before we eat Christ: which with our mouths we cannot.  do enter our mouths, and pass our throats, the true fl●sh & blood of christ do not, but ●re eaten at the Lords table only of the inward man by faithful devotion and affection preparing the hart that Christ may lodge there, & devil there, where he d●light●th, and not in the mouths and ●awes of men which is no place for him, that sit●eth in heau●n, whither we must fly with the spiritual wings of our souls and spirits, before we can be partakers of him.  Phi. 
You shall not so delude me. The Rule ● granted was ve●y true: but how prove you that these speeches mu●t be so const●●ed? 
If the fathers of ●●ne that Christ is not eaten w●th teeth as they do ●hen these places must be ●nderstood of ●he signs and no● of the th●●gs themselves.  In other cases it may be true, though not in this.  Theo. 
If the Rule which I laid down be very true, than your places can in●erre nothing, ●or so much as the words which you brought may be spoken as well of the signs, as of the things themselves: and in that case the promises receiving a double construction, by your own confession, how can your conclusion stand go●d, importing that sense which is not only most doubted, and least proved, but ●la●ly denied by the same fathers in other places, as I have showed?  Phi. 
Tut●e: I will not be mocked wi●h such i●stes: you shall answer th●m place by place, as I cite them, or else I will not speak one word more.  Theo. 
You importune me to spend time, which now waxeth short, but it will be the worse for yourself: your egernes without truth will be your own discredit: and the more particularly, the more plainly it will appear.  Phi. 
I have 
As many as the●e be ●●●es in the ball of mine eye.  advantages in their words against your evasion, 
〈…〉. ●18  which I will not omit.  Theo. 
In Augustine, 
b 〈…〉 23. &  chrysostom, and Tertullian you have utterly none. Austen saith that in honour of so great a Sacrament (as this is) it hath pleased the holy Ghost, that (the sacred and sanctified bread) which after a sort is called the Lords body (though indeed it be the sign & Sacrament of his bodie● should enter the mouth before other meats that s●●ue only to feed & nourish ou● fleshy. chrysostom saith, 
〈◊〉 a ●dimant. cap. 12.  It is no small honour that our mouth hath gotten, by receiving (the sanctified bread after consecration 
d 〈…〉. 29. 〈◊〉. 2 Cor.  counted worthy to be called) the Lord's body (
e Id●● a● C●sar. M●nach.  though the nature of bread still remains) And indeed so is it no small both comfort and honour, that God hath vou●sa●ed to confirm and ●eale his mercies unto us with these elements, that are converted into our f●●sh: to show us that we are as really invested, & strengthened with his grace and ●rueth, as our bodies are nourished and increased with the s●gn●s and Sacraments of his grace. And to that end Tertullian saith, Our 
f  fl●sh seedeth on the (bread which 
g 
Id●●. contra 〈◊〉 l●b. 4.  
The jesuits h●ue no hold in these ●athers, but only because they call them signs by the names of the things, which is as common with them as sand with the Sea.   Christ called his) body (and hath in it the ●ff●cts of his body): that our souls might be replenished with God.  Phi. 
These be your corrections o● their speeches, they be not their intentions.  Theo. 
Look better to them, and you shall find that I have added no words but such as themselves in other places have del●uered to declare their own both meaning and speaking.  Phi. 
The rest do make for us.  Theo. 
Cyril saith nothing, but that as the soul hath faith and grace to cleanse it, and prepare it to eternal life: so 
h 
Cyri●l. lib 4. cap. 14. in I●h.  
By cognato tactic, 〈…〉, & ci●o, Cy●il meaneth the substance of bread and wine, & n●t of Christ's body.   it was needful that our rude and earthly body should be brought to immortality by (corporal and earthly) food (that) our bodies touching, tasting and feeding on creatures like themselves might take them as pledges of our resurrection.  
Gregory comparing the two Passovers, the jews, and ours, and alluding to the story of theirs ●aith, 
i De cens●●r●t. ●ist. § 2. quid sit.  The blood (of our passover) is sprinkled on both Posts, when it is drunk not only with the mouth of the body, (as the cup is, which after the manner of Sacraments is the Communion of Christ's blood) but also with the mouth of the hart, (which is the true drinking of Christ's blood).  Phi. 
We will none of that, by your leave: you must grant that in 
* As ●●ough in strict and 〈…〉 any thing could be drunk both by the soul and the body.  strict and precise speech according to the words, the blood of Christ is drunk by the mouth of the body, as well as by the mouth of the soul.  Theophil. 
Hath the soul a mouth in strict and precise speech? or hath she lips to drink according to the letter?  Phi. 
Would you make me such a fool as so to think?  Theo. 
Then if one part of the sentence be figurative, why not the other? If that which he doth most urge, be not literal, why shall the letter be eracted in the harder and unlikelier part of the comparison? If the whole be but an allusion, why eract you that strictness and preciseness of the speech in either part? It is not possible that one and the same thing should be really drunk by the mouth of the body, and the mouth of the soul. If it be corporal, how can it enter the soul? If it be spiritual, how can it enter the mouth? And if those be Gregory's words, which your own● Law assigneth to him in the very same homily: his exposition shaketh your real presence, more than all the authorities, you can bring, shall settle it. 
k De cons. dist. 2. ¶ species in hom. Pascha.  Quidam non improbabiliter exponunt hoc loco carnis & sanguinis veritatem, ipsam eorundem efficientiam, id est peccatorum remissionem. Some not amiss do expound the truth of Christ's flesh and blood in this place to be the very efficience of the same things: that is, the remission of sins. Take this construction with you, & bring out of Greg. or Leo, what you can, it will not help the tied of a barely corn.  Phi. 
S. Leo saith, 
l ●eo de jeiunio 7. mensis sermo. 6.  You ought so to communicate at the sacred table that you doubt nothing of the truth of the body and blood of christ. Hoc enim ore sumitur, quod fide creditur & frustra ab illis Amen respondetur, à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur. For 
* Leoes words examined.  that is received with the mouth which is believed by our faith, and in vain do they answer Amen, which dispute against the thing that themselves receive. O noble Lion, and such as all the heretics in Europe will never encounter.  Theo. 
You speak like a Lion, but the spite is your ears are too long to be taken for a beast of that metal. You foolishly pervert the meaning of Leo: and if you did but understand the right course of his reason, you would suppress both his voice and your vaunt for very shame.  Phi. 
He that will trust your sayings, shall have many false fires, when he should not.  Theo. 
And he that will credit your doings shall feel many quick flames, when he would not.  Phi. 
You be better at quipping, than at answering.  Theo. 
You are loath we should encroach on your common. But return to Leo. Can you tell against whom he wrote?  Phi. 
Against such as you are, that denied the truth of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament.  Theo. 
Were they men without names, or names without men?  Phi. 
Mock not: they were 
* But Eutiches against whom Leo spoke, imagined that Christ's body had neither shape, quantity nor circumscription, and so do the Jesuits dream of Christ in the Sacrament. If Leo refel Eutiches, he must also refel the jesuits, for they spoil Christ of the natural conditions of a body as Eutiches did.  your ancestors.  Theo. 
They say it is a wise child that knoweth his own father. Do you? But in sadness whom did Leo traduce in that sermon?  Phil. 
Marry Eutiches and such like heretics.  Theoph. 
You say well: for Leo nameth him but a little before in that sermon, and against his opinion he reasoneth.  Philand. 
I am content with that.  Theoph. 
What was his error?  Phi. 
He denied the truth of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament.  Theo. 
Who told you so?  Phi. 
I gather it by those that refute him.  Theo. 
By them you shall learn his error: but this it was not.  Philan. 
What was it, say you?  Theo. 
Eutiches affirmed that Christ's human nature and substance was not only glorified by his ascension, but consumed and turned into the nature & immensity of his Godhead. Against him wrote Theodorete, Gelasius, and others: and one of the chiefest arguments which they bring against him, is that which Leo here toucheth in a word or two.  Phi. 
That argument clean confoundeth your sacramentary Sect.  Theo. 
Yours or ours it must needs confound: 

By this argument it is evident in what sense Theodoret & Gelasius use the word substance when they say the substance of bread remaineth.  
The Jesuits reject the mayor, minor, & conclusion of the ancient fathers against Eu●iches: be they not then quarter masters in his ship?  
Gelas. contra Eutich.   for this it is. As the bread and wine after consecration are changed and altered into the body and blood of Christ, so is the human nature of Christ converted into his divine after his resurrection & ascension: but the bread and wine are not changed neither in substance, nor form, nor figure, nor natural proprieties, but only in grace and working: ergo Christ's human nature is not changed into his divine EITHER IN SUBSTANCE, circumscription, or form, but only endued with glory and immortality.  Phi. 
This is no Catholic reason, but savoureth altogether of your heretical poison.  Theo. 
They which first framed and urged this reason against Eutiches, in your opinion were they heretics?  Phi. 
No father ever used it.  Theo. 
If they did, must not they be doubbed for heretics as the first proposers of that reason, or at least you for affirming now the quite contrary? For you reject both their assumption & conclusion against Eutiches as stark false, and whose ancetour then is Eutiches but yours?  Phi. 
They do not use it, as you report it.  Theo. 
Look you offspring of Eutiches, whether Gelasius, Theodoret and Augustine do not urge it in those very points and words which I repeat.  
Thus Gelasius framed his reason against Eutiches. An image or similitude of the body and blood of Christ, is celebrated in the action of the mysteries. It is therefore apparent and evident enough, that we must hold the same opinion of Christ the Lord, which we profess, celebrate and receive in his image: That as those (signs) by the working of the holy Ghost pass into the divine substance, and yet remain in the propriety of their own nature: Even so that very principal mystery itself, (whose force & truth (that Image) assuredly representeth) doth demonstrate one whole and true Christ, 

If Christ consist of two substances divine and human, the sacrament likewise consists of two substances an heavenly and an earthly.  
Theod. dialog. 2.   to continue the (two natures) of which he consisteth, properly remaining. And lest you should not understand what he meant by this, The signs still abide in the propriety of their own nature: he expoundeth himself an saith, Non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis & vini. The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not, or perisheth not.  
When Theodoret had made an entrance to the very same reason by laying this foundation, Oportet archetypum Imaginis esse exemplar: the Original must be answerable to the Image: the heretic caught the words out of his mouth and said: It happened in good time, that you did mention the divine mysteries: for even thereby will I prove the lords body to be changed into an other nature. As then the signs of the lords body and blood are other things before the invocation of the Priest, but after they are changed and become other (than that they were:) so the Lords body after his assumption is changed into his divine substance. 
If the sacrament be transsubstantiated, so must the humanity of Christ be likewise changed▪   
The mayor being good, & such as Gelasius and Theodoret did both avouch; that as the signs were changed after consecration, so was Christ's humanity after his assumption: if your opinion had then been taught in the church that the substance of bread and wine were changed by consecration, the conclusion had been infallible for Eutiches' error, that the substance of Christ's humanity had been changed by his ascension into his divinity: and not only both these Fathers had had their mouths stopped, but Eutiches' error had been in●ol●ble, as being grounded on a Mayor that was a confessed and famous truth, and on a Minor that was (as you think, the undoubted saith of the Church. Mary the Minor in deed was apparently false, though you now defend it for Catholic Doctrine, and with the plain denial of that as a manifest untruth, Theodoret inferreth the contrary: 
Theodoret's conclusion against Eut●ches.  that because neither the Substance, nor natural proprieties of the bread and wine are changed by consecration, as the whole Church then believed and confessed: therefore neither the substance, nor shape, nor circumscription of Chris●es human nature were changed by his ascension: but his body remaineth in the ●ame substance, quantity, and form, that he rose from death, and ascended up withal: and with the very same form and substance of flesh shall come to judge the world. These are his words.  

Theod. dial. 2. If Christ's human nature in heaven keep his former substance: so doth the bread which is an Image of that mystery. Both their Seminaries cannot answer this argument but by condemning Gelas●us and Theodoret fo● heretics or at least themselves.  Thou art caught (saith Theodoret to the heretic) with the same nets that thou laidst for others. The mystical signs after sanctification do not departed from their own nature. For they remanie in their former substance, and figure, and form etc. Confer then the Image with the original and thou shalt see the likeness (between them). For the figure must be like to the truth. That body (therefore of christ in heaven) hath his former shape and figure & circumscription, & to speak all at once, (his former) substance.  
Lay all your heads together: a●d granting the Mayor (which the whole Church held) avoid the conclusion of Eutiches without the denying the Minor as Theodoret did, (which yet is your faith and belief at this day) and we will grant you to be catholics and ourselves heretics: If you cannot, see how far you be fallen from the doctrine of Christ's church, and that in no less point than the greatest and chie●es● Sacrament, on which you have wickedly founded your adoration, oblation, half communion, private mass and barbarous prayers, without example, without warrant of God or man.  Phi. 
Theodoret hath set you up in your Ruff, but I would you knew it: in this case we care neither for Theodoret, nor you: if that were his opinion, as it is yours.  Theo. 
And who hath put you into your ruff: that you not only despise that learned and ancient Bishop, but the whole Church in him, which then so believed, and you cannot avoid at this day, except you will be Eutichians?  Phi. 
The Mayor is not altogether so s●und as you think it.  Theo. 
Yet did Gelasius and Theodoret confound that error with that comparison: 
De consecrat. distinct. 2. & hoc est quod dico.  and S. Augustine long before th●m did urge the same. This is it that we say, this is it that by all means we labour to confirm, (to wit) that the Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things: the visible kind of elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord jesus Christ: the Sacrament, and the thing of the SACRAMENT: even as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man; 

Ther● must be two different substances in the Sacrament as there are in the pe●son of Christ.  
Leoes words w●r● intended against the Eutichians.   for so much as every thing containeth the nature and truth of those things of which it consisteth. By which rule it is certain there mus● be in the sacrament the nature, truth and substance of bread and wine, even as in Christ's person either nature hath his truth and substance, without confusion or distraction.  Phi. 
We have fathers to the contrary, if the time did serve to produce them, as anon I will: In the mean while what is this to Leo?  Theophil. 
Leo in few words abbridgeth the sum● of this reason: and saith the followers of Eutiches do in vain with their mouths rece●ne the Sacrament, since with their hearts they do not believe the truth of Christ's human nature: and answer Amen to no purpose, so long as they dispute against that, which they would se●m to enjoy by receiving the seal and pledge thereof in the church with others.  Phi. 
This is your Commentary besides the text: his words are, The self same (body) which we believe with faith, 
Hoc: doth not signify the self same body, but the selfsame pointe● of ●aith, or proportion of the image and the original.  is received with mouth. Which you cannot interpret to be m●ant of the bread. For the bread is not believed with hart: and against the truth of Christ's body, not against the bread did the followers of Eutiches dispute.  Theo. 
Doth Leo ●aie the sel● same (body)?  Phi. 
He saith Hoc ore sumitur quod fide creditur: that is received with the mouth, which with (our) faith is believed, and that cannot be the bread.  The. 
Much less may it be the natural body of Christ. For then Leo had mightily confirmed, & not confuted Eutiches opinion. His error was that the humanity of christ after his ascension was swallowed up of his divinity, and so changed that it was now no natural body. Against this if Leo should have opposed your real presence in the Sacrament where Christ's body is without quantity, 
The real presence had been the next way to help Eutiches' error.  shape, circumscription, distinction of parts and all other conditions of a natural body: he had been a Proctor ●or Eutiches' impiety, not a confuter of it. Neither could Eutiches himself have wished a better defence for his heresy than the confession ●f such a bod●e as you imagine in the sacrament, and therefore you ha●k that HOC ill-favouredly, when you make Leo rather a consenter with Eutiches, than a disprover of him, with your fantastical presence: which is an approbation and no refutation of Eutiches' error.  Phil. 
What a slander this is, that the real presence should be a refuge for Eutich●s error?  Theoph. 
Such a slander as with all your cunning you shall never wipe away.  Phi. 
Do we not affirm the 
The substance of it you affirm in words, but you spoil ●t of all natural shape, quantity, and circumscription.  substance of Chris●es human flesh to be in the Sacrament?  The. 
Such a substance, as Eutiches himself imagined, having neither proportion of shape, nor position of parts, nor repletion of place, nor any condition incident to a natural body: but the godly fathers were far from urging such a substance against Eutiches. They pressed him with the bodily shape, circumscription, extension, and perfection of Christ's flesh, as well in all other requisites as in substance: and to prove this amongst other arguments, they brought, as I have showed, the Sacrament for a resemblance and demonstrance of both natures in Chris●: that as the bread after consecration keepeth his quantity, quality, shape and substance, notwithstanding it be united, and annexed to the heavenly grace, that worketh in the sacrament: so the body of Christ after his assumption retaineth his former perfection, proportion, figure and substance, losing no poin●● nor part of his human nature, but only replenished with immortal glory.  


Christ's body in the Sacrament is even such a body as Eutiches did imagine.  
Leo doth not say that Christ's body was enclosed in the host: but they ought to believe that of Christ's body in heaven, which they saw in the elements received with their mouthe●, to wit, the perfect continuance of their former substance.  
We do not interpret the fathers as pleaseth us, but we take heed that we subvert not their main doctrine by some of their phrases which by their own rules may be revoked to a good sense.   This must be Leoes Hoc, if he will do any good with alleging the Sacrament against Eutiches, as I have proved by Austen, Gelasius and Theodoret: Otherwise if he do but mention your real presence he openeth the gap and leveleth the way to Eutiches' fury, and runneth headlong against the rest of his fellow servants and successors, that used the same argument to confute Eu●iches with a manifest contradiction of your real presence.  Phi. 
I bring you Leoes words.  Theo. 
Leoes words have nothing in them to cross that sense which I establish. Hoc signifieth any thing, and hath no relation to Christ's flesh in the sacrament: but to the proportion rather between Christ & the sacrament: in that they believed no other thing of Christ than they saw with their eyes, & received with their mouths in the Sacrament; to wit, the perfect shape & substance of bread after Consecration: & consequently they must hold the same opinion of Christ's humanity after his ascension.  Phi. 
If you use this trade: you may pervert all the father's writings, and make what sense you list to their sayings.  Theo. 
Pervert them no more than we do, and you shall never evert the main doctrine as you have done. We measure ●heir words by their own warrant, and suffer n●t a phrase here and there, which may be well revoked to their rules, to undermine the chief grounds of their faith.  Phi. 
No more do we.  Theo. 
Why then rage you, to hear v● say, that these few places, which you have brought for eating christs body with your mouths and jaws, may be referred to the signs called by those names, as well as to the things themselves?  Phi. 
You take upon you to be judges and to pronounce at your pleasures, when the word●s shall belong to the one, and when to the other: so that no father shall say any thing against your heresy, but yet will by and by turn it and wind it I know not whither.  Theo. 
Nothing more hindereth the search for truth than a desire to lie. We show you the general admonition of the fathers themselves, that after consecration they call the visible signs no longer by their wonted names, but by the names of those things whose signs they are, and whose virtues they have. This Rule we say is then to take place, when the speech which we find in a father, if it should be referred to the things themselves, would be both absurd, and repugnant to the rest of his Doctrine and to himself in other places. This is not to turn the fathers whither we will, but to take heed we fall not into the pit, which they 
* If this be not lawful in expounding the fathers, I marvel what is.  warn us to avoid.  Phi. 
If you would never use that rule but in that case, you were not so much to be blamed: marry your pretences be very fair when your perfourmances be far unlike.  Theo. 
Do you lack eyes to see, or tongues to speak when we tread awry?  Phi. 
Trust to it: we do not.  The. 
We would not you should. Our dealing in Religion must be such as not only you may not ●●spr●●●, but God may nor dislike.  Phi. 
Th●s sh●●●ng and 〈◊〉 of Fathers, neither God nor man can like.  Theo. 
A lower sai●e were ●●●er ●or your sm●ll bott●m: 〈…〉 you gather so much wind and weather that yo● can never g●t ●o sho●re.  Phi. 
●ou speak parables.  Theo. 
● can 〈◊〉 ●n●erprete. The ●●ni●y o● your 〈…〉 o● your hearts is such, that you can not so●e●ly discuss and 〈◊〉 any 〈◊〉  Phi. 
Who can ●e ●a●ent, and see so much 〈◊〉 pl●y ●●●ered?  Theo. 
〈…〉 to t●ke w●●g, wh●●soeu●r you be to offer 〈◊〉.  Phi. 
●s 〈…〉?  The. 
You must t●l us what, before we can redress it.  Phi. 
I alleged six● Fathers to prove, that the fl●sh of Chr●s● is eaten in the sacrament corporally with our mouthe●. You come in with a new trick of Tren●hmore, & tell us they spa● of the signs ca●led by t●ose names after consecration, not of ●he things the●selues.  Theo. 
Is this such wrong?  Phi. 
I promise you it 
You are angry because the fathers do not serve your follies no better.  moveth me to the very hart to see you so delude them.  Theo. 
I blame you not. You thought you had some great hold in the Fathers for your corporal● eating of Christ with your teeth: and I remember you would burn all to your shirt if ever they were answered: 
It cannot be now mistaking they have so often been told of th●ir error, & they still defer●d it as they did before.  and now the w●ight of them is seen, they are but gr●sse mystakinges, if not pervertinge of the Fathers: and you must seek for an other pedigree. Your real coue●ing of Christ with the shows of bread and wine, and corporal eating him with your teeth hath no deduction from ●he ancient Fathers.  Phi. 
If you may be suffered to gloze them, as you do.  Theophil. 
How often must I tell you, it is their own gloze, and not mine?  Philand. 
The rule is theirs, but why do you apply it to these places?  Theo. 
I have told you that also, because they should otherwise contradict both themselves, and others. 

Vide supra fol. 760.  
This is spoken of the things themselves: ergo the Iesuit●s places must be meant of th● signs called by ●he names of Chr●sts body and blood, ●r el●e there is a manifest contradiction in the father's We●e we not wisely occupied to follow the jesuits in this point●    Phil. 
Contradict? why?  T●eophil. 
The self same Father's avouch, that the flesh of Christ entereth not the body, is not bitten with teeth, filleth not the belly: they say it is not piety to eat him with teeth: we must not prepare teeth, jaws, or bellies for him: your own ●awe sayeth: he descendeth not into the stomach, and the West church for 800. years confessed that Christ is not corporally taken of us, not chammed with teeth, not swallowed with jaws, not closed in the compass of the bellue, our Saviour himself decideth that nothing can enter both the heart and the belly: and that the flesh of Chr●st entereth the heart, and feedeth the soul, he c●n be no christian that doubteth. This apparent negative not withstanding, when they sometimes, trea●ing of other m●tters, happen to say, Our mouth receiveth the body of Christ: the substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth o● his body and blood: you would have us interpret these sayings of the very same things wh●ch they denied to pass that way, and not of the signs, which in the perpetual use of speech amongst all Divines after consecration were called by th●se names and none other: & leaving their own direction which they give us, to charge them with a flat contradiction, and heinous assertion as themselves ag●ise: if the letter be urged, and the speech not mollified with a spiritual and mystical exposition.  Phi. 
Nay Sir, we do not say, that the substance of our flesh is increased or consisteth of Christ's body and blood: that were a wicked assertion in deed, the body of Christ is glorious and impassable: and not really mixed with our flesh, much less converted into the substance of our bodies: as that speech importeth.  Theo. 
But yet the Fathers that affirm the one, affirm the other, and certain it is that nourishing is the principal end of eating: 
Eating is in vain without nourishing. If then Christ's flesh do enter our mouths it must nourish our bodies.  so that eating the flesh of Christ is utterly superfluous, if we be not thereby nourished.  Phi. 
Our souls are nourished, not our bodies, with that heavenly food.  Theo. 
Then must our souls eat it, & not our bodies.  Phi. 
Our bodies eat it, that our souls may be nourished by it.  Theo. 
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, & digest that which is eaten. If the body eat, the body must digest and be nourished by that food.  Phi. 
Would 
* We would not have it so: but if you understand the fathers when they say the one, why do you pervert them in the other?  you have our bodies nourished & substantially increased with the flesh of Christ?  Theop. 
The Fathers I say avouch the one, as well as the other: If then you can expound the one, why do you pervert the other?  Phi. 
What do they avouch?  Theophil. 
That the substance of our flesh is increased, and consisteth of the body and blood of Christ.  Philand. 
Prove that. By your leave I think you use multiplication with the Fathers.  Theop. 
Then when I produce them, I trust you will come forth with your division.  Philand. 
Let me hear them.  Theophil. 
You shall.  
justinus, 
a Iust. Apol. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The food sanctified, (of which our blood & flesh are nourished by conversion) we are taught to be the flesh & blood of that jesus which took our flesh on him. Ireneus, 
b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.  Quomodo d●cunt carnem in corruptionem devenire, & non percipere vitam, quae à cortore Domini & sanguine alitur? How say they that our flesh shall perish and not be partaker of life, since it is nourished of the very body and blood of our Lord? And again, 
c Idem lib. 5.  Fit Eucharistia corporis & sanguinis Christi, ex quibus angetur & co●sist●t carnis nostrae substantia. There is made the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ: of which the substance of our flesh is increased, and consisteth. And therefore he concludeth: 
d Ibidem.  Quomodo negart carnem cap●cem esse donationis Dei, qui est vita aeterna, quae corpore & sanguine Christi ●●tritur. How do they deny our flesh to be capable of the gift of God who is eternal life, since it is 
* So Cyprian saith, panis in carnem & sanguined mutatus 〈◊〉 vitam & incre●entum corporiety.  nourished of the body & blood of Christ. And after so chrysostom.  Phi. 
Repeat no more. If I believe not this: that which cometh after, whatsoever it be, will not prevail.  Theo. 
How think you? must this be referred to the natural & true body & blood of Christ, or else to the signs bearing those names when once they be sanctified?  Philand. 
No doubt to the fignes.  Theop. 
And were it not open madness to avouch it to be really true of the things themselves whose signs those are?  Philand. 
It were.  Theophil. 
Why then, since corporal eating serveth only for corporal nourishing, 
A man would think this were plain enough for far younger scholars, than the Jesuits would seem to be.  and hath a continual and natural coherence with it, do you confess the truth in the later, and not as well in the former part of that action? why do you not expound them both alike?  Philand. 
To say the immortal flesh of Christ is converted and turned into the quantity and substance of our mortal flesh, is an horrible heresy.  Theophil. 
And so say that his flesh is eaten with our mouths and ●awes, & l●●th in our stomachs, is the very pathway & right introduction to that heresy, or at least to as brutish and gross an erour as that is.  Philand. 
The Fathers affirm that his body is eaten with our mouths.  Theophil. 
And so they affirm, 

Our resurrection doth not depend upon the touching of Christ's flesh with teeth, for then the wicked should ●ise to eternal life.  
Concil. Nicen. 1.   that his body and blood do increase and augment the substance of our mortal and sinful bodies.  Philand. 
But that can not be.  Theophil. 
No more can the other.  Philand. 
How shall our bodies rise at the last day, if Christ's body be not in them?  Theophil. 
Our resurrection dependeth not on the act of eating his flesh, but of nourishing our flesh with his, as Ireneus telleth us: and the things which we eat, are not the causes, but as the great Nicene council admonisheth, the pledges of our resurrection: Their words be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: we must believe, these to be the signs or pledges of our resurrection.  Philand. 
S. Chrysostom earnestly enforceth the eating of Christ's flesh. And saith we do not only eat it, but even 
c Hom. 45. in johannem.  * fasten our teeth in his flesh.  Theo. 
In deed he saith so, but if you did not avert both your eyes, and ears from the truth, you would perceive by that very sentence, both the manner of his & other Father's speeches of that Sacrament, and the right intent of their Doctrine in those cases. His words are, 
f 
Chrysost. hom. 45. in johan.  
As Christ is seen & touched, so is he eaten and digested.  
Both these speeches: the flesh of Christ entereth our mouths, and increaseth the substance o● our flesh, have o●e and the selfsame construction.   Non se tantum videri permittens: desiderantibus, sed & tangi, & manducari, & dentes carni suae infigi, & desiderio sui omnes impleri. Christ suffering himself not only to be seen of those that are desirous, but to be touched, and eaten, and our teeth to be fastened in his flesh, and all to be satisfied of their longing after him?  Phi. 
Lord, me thinketh these words be very plain words. He suffereth our teeth to be fastened in his flesh▪  Theo. 
Very plain they be, but very false also, unless you either take the flesh of Christ for the sign called by that name: or else refer teeth, and biting to the soul and faith of the ●●ward man a● well as you do the eyes & hands wherewith we see him & touch him.  Phi. 
Look what an ●●●sion you have since gotten.  Theo. 
Nay look what a subversion of all truth and saith you be since fallen to.  Phi. 
Doth not this Father say, we fasten our teeth in his flesh?  Theo. 
Doth he not also say, We see him with our eyes & touch him with our hands?  Phi. 
That is referred to our faith: as S. Ambrose teacheth. 
Ambros. in 9 Lucae li. 6. § & 〈◊〉 vir cui nomen jairus.  Fide Christus videtur, side Christus tangitur. By faith Christ is seen, by faith Christ is touched.  Theoph. 
And why shall not the next (which is more unlikely to be true,) be referred to faith as well as the former? Saint Ambrose likewise saying, 
h Idem in precati●. praeparant. ad M●ssa●●.  Comedat te cor meum: panis sancte, panis vive, panis munde, veni in cor meum, intra in animam meam. Let mine heart eat thee: O holy bread, O living bread, O pure-bread, come into my heart, enter into my soul; and Cyprian calling it 
i Cypr. de caena Domini.  the proper nourishment of the spirit: besides infinite others that for a thousand years taught that doctrine in the church of God & not your guttural eating of Christ with teeth and jaws.  Phi. 


That eating of Christ in the Sacrament which we teach the Church held for a 1000 years: theirs is not yet agreed on amongst themselves.  
What manner of eating Christ in the Sacrament the fathers taught.   Was your manner of eating Christ's flesh which you defend in the sacrament, taught in the church for a thousand years?  Theop. 
Even ours was: and when yours came first to be proposed, your schoolmen ran every man his way, fight and scratching one an other ●ho should fall fastest and farthest from the truth.  Philand. 
Blush you not to avouch two such monstruous lies?  Theop. 
A liar will easily suspect any man, as knowing himself to delight in lies: but GOD be thanked, that lies with you be truths with us, and with all that have any knowledged of GOD or care of his truth. The things which I affirmed be manifest truths, and such as you will blush at for very shame, if you be not sworn to your holy Father against Christ, as well as you be against your Prince.  
Origen commenting upon these words of the Supper, this is my body, this is my blood: 
k Origen. tract. 35. in 26. Mat.  this bread, sayeth he, (which Christ) confesseth to be his body, is the word that nourisheth our souls: and this drink which he confesseth to be his blood, is the word that moisteneth and passingly cheereth the hearts of such as drink it. Thou which art come unto Christ, 
l Idem in Leuit. hom 9  stick not in the blood of (his) flesh, but rather learn the blood of (his) word, and hear him saying to thee, this is my blood, which shall be shed for the remission of your sins. 
m Idem tract. 35. in 26. Mat.  He that is partaker of the mysteries knoweth the flesh and blood of the word of God. For the bread is the word of righteousness, which our souls eating are nourished with: and the drink is the word of the knowledge of Christ according to the mystery of his birth and death. The blood of the Testament is poured into our hearts for the remission of (our) sins. Athanasius, 
n Athana. in illud quicunque dixerit verbum.  How few men would his body have sufficed, that this should be the food of the whole world? Yea therefore doth be warn them of his ascension into heaven that he might draw him from thinking on his body, and they thereby learn, that the flesh, which he spoke of, was celestial meat from above, and spiritual nourishment to be given by him. The (words) which I spoke to you are spirit and life, which is as much as if he had said: this (body) which is in your sight and delivered (to death) for the world, shall be given you for meat, that it may be 
* Not corporally lodged in the stomachs, but spiritually distributed to your souls.  spiritually distributed in every one of you, and be an assurance and preservative to raise you to eternal life. Cyprian writing of the lords Supper, 
o 
Cypr. de caena Domini.  
This nourishment is proper to the spirit, ergo not common to the body.   Eating and drinking, saith he, be referred to the one and same end: with the which, as the substance of our bodies is increased and preserved, so the life of the spirit is maintained with his proper nourishment. What food is to the flesh, that faith is to the soul: what meat is to the body, that the word is to the spirit, working everlastingly with a more excellent virtue that which bodily meats do for a time and until a season. Ambrose approaching to the sacred communion which you entitle a prayer preparing to Mass, amongst other things speaketh thus to Christ himself. 
p 
Ambros. in oratio. praeparan. ad Missam 1.  
How happened S. Ambrose had quite forgotten his mouth and his jaws in all this long prayer before his approaching to the mysteries?   Thou Lord saidst with thine holy and blessed mouth, the bread which I will give, is my flesh (given) for the life of the world. He that eateth me, shall live through me, he abideth in me, and I in him. I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever. Most delightful bread heal thou the taste of my heart, that I may feel the sweetness of thy love. Let mine heart eat thee, and with thy present release let the bowels of my soul be replenished. Angels eat thee with full mouth, let man that is a pilgrim (on earth) eat thee as his weakness will suffer him, that he faint not in the way, having this provision for his journey. Holy bread, living bread, beautiful bread which camest from heaven and givest life to the world, come into my heart, and cleanse me from all filth of flesh and spirit. Enter into my soul, heal and sanctify me within and without.  
No man earnester in this point than S. Austen 
q Aug. in psal. 103.  This visible bread confirmeth the stomach, confirmeth the belly. There is an other bread which confirmeth the hart, because it is the bread of the hart. There is a wine that doth rightly cheer the hart & can do nothing but cheer the hart. 
* Not the stomach nor the belly.  Therefore understand so of the bread, as thou dost of the wine, inwardly hunger, inwardly thirst: blessed are they which hunger & thirst after righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. That bread is righteousness: that wine is righteousness, is truth: and Christ is the truth. I am saith he the living bread which came from heaven: and, I am the vine, you are but branches. 
r Idem. tract. 26. in johan.  To believe in him, this is to eat the living bread, he that believeth eateth. Man is invisibly fed, because he is invisibly regenerated. He is inwardly (in soul) a babe, inwardly (in mind) renewed. (Look) in 
* The body is not regenerated: the body therefore is not fed with the true flesh of Christ.  what part man is new borne, in that part is he fed. The (unbelieving) Jews were far from this heavenly bread, neither knew they how to hunger for it: the jaws of their hearts were dull, and this bread requireth the hunger of the inward man. Take heed brethren: eat you this heavenly bread spiritually, bring innocency to the altar. 
s Idem. in serm. de corp. & sa●guine Domini. Ci●●tur à Beda in 1. Cor ca 10.  Eat life, and drink life. For than is the body and blood of the Lord life to each man, when that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament, is in very truth spiritually eaten, spiritually drunken, 
t A●st. in serm. de verbis evangelii. Citatur à Beda ibidem.  When Christ is eaten, life is eaten; neither when we eat him, do we make pieces of him. In deed in the Sacrament it is so: and the faithful know how they eat the flesh of Christ: every man taketh his piece. Wherefore grace itself is termed pieces. Christ is eaten by pieces in the sacrament, and yet he remaineth whole in heaven, he remaineth whole in thine heart. 
Idem in evang. Luc. serm. 33.  Provide not your jaws, but your heart. Thence is this Supper commended. Behold we believe in Christ, we receive him with our faith. In taking we know what we should think: we take him but a little, and our heart is replenished. Macarius, 
x Macar. ho. 27.  In the church is offered bread and wine the sampler of his body and blood, and they which are partakers of the visible bread, do spiritually eat the lords flesh. Emissenus, 
Euseb. Emissenus. de cons. dist. 2. ¶ quia corpus.  When thou goest up to the reverend Altar to be filled with spiritual meats, by faith behold, honour and wonder at the sacred body and blood of thy God: touch it with thy mind: take it with the 
* Not with the hand of thy body.  hand of thine heart, and chiefly provide that the 
* What shall the mouth have, if the inward man must swallow the whole?  inward man swallow the whole.  
This Doctrine continued eight hundredth years after Christ. Bertram then living is witness sufficient. 
a Bertram. de corpor. & sang. Domini.  The body and blood of Christ, if thou consider the outward appearance, is a 
* Not accidents without a subject.  creature subject to mutation and corruption: but if thou weigh the virtue of the mystery, it is life performing immortality to those that receive it. 
b Ibidem.  As touching the visible creature (the mysteries) feed the body, but by the virtue of a mightier substance, they feed & sanctify the souls of the faithful. 
c Ibidem.  What we should eat & what we should drink the holy Ghost expresseth by the Prophet. Taste and see how sweet the Lord is. Doth that bread corporally tasted, or that wine sipped, show how sweet the Lord is? whatsoever taste that hath, it is corporal and pleaseth the jaws. He doth therefore invite us to use the release of our spiritual taste, & in that bread and drink to dream of no corporal thing, but to conceive all to be spiritual. 
d Ibidem.  This meat confirmeth our heart, and this drink cheereth the heart of man, sayeth the Prophet. By the which it is evident, that nothing in this meat, nothing in this drink must be corporally taken, but the whole spiritually considered. For the soul which is meant by man's heart in this place, is not fed with corporal meat or drink: but is refreshed and nourished with the word of God. 
e Ibidem.  Faith believeth that, which is not seen: and spiritually feedeeth the soul, and cheereth the heart, and giveth eternal life, whiles we mark, not that which feedeth the body, 
The flesh of Christ then is neither pressed with teeth nor broken in pieces.  not that which is pressed with teeth, not that which is bruised in pieces: but that which is spiritually taken with faith. 
Ibidem.  For this is a spiritual food, and a spiritual drink, spiritually feeding the soul.  
Paschasius cometh after Bertram in age, but joineth with him in the same confession of truth. 
g Paschas. de corp. & sang. Domini. ca 9  The divine mysteries our inward man receiveth through the grace of Christ with understanding, and by them is he made one body with Christ through the power of faith. 
h Cap. 11.  The flesh and blood of Christ, because they be things spiritual, are fully received by faith and understanding. 
i Cap. 12.  It is not lawful to eat Christ with teeth. 
k Cap. 14.  Christ is the meat of Angels, and this Sacrament is truly his flesh, and his blood, which (flesh and blood) man eateth and drinketh spiritually. And so by 
* Do the Angels eat flesh? or have they teeth?  what food the Angels live, by that also man liveth: because in this that man receiveth, all is divine and spiritual. We drink spiritually, and we eat the spiritual flesh of Christ in which is believed to be eternal life. 
l Cap. 29.  All that we eat is spiritual. 
m Cap. 38.  The power of faith and understanding, which doubteth nothing of Christ, doth taste, and release the whole spiritually. 
n Cap 19  Otherwise but for faith and understanding, what find they, which taste these things, besides bread and wine? 
o Cap. 46.  The visible quantity must not be esteemed in this mystery, but the power of the spiritual Sacrament. We must not respect how much (of the quantity) is pressed with our teeth, but how much is received through faith and love. Therefore my son when thou comest to the participation of this mystery, 
Not the wideness of thy mouth to receive Christ, but the bosom of thy soul, that is thy saith.  OPEN THE BOSOM OF THY MIND, cleanse thy conscience, and receive thou not what a morsel containeth, but AS MUCH AS THY FAITH APPREHENDETH.  
Fulbertus' a thousand years after Christ treadeth the same path. 
p Fulbertus in epist. ad Adeodatum.  That which appeared outwardly to be the substance of bread and wine is now made the body and blood of Christ 
That is not by local inclusion, but by mystical operation.  inwardly. Taste therefore, and see how sweet the meat is, but learn before what manner of taste it hath. It beareth the taste of Angel's food, having in it a mystical and pleasant release, which thou canst not discern with thy mouth, but mayest understand with thine inward affection. Hold ready the 
* This is the mouth that receiveth Christ: & not the bodily mouth as the jesuits hold.  mouth of thy faith, open the jaws of hope, stretch out the bowels of love, and take the bread of life (which is) the nourishment of the inward man: Taste I say the sweetness of this heavenly banquet, but loath the smatch of the earthly fruits. For from the faith of the inward man cometh the tasting of the divine juice, whiles by the taking of the healthful Eucharist, CHRIST FLOWETH INTO THE BOWELS OF THE SOUL OF THE RECEIVER, AND THE RELIGIOUS MIND ADMITTETH HIM INTO HER CHASTE AND INNERMOST ROOMS.  
There shall need no long discourse to prove that these Catholic Fathers teach in the lords Supper a spiritual kind of eating the flesh of Christ by faith and understanding, 
The spiritual eating the fathers taught: the corporal they did not teach.  as we do: not a corporal with teeth and jaws, as you do: The places be many, the words plain: you can not shift them unless you will desperately take flesh for spirit, body for soul, chamming for believing, earth for heaven, yea a dumb and dead creature for the living and everlasting son of God: which were not only sensible blindness, but in excusable madness.  Phi. 
The spiritual eating we do not deny, but we 
* Your adding that which you should not, is no warrant for us to believe it. john. 6.  add to that a corporal, because the soul may be partaker of Christ by faith, notwithstanding the mouth receive the very flesh of Christ under the forms of bread and wine.  Theo. 
This is your only refuge that is left: and this will not help you. For examine this answer a while, and you shall soon see the weakness of it. My flesh is truly meat, 
* Christ is not meat for both the parts of man: and that which is eaten is meat.  saith Christ, and my blood is truly drink. He that doubteth of this, we hold him accursed, you do the like: thus far we agree. Marry for what part of man, soul or body, this meat was provided, in this we descent. You say for the body, no less than for the soul: we say for the soul, and not for the body. So said chrysostom before us. This meat feedeth not the body, but the soul. So said Ambrose. 
q Chrys. homil. 43. in johan.  It is no bodily, but Ghostly meat. So said Augustine: Prepare not your jaws, but your hearts: thence is this supper commended: so said Cyprian, This is 
r Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis, ca 9  the proper nourishment of the spirit, and not common to the flesh. Now that which is eaten is meat. And therefore if Christ be no meat for the body, but only for the soul, assuredly Christ is not eaten of our bodies, but of souls only.  

s Aug. de verbis Dom. in Lucam serm. 33.  Next you confess that the mortal and sinful bodies of men may not be substantially nourished with the glorious and immortal flesh of Christ: and eating is altogether in vain (even of the flesh of Christ itself) without nourishing, 
t Cypr. de Caena Domini.  & all the fathers with one consent teach this to be the end of caring the flesh of Christ, 
For what part christ is meat, that part he nourisheth: which the jesuits dare not confess to be true of the body.  that we should be thereby nourished to life eternal. Why then strive you for a corporal eating where yourselves dare not defend any corporal nourishing? Why distract you eating from nourishing, by referring them, one to the body, & the other to the soul, which the Fathers always joined & applied to one & the self same part of man? Many mothers, saith Chrysost. delivered their infants when they are born to other norces: which he would not do, but nourisheth us with his own body. And in the same place where he saith, 
u Chrys. hom. 83. in Mat. & 45. in joan.  Ipsum vides, ipsum tangis, ipsum comedis, thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him: addeth, 
y Ibidem.  Ea namque re nos alimur quam Angeli videntes tremunt. For we are nourished with that thing, which the Angels tremble when they behold. And so the rest of the Fathers call it not only meat to eat, 
x Chrysost. in Matt. hom. 83.  but (
Cypr. de cae 11 Domini.  nutrimentum & 
z I●●. dist. 2. d● consec. ¶ In quibus]  alimoniam) nourishment & food, to keep the receiver in plight and good liking. So that that part of man doth not eat the flesh of Christ, which is not nourished with it: And since you dare not avouch that our bodies are really nourished with the flesh of Christ, why should you hold that our mouths do really eat him?  
Lastly with what one meat can you fit both the bodies and souls of men? That which entereth the body must be local and corporal. 
z Athana in illud quicunque dixerit verbum.  That which feedeth the soul must be spiritual and intellectual. The soul hath no local receipt, nor corporal instruments for her kind of eating, but only faith and understanding. 
Chrysos●. in 〈◊〉. 83. No one 〈…〉 the bod●e & the so●l.  So that if the flesh of Christ in this mystery be material and local, how can it feed the soul? If it be spiritual and intellectual, how can it be chammed with teeth, or closed in the streites of the stomach? Local not local, corporal not corporal be plain contradictions, and by no means incident to the natural flesh of Christ. One it must needs be, both it cannot be: though you would sweat out your hearts with wrangling.  
And that Christ is not eaten with teeth or mouth, 
john. 6. He that abideth not in Christ doth not eat christ by the manifest resolution of Christ himself. john. 6.  the Gospel in plain words avoucheth with us. Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: my flesh is meat indeed, my blood is drink in deed: he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, saith our Saviour. The wicked live not by Christ, neither abide in Christ, and therefore by the very determination of the Lord himself, they neither eat his flesh, nor drink his blood. Run now to your distinction of corporal and spiritual eating when you will, but so long as these words stand written in the Gospel, he that eateth me, even he shall live by me: the Godly will soon conclude, that SUCH AS LIVE NOT BY CHRIST, DO NOT EAT CHRIST: 
Such as live not by Christ do not eat Christ.  and so that corporal eating of Christ's flesh, which you would erect, common to the faithful and faithless, to be no kind of eating at all, notwithstanding they receive the material and external elements of this mystery.  Phi. 
In spite of all your places and proofs, 
A sacramental eating hath in it both the corporal eating of the signs with teeth, & the spiritual eating of Christ by faith.  there is a Sacramental eateing of Christ's flesh, with mouth and jaws, besides your spiritual eating it with faith and spirit: which you could not do unless it were really present: & therefore you do not well to beguile the simple in this sort with refuting one truth by an other, whereas the fathers confessed both.  Theo. 
In spite of all your late devices & evasions, the flesh of Christ is not truly eaten with Capernites teeth or jesuits jaws: neither do the fathers avouch any such thing, save in that sense which I last declared, that the signs so called are eaten of the wicked with their mouths and throats: but of the flesh itself and blood of Christ, they plainly affirm the contrary.  
S. Augustine expounding the words of our saviour, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, remaineth in me and I in him: saith, 
g Aug. de ciui●. Dei. li. 21. c. 25. To eat christ in a sacrament is not so much, as to eat him indeed.  Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus, sed revera manducare corpus Christi, & eius sanguinem bibere. (The Lord) showeth what it is to eat the flesh of christ & drink his blood: not by way of a sacrament, but in deed. As if he had said, he that remaineth not in me, and in whom I do not (likewise) remain, let him never say nor think that he eateth my flesh or drinketh my blood. That which here he calleth Sacramento tènus, before in the same Chapter he called solo Sacramento: opposing against it, revera mamnducare, & proving that neither heretics, nor wicked Christians do in deed eat the body of Christ, but only the Sacrament, that is the sacred sign of his body. 
e Ibidem.  They rightly understand that he must not be said to eat the body of christ, which is not in the body of christ: as heretics be not, and of wicked livers, though they keep in the Church, he saith, 
f Ibidem.  Nec isti dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quia nec in membris computandi sunt Christi. Neither are these (that live wickedly) to be said to eat the body of christ, since they must not be counted the members of Christ.  Phi. 
Not spiritually but Sacramentally they do eat the body of Christ, though they be wicked: and so Saint Augustine teacheth.  Theo. 
Keep the words and sense which S. Augustine hath, & you shall be free from this error, which now you are in. 
h Augu●. 〈◊〉 joan. tract. 26. The sacran●ētali eating of Christ is the eating of the sacred sign whereby he is figured.  He that remaineth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, without all doubt doth not spiritually eat his flesh, nor drink his blood, though carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood. Sacramental eating is the carnal and visible pressing with teeth the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood: it is not the real eating of Christ himself.  Phi. 
The Sacrament is Christ we say.  Theo. 
But so said not Saint Augustine. He diligently distinguisheth, Sacramentum & rem Sacramenti: the Sacrament and the thing (which is the other part) of the Sacrament, interpreting the Sacrament to be 
i Contra. adder's. leg. & Prophet lib. 2. cap. 9 & de civit. Dei. li. 10. cap. 5.  Sacrum Signum: a sacred Sign: and the thing itself to be the body of Christ. The 
k De cons. dist. 2. ¶ hoc est. The sacrament is not the body of Christ but after a so●t, that is by a myste●e of signification.  Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two (parts) Sacrament● & re Sacramenti, id est corpore Christi: of the sacrament, & the thing of the Sacrament, which is the body of Christ. There is therefore the Sacrament, & the thing of the Sacrament, to wit, the body of Christ.  
Of the Sacrament, he saith. 
l August. in johan. ●ract. 26.  It is received at the lords table of some to life, of some to destruction. Res vero ipsa, cuius & Sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit: But the thing itself, whereof that is a Sacrament, (is received) of all men to life, and of none to death whosoever is partaker of it. The rest join with him in that assertion. 
m Hier. in Ose. cap. 8.  (Heretics) saith Hierom, do not eat his flesh whose flesh is the meat of the faithful. 
n Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis. cap. 8.  Whosoever, saith Ambrose, eateth this bread, he shall not die for ever, and it is the body of Christ. 
o Cypr. de caena Domini.  None is partaker of this lamb, saith Cyprian, that is not a right Israelite. 
p 
Orig. in Mat. cap. 15.  
The wicked eat the Sacrament, but they eat not Christ.  
Christ entereth and abideth where he is received.   The word, saith Origen, was made flesh, and true meat: the which whosoever eateth shall live for ever, Quem nullus malus potest edere, whom no wicked person can eat. The Sacraments, that is the sacred signs of Christ's body and blood the wicked do eat: Christ himself they do not. And why? The Sacraments are carnally pressed with teeth, which they are partakers of as well as the Godly; but Christ himself is not eaten with teeth, and therefore the wicked wanting both spirit and faith by which he is received, cannot possibly eat his flesh, or drink his blood: though they come to his table never so often.  Phi. 
If Christ be really contained in the visible Sacrament, how can they receive it, but they must receive him also?  Theo. 
If he were locally and substantially there enclosed, it could not be avoided, but receiving the one into their mouths, they must needs also receive the other into the same passage: but because neither he is eaten with teeth, nor entereth the bodies of the wicked, (as where he abideth not,) therefore we rightly conclude that he is not corporally covered with the accidents of bread and wine, as you grossly conceive.  Phi. 
The lamb of God lieth on the Altar, by the very profession of the first Nicene Council: 
q Concil. Nicen. 1.  we ask you now where and how, if not under the forms of bread and wine?  Theo. 
The best handfast you have in fathers or Counsels for this cause, is a few speeches wrested and forced from the inward man to the outward, & from the soul which they meant, to the body, which you urge: thereby to settle your real and bodily presence, but all in vain. For as we doubt not that Christ is always present on his table in truth, 
How Christ is present on the table.  grace, virtue, and effect, if we open the eyes of our faith to behold him, and mouth of our spirits to receive him: so the local and corporal hiding of his human substance under the shows of bread and wine was never taught by any Catholic father or council: lest of all by the first Nicen Synod: exhorting us in those mysteries: or 
r Concil. Nicen. Ibidem.  on that sacred table by faith to consider the lamb of God that took away the sins of the world: Wh●ch if any do not both profess and perform, he is not worthy to be counted a Christian.  Phi. 
How, saith S. Chrysost, wilt thou stand before the tribunal of Christ, 
s Chrysost. ad Po●i●. Antioch. hom. 61.  which invadest even his own body with wicked hands and lips.  Theo. 
This is not the way to seek for truth, but to shadow the same with phrases of speeches. 
With these two points of cunning the Jesuits pervert all the fathers they bring for this matter.  And yet in these and all other your allegations out of Chrysostom and others, you commit these two gross oversights. You understand that of the sensible creatures in the sacrament, which was spoken of the insensible grace: & you refer that to the visible parts of our bodies, which was intended to the invisible powers of the mind, & with these false foundations you run along the fathers, perverting every place that you quote, as a mean divine may soon perceive.  Phi. 
These be your shifts to avoid the fathers which we bring, because you will not acknowledge the real & corporal presence of christ in the sacrament.  Theo. 
First prove that Christ is really and corporally present under the forms of bread and wine, & then reprove us if we do not acknowledge it.  Phi. 
Doubt you that?  Theo. 
Can you prove that?  Phi. 
What? That Christ is present in the sacrament?  Theo. 
Is that the thing which we deny?  Phi. 
For aught that I see, you grant not so much.  The. 
God forbidden we should deny that the flesh & blood of christ are truly present, & truly received of the faithful at the Lords table. It is the doctrine that we ●each others, and comfort ourselves with. We never doubted, but 
t Cypr. de vncti●. ●hrysma●is.  the truth was present with the sign, & the spirit with the sacrament, as Cyprian saith. 
u 
Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis. cap. 3.  
We confess a more mighty fruitful, and heavenly presence of christ in the Sacraments than the jesuits do.   We knew there could not follow an operation, if there went not a presence before. Set a side your carnal imaginations of Christ covered with accidences, & his flesh chammed between your teeth, and say what you will either of his inui●●ble presence by power and grace, or of the spiritual and effectual participation of his flesh and blood offered and received of the faithful by this Sacrament for the quickening and preserving of their souls and bodies to eternal life, we join with you: no words shall displease us, that any way declare the truth or force of this mystery. Your local compassing of Christ with the shows and fantastical appearances of bread & wine, your real grinding of his flesh with your jaws, these be the points that we deny to be Catholic: these do the fathers refute as erroneous, and in these your own fellows be not yet resolved, what to say, or what to hold.  Phi. 
Be not we resolved what to hold of Christ's real being in the Sacrament, and the corporal eating his flesh with our mouths?  Theo. 
How you be secretly resolved, I know not: your judgements laid down to the world in writing are clean contrary.  Phi. 
Ours?  Theo. 
Whose said I but yours?  Phi. 
Howsover in other things we retain the liberty of the Schools to dispute pro & con, yet in this you shall find us all together.  Theo. 
Together by the ears as dogs for bones.  

Infinite are the contentions of their Schools about these & such other points of their real and carnal imagination.  Omit your contentions, what the pronoun H O C supposeth; what the verb E S T ●ignifieth, when and how the bread is abolished, whether by conversion or annihilation: what body succeed, and whether with distinction of parts and extension of quantity, or without: what subject the accidents have to hang on, whether the air or the body of Christ: what it is that soureth and putrefieth in the forms of bread and wine: whether it be the same body that sitteth in heaven: and if it be, how so many contradictions may be verified of one & the same thing: Omit, I say, these with infinite other like contentions, the corporal eating of christ with your mouths, are you all agreed about it?  Philan. 
We are.  Theo. 
Your two Seminaries are perhaps, because they harken rather for sedition in the realm, 

The chiefest Papists are together by the ears for their corporal eating of Ch●istes flesh with teeth & jaws.  
The gloze maketh it an heresy to say that Christ's fle●h is betwixt the teeth   than for Religion in the Schools: But the great Rabbins of your side are they in one opinion concerning this matter?  Phi. 
Great and small consent together against you.  Theo. 
Against truth they do, but in their own fantastical error they do not. The chiefest Pillours of your church, when they come to that point (which is now in handling) wander in the desert of their own devices, as men forsaking and forsaken of truth.  
Your Gloze is content, if a man gape wide, that the body of christ shall enter his mouth, but he holdeth it for an heresy, that the teeth should touch the same; and therefore when the jaws begin to close, he dispatcheth away the body of christ in post towards heaven. 
a De cons. dist. 2. § tribus gradibus. In Glossa.  Certum est, It is (no conjecture but) certain, that as soon as the forms of bread be pressed with the teeth, tam cito, presently the body of christ is caught up into heaven.  
Durandus is more favourable to the teeth, and will have christ 
b Durand. in rationali divinor. officior. lib. 4. Rubr. de 6. par●. Canonis.  present in the mouth, chamme he that list, till his ●awes ache, but he is as straight laced against the stomach as the glozer is against the teeth, and will by no means have the body of christ to pass thither, building himself on these words of Hugo, Christ is 
c 
Ibidem.  
Durandus will have it in the mouth, but no farther.   corporally present in visu & in sapore, whiles we see or taste (the sacrament). 
c 
Ibidem.  
Durandus will have it in the mouth, but no farther.   As long as our bodily senses are affected, so long his corporal presence is not removed: but when once the senses of our body begin to fail (that we neither see nor taste the forms) then must we seek no longer for a corporal presence, but retain the spiritual: because christ passeth from the mouth (neither to heaven as the Gloze said, nor to the stomach as the rest affirm) but to the hart. And better it is that he go strait to the mind, than descend to the stomach.  
Others is whom 
d 
Bon●●em. in 4 sen●em. dist. 13. ●rtic. 2. quae●●a.  
Bonaventure will have Christ in the belly, but th●n●e he shall not stir●e.   Bonaventure more inclineth, will no way, but Christ must take up his lodging as well in the stomach as in the mouth: ma●y thence they suffer him not to wag, neither upward nor downward, whatsoever become of the accidental forms of bread and wine. And lest it should be thought as Durand and Hugo say, that the body of Christ goeth to the hart, he replieth that, 
e Ibi●em. T●e●s●lues conf●s●e their own variety of ●pa●●n●, touching the corporal eating of Christ: and grant it hard to judge what to hold.  Quantum ad substantiam (corporis) certum est quod non vadit in me●tem, sed utrum sic vad●t in ventr●m, dubium est propter diversitatem opinionum: as touching the substance (of his body) it is clear that he passeth not to the mind, but whether he so come (that is in the substance of his body, from the mouth) to the belli●, this is yet in doubt, by reason of the diversity of opinions: & in so great variety, what to hold is ha●d to judge. Yet he liketh not, that Aut 
f Ibid●m.  mus in ventrem traijceret, aut in cloacam descenderet: the body of Christ should go into the belly of a mouse, or be cast forth by the draft, because the ears of well disposed persons would abhor that, & sidiceremus, haeretici & infideles deriderent nos, & irriderent, and if we should defend that, the heretics and infidels would jest at us, and laugh us to scorn.  
This notwithstanding Alexander de Hales in spi●e of all heretics and infidels ●entereth on it: 
g Alex. de Ha●●s. part. 3. quaes●. 45.  If a dog or an hog, saith he, should eat the whole consecrated host, I see no cause but the Lord's body should go therewithal into the belly of that dog or hog. Thomas of Aquine sharply reproveth them which think otherwise: 
h 
Thom part. 3. quaest. 80. artic. 3.  
The Thomists will have Christ in the bellies of mice and hogs if they eat the Sacrament.   Some have said that as soon as the Sacrament is taken of a mouse or a dog, straight way the body and blood of Christ cease to be there: but this is a derogation to the truth of this Sacrament. In ●auour of Thomas, Petrus de Palude, joannes de Burgo, Nicolaus de O●bellis, with the whole sect of Thomists (neither few in number, nor mean in credit with the church of Rome) defend the same: yea where the master of the sentences seemed to shrink from this loathsome position. 
i Senten. lib. 4. dist. 13.  It may well be said, that the body of Christ is not receined of brute beasts: the faculty of divines in Paris with full consent gave him this check, here the master is refused.  
And for fear lest the field should be won without him, in steppeth Antonius Archbishop of Florence, and recompenseth his late coming with his lewd writing. First he telleth, how Petrus de Palude dressed the Gl●ze for saying, 
k 
Anton. part. 3. tit. 13. cap 6. § 3. de ●●fectibus Mis●ae.  
Here is the perfection of their real presence and corporal ●a●ing of Christ's flesh with their teeth.   that Christ is caught up to heaven as soon as the forms of the sacrament are pressed with our teeth, Quod dicere est haereticum: which to say is heretical. And therefore they join both in this, that the body of Christ may not only be eaten of a Mouse, but also it may be vomited up by the mouth and purged down by the draft: say Bonaventure what he will or can in detestation of their folk. These be their words, 
l Ibidem.  Igitur corpus Christi & sanguis tam diu manet in ventre & stomacho vel vomitu & quocunque alibi, quamdiu species manet. Et si species incorruptae euomu●tur (illa autem q●andoque non corrùpta em●ttu●tur ut in habentibus fluxum) ibi est vere corpus Christi: Therefore the body and blood of Christ remain in the belly an● stomach or in vomit and in whatsoever course of nature, so long as the shows of bread and wine remain. And if they be vomited or 
* Behold christian reader the just reward of error, and learn to reverence the truth of God.  purged, before they be altered (as sometimes in those that are troubled with the flux) even there is the true body of Christ. O filthy mouths and unclean spirits! What Capernite, what heretic, what Infidel was ever, I say not so carnal and gross, but so barbarous and brutish? Is this the reverence you give to the sacred and glorious flesh of Christ? Is this the corporal presence that you strive for? Shall 
* For this the jesuits strive.  Mice, Dogs, and Swine have eternal life, that you bring them to eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Saviour? The rest of your sluttish divinity no religious hart can repeat, no Christian ears can abide: let your nearest friends be judges whether this kind of eating do not match not only the Capernites, but also the Cannibals.  

This grossness is so wicked that they are ashamed of i●, but they cannot avoid it.  This vile and wicked assertion, you will bear men in hand, you did ever detest, and so think to discharge yourselves: but you cannot scape so: The church of Rome, whose factors and attorneys you be, must answer to God and the world for suffering, admitting and strengthening this sacrilegious blasphemy. For when these things were first broached, what did she? Did she control the doers, and condemn the filthiness of their error? Did she so much as note the men, or mislike the matter? No Philander: she proposed the question in her sentences. 
Senten. lib. 4. dist. 13.  Quid igitur sumit mus, vel quid manducat? What then doth the mouse take, or what doth he eat? And with her cold and indifferent answer, Deus novit, God knoweth, she set the school men on work, she laid up the ashes of those mice, next her altars for relics, she favoured, advanced and canonised the spredders of it. Thomas of Aquin was her only Paramour, Hugh of Cluince who commended a Priest for eating the sacrament which a leper had cast up Cum vilissimo sputo, 
To Canonize and promote the men was the next way to spread their errors.  was Sainted of her: she made Antonius no worse man than an Archbishop. What? Call you this the quenching or kindling, the suppressing or increasing of heresies? No marvel if you reckon Rebels for Martyrs, your holy mother the Church of Rome hath the cunning to make saints of blasphemers.  
Return, return for shame to gravity, truth and antiquity: Learn to distinguish that which is seen in this Sacrament from that which is believed, I mean the visible creature, from the grace which is not visible. 
p Chrysost. in Mat. hom 83.  HADST thou BEEN, saith chrysostom, WITHOUT A BODY (Christ) WOULD HAVE GEEVEN THEE HIS INCORPORAL GVIFTS NAKEDLY (that is without any conjunction of corporal creatures:) BUT NOW because THY SOUL IS COUPLED WITH A BODY, THEREFORE IN THINGS THAT BE SENSIBLE, THINGS INTELLIGIBLE ARE DELIVERED THEE. 
q Cyril. catechis. mys●ago. 4.  AS BREAD, (saith Cyril of this sacrament) SERVETH FOR THE BODY, SO THE WORD SERVETH FOR THE SOUL. It is neither novelty nor absurdity to say that the bread of the Lord, as touching the material substance, may be devoured of beasts, digested of men, and will of itself in continuance mould and putrify: 

The creatures may many ways miscarry: the flesh of Christ because it is not locally enclosed, can not.  
The flesh of Christ not subject to any uncleanness or corruption.   Such is the condition of all creatures that serve to nourish our bodies, and this is a creature well known and familiar to our senses: But the word of God which is added to the corporal elements, the grace which is annexed to the visible signs, and the flesh of Christ which quickeneth the soul of man by faith, these things I say be free from all violent, and undecent abuses, and injuries. For they be no corporal, mortal, nor earthly creatures, but spiritual, eternal and heavenly blessings, and therefore in no case subject to the greediness of beasts, uncleanness of men, or weakness of nature. 
r Ambr●s. de sacramenti●, lib. 1. cap. 5.  The element is one thing, saith Ambrose, the operation is an other thing. 
s Idem de iis qui initiantur mysteriis. cap. 3.  That which is seen (in all Sacraments) is temporal, that which is not seen is eternal. 
t August. de ●ap●●. contra Donati●●. lib. 3. cap. 10.  If we look to the very visible things, wherein Sacraments are ministered, who is ignorant, saith Austen, that they be corruptible? But if we consider that which is wrought by them, who doth not see, that that cannot suffer any corruption? Of the lords Supper Origen affirmeth that the bread as 
u Orig. in 15. Mat.  touching the matter or material (parts) thereof goeth into the belly and forth by the draft, but the prayer and blessing, which is added, doth lighten the soul according to the portion of faith. 
x Rabanus. de i●st. Cl●ricor. lib. 1. cap. 31.  The sacrament (that is the sacred element) is one thing, saith Rabanus● the power of the Sacrament is an other thing. The Sacrament is received in at the mouth, with the virtue of the Sacrament, the inward man is filled: the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the body, by the virtue of the Sacrament we attain eternal life.  
This doctrine your schoolmen either wilfully rejected, or foolishly perverted to make Christ substantially present in your Masses, and for that only cause fel● th●y to the local shutting of him within the forms of bread, and the corporal eating his flesh with their teeth. Which grossness once prevailing in your Church of Rome, 
The schoolmen were driven to this b●u●ishnes by the very sequel of their real presence.  Thomas, Alexander, Antonius and the greatest Clerks of your side were by the consequent of your real presence forced to contesse that the fl●sh of Christ might be subject to the teeth and jaws as well of beasts, as of unbelievers. For wickedness is worse than sluttishness; and the bodies of sinful men God more detesteth than he doth the bowels of unreasonable creatures. Since then by the general consent of your Church Christ doth not refuse the bellies and entrails of faithless persons: why say they should he not be verily contained in the capacities and inwards of brute beasts, if by mischance they devour the Sacrament? This hold fast your gloze layeth hands on. 
a 
De cons. dist. 2. § qui bene. Glossa ibidem▪  
The jesuits at this day cannot avoid that filthy doctrine, but by gross and apparent mockeries.   Si dicatur quodmus sumat (corpus Christi) non est magnum inconueni●ns, cum homines sceleratissimi illud sumant. If it be said that a mouse taketh the body of Christ, it is no great inconvenience, seeing most wicked men do receive the same: and this Bonaventure setteth down for the chiefest motive to that vile assertion.  Phi. 
To tell you truth I like not that position.  Theo. 
So long as you defend Christ's human substance to be locally present in your host, you cannot for your hart avoid it, but either by mocking your s●lues, and deluding your senses, or else by feeding mice with miracles, and lea●ing me● in man●●●● dau●ger ●●●pen Idolatry. For what is it, say you, that mi●●●●●, ●hen they l●ght on your host? what answer make you to this question, that your master proposed, and your pewfellows strive for?  
Will you say with 
b 
Thomas Walden tomo 2. qui de sacramentis est. c. 46.  
They might as well defend they be n● mice, or bi●d● that ●ouch the Sacrament, but Angels in those snapes.   Gui●mundus and 
b 
Thomas Walden tomo 2. qui de sacramentis est. c. 46.  
They might as well defend they be n● mice, or bi●d● that ●ouch the Sacrament, but Angels in those snapes.   Walden, two principal upholders of your new found presence, that when mice gnaw the Sacrament, it is but a trick of deceptio visus, we think they do so, but in deed they do not so, she poor mice be otherwise occupied, our sight is deceived? They must needs be very loving and devout chickens of Antichrists broad, that will suffer you to pull out their eyes, and ●elce●e that you say, though they see the contrary. To such men you may soon persuade what Religion you list, but the wise reader will never be led with such monstruous fancies.  
Will you take part with Innocentius and others that 
c 
De cons. dist. 2. § qui been: Glossa Ibidem.  
This is a sure way to keep m●ce from eating Christ, but themselves are in 〈◊〉 great danger to ●●●e ●im, as the mice. They have but the two fo●●●●r 〈…〉.   statim desinit esse Sacramentum, ex quo à mure tangitur, it ceaseth to be a Sacrament as soon as any mouse (or other ●east) toucheth it, and the body of Christ leaveth that host for ever? Then besides that you prou●de miracles to fa●te mice, and nourish them with empty shows, you must (before you may worship any such host, as hath been reserved, which is common with you:) you mus● I say ca●l beasts, birds, worms and flies co●●m nobis, and examine them by Commission, whether any of them touched your sacrament. Else how can you be su●e that Christ is there present? For if your Sacrament were but pecked by some bird, or m●l●d by some ●●●se, Christ is departed, and the shape of bread is adored by you with divine honour as if it were the son of God, which is palpable and indefensable 〈◊〉 ●●●ry.  
Like you neither of these bold and blind guesses? Indeed they be rather sick●●● dreams than grave men's answer'st yet if these please you not you must 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 be driven to say with Al●xander and Antonius, that the flesh of Christ descendeth into the bellies of my●●, dogs and swin●; as well as into the bodies of wicked and ungodly ●eceiuers, which whether it be worse tha● carnal and capernitical let the sober and discreet ●eader pronounce for 〈◊〉.  Phi. 
You may not doubt in 〈◊〉 church but some things are am●sse.  Theo. 
It goes ha●d wi●h your church when these 〈…〉 amiss. far otherwise did the learned and ancient fathers think and speak of this mystery. They taught christ to be present not in ●●●sh, but in grace: not in real and corporal existence, but in spiritual and fruitful efficience. They prepared for ●●m not their jaws and bellies, 
Where Christ sitteth in the glory of God the father far from the injuries and abuses of men or beast's.  but their minds and hearts. They fe● him not down from heaven to spread him on a patene, and shroud him in a pixe, but exalted all men to mount aloft with the wings of faith, and there above in heaven (not here below in earth) to behold the brightness of his glory, and taste the sweetness of his mercy. In proposing, urging & repeating which doctrine, we find them most careful and diligent, most earnest and vehement; and that, if nothing else will serve to convince your novelties. For as that part of man, which eateth the flesh of Christ, everteth your real presence: because no local or corporal substance can enter or seed the soul●; and the truth of Christ's flesh in this mystery by the general consent of all ages and churches doth enter and feed the soul: so the place, whither we must ascend, before we can eat the Lords flesh doth clearly confute the same.  
Where Christ is present thither must our hearts be directed, 

No teeth nor jaws can reach to Christ, but only faith that enjoyeth him in the heavens.  
The Christians were never taught to turn their hearts to the host.   when they are prepared to eat Christ: But the church of God in her public prayers, & the catholic Fathers in their writings never taught the faithful to s●t their affections on the things before them, but to lift up their hearts from the Lords ●able to the highest heavens where Christ sat at the right hand of his Father: Ergo neither she believed, nor they professed that Christ was really closed under the forms of bread & wine. Which point dislike you Philander, or which think you best to deny? Should our hearts be turned from the place where Christ is present? I trust you be more respectful of God and your christian duty, than to say, that the minds and hearts of christian men may be turned from Christ, or from the place where Christ is. Should the people turn their hearts to your host and chalice, looking there to find Christ? Why then did S. Paul teach us to 
d Coloss. 3.  seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God, and to set our affections (on heavenly things) not on things which are on earth, as where Christ is not to be found? Why did the primative church in this sacrament always cri●, 
e August. de bono viduitatis. cap. 16.  Sursum corda, Lift 
* up to heaven, to the Priests hands. Wither we must lift up our hearts to seek f●r Christ.  up your hearts, and the rest answer, habemus ad Dominum, we lift them up unto the Lord? Why did the learned and ancient Fathers teach the godly not to regard the things proposed on the lords table, but to mount above the skies with the spiritual wings of faith, there to fasten on the lords flesh as Eagles, and there to receive the cup of the new Testament? Were the flesh of Christ really placed on your altars, as you tell us; why should they skip him there corporally present, and lead the people to seek for him so far, that their bodies by no means could attain to the place, but only their minds and spirits?  
Ambrose, 
f Ambros. in 1●. Luc. lib. 8. § de duobus in uno lecto. etc.  There is a body of which it was said, my flesh is meat in deed. About this body are the true Eagles, which hover about it with spiritual wings. The souls of the righteous are therefore compared to Eagles, because they fly high, and leave these places (or things) below. 
g Idem lib. 10. in 24. cap. Luc. ¶ de hora Dominicae resurrect.  We touch not Christ with corporal handling, but by faith. Therefore neither on the earth, nor in the earth, nor after the flesh ought we to seek Christ, if we will find him. Chrysostom, 
h Chrys. in 10. cap. 1. Cor. hom. 24.  That dreadful sacrifice doth lead us to this, that in this life becoming Eagles we should fly up to heaven, or rather above the heavens. For where the carcase is, thither will the Eagles. Now the lords body is the carcase by reason of his death. Eagles he calleth (us) to show that he which cometh to this body 
* Which dogs & mice cannot do.  must fly aloft, and have nothing to do with the earth, but ever mount upward, & behold the (bright) sun of righteousness with the piercing eye of his mind. This table is for 
j Hi●r. H●dibi●e quaest. 2.  agles, not for ●houghs. jerom, Let us ascend with the Lord into the great parlour d●cked & clean, & above (in heaven's receive at his hands the cup of the new Testament, & there keep our passover with him. Paschasius: 
k Paschas. de corp●re & sanguine. Dom. cap. 52.  If we be willing to receive these things with Christ, let us ascend above into the parlour of life. Let us mount upward because they which stay below (on earth) drink not sweet wine with Christ, but the poison of Dragons unhappily with judas. Therefore, saith Paul savour you those things which are above, not the things which are on earth. For this cup of the new Testament is not any where received but above (in heaven.) Where the carcase is, 
l August. cue est. evang. lib. 1. cap. 42.  thither will the eagle's resort, that is, saith Austen, into heaven, whither from hence (Christ) carried with him the body, which he took in the nature of man.  
Had we no better ground to refuse that your corporal cating & real presence, this were sufficient. 
If Christ be absent in body from the earth, how can his flesh be really present in the host?  For where without question the flesh of Christ must be locally present in your host before it can be really pressed with teeth, the sacred scriptures & catholic fathers affirm, that the true flesh of Christ is absent from earth, & verily present in heaven, whither we must and may send our hearts and faiths to be partakers of him, our hands & mouths we can not send: & therefore your late devised doctrine must needs be dissident from the scriptures, and unknown to the former & purer church of christ. 
m Act. 7.  I see, saith St●uen, the heavens open, and the son of man standing at the right hand of God: 
n Act. 3.  whom the heavens, saith Peter, must contain until the time that all things be restored.  Phi. 
As though he might not also be in earth?  Theo. 
Being ascended into heaven, 
The flesh of Christ is not on earth.  he is no more in earth, if that be true which the Angels said to his Disciples. 
o Act. 1. When he ascended he was taken up from us.  This jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him go into heaven: ergo when he ascended into heaven he was taken up from them, and not left with them: and so the Lord himself before had taught them. 
p john. 16.  I came forth from the father, and came into the world, now contrariwise I leave the world, and go to the father. So that his ascending to the father was the leaving of the world, and his abiding with the father employeth his absence from the world. 
q john. 12.  The poor you always have with you, but me, saith he, you shall not always have. Now am I no more in the world, but come to thee holy father: 
r john 17. Christ going to his father is no more on earth.  ergo now Chri●t being with his father is no more in the world, but remaineth in heaven and as touching his human nature is absent from the earth, which not only the scriptures pronounce, but also the fathers with one voice profess.  
Tertullian, 
s Tertul. de resurrect. carnis.  In the very palace of heaven to this day sitteth jesus at the right hand of his father: man, though also God: flesh and blood, though purer than ours: nevertheless the very same in substance and form in which he ascended. Augustine, 
t August. in evang. johan. tract. 50.  Let us show the jews at this day where Christ is, would God they would hear, and take hold of him. He was slain of their fathers, he was buried, he rose again, and was known of his Disciples, and before their eyes ascended into heaven, and there now sitteth at the right hand of the father. Let them hear this, and lay hold on him. Perhaps he will say, whom shall I take hold of? him, that is absent? how shall I reach my hand up to heaven, to take hold on him sitting there? 
What means we have to take hold of Christ now absent in heaven.  Send thy faith, and thou hast hold of him. Thy fathers held him in the flesh, hold thou him in thine heart. He is both departe● and present, he is returned whence he came, and hath not left us. His body hath he carried to heaven, his majesty hath he not withdrawn from the world. 
u Ibidem.  Me shall you not always have. He spoke this of the presence of his body. For touching his majesty, providence, inspeakable and invisible grace, it is true that he said, I am always with you to the end of the world. 
How Christ is present with us, and how he is absent from us.  But as touching the flesh which the word took, touching that by the which he was born of the virgin, fastened to the cross, laid in the grave, you shall not always have me with you. And why? because he is ascended into heaven and is not here: there he sitteth at the right hand of the father. cyril, 
* There: not here.  We must here diligently mark, that albeit he have withdrawn from hence the presence of his body, yet in the majesty of his Godhead he is always with us, 
x Cyril in joan. lib. 6. cap. 14. Christ absent in flesh.  even as himself ready to departed from his Disciples promised, behold I am with you at all times unto the end of the world. 
a Lib. 9 cap. 21.  For the faithful must believe though he be absent from us in body, yet in his (divine) virtue he is ever present with all that love him: 
b Lib. 9 cap. 22.  with whom he ever hath been and will be present though not in body yet in the virtue of his Deity. 
c Lib. 11. cap. 3.  He could not be conversant with his Apostles in flesh, after he was once ascended to his Father: yet 
d Lib. 11. ca 21.  for so much as Christ is truly God and man, they should have understood, that in the unspeakable power of his Godhead he meant to be always with them, though in flesh he were absent: and 
e Lib. 11. ca 22.  by that only means, notwithstanding he be absent in flesh, he is able to save his. Origen, 
f Orig. tract. in Matth. 33. His body absent from us. His manhood is neither in all places nor at all times with us.  according to his divine nature he is not absent from us, but he is absent according to the dispensation of his body which he took. As a man shall he be absent from us, who is every where in his divine nature. For it is not the manhood of Christ that is there wheresoever two or three be gathered together in his name, neither is it his manhood that is with us at all times until the end of the world: neither is his manhood present in every congregation of the faithful, but the divine virtue that was in Iesu. Ambrose, 
g Ambr. li. 10. super ●ucae cap. 24. de hora Dominicae resurrectionis. christ is not to besought neither on earth nor in earth.  Steven amidst the jews saw thee (O Lord) absent. Marry among the Angels saw thee not, being present. Steven sought not for thee on earth, who saw thee standing at the right hand of God. Marry, which sought thee in earth, could not touch thee. Steven touched thee because he sought thee in heaven. Therefore neither on the earth nor in the earth nor after the flesh ought we to seek thee, if we will find thee. 
h Gregor. in evang. homil. 2●.  Gregory, Christ is not here by the presence of his flesh, which yet is nowhere absent by the presence of his majesty. 
i Ibidem homil. 30.  The word incarnate both remaineth & departeth. He departeth (from his) in body, and remaineth (with his) in divinity: 
k Ibidem hom. 29. The fathers themselves teach both parts of this consequent● Christ is in heaven; ergo not in earth.  We must therefore brethren follow him thither in hart whither we believe him to be ascended in body.  
If the flesh of Christ be not in earth, nor on earth, as these learned Fathers teach us, how can it be locally closed in your massing waters? If his human nature be placed in heaven at the right hand of God there to remain till the time that all things be restored, and from thence, not from any place else, shall come to judge the quick and the dead, how vainly do you suppose him to be corporally present in your p●xes, 
l August. epist. 57 ad Dardanum. That the substance of Christ's body may be in many places at one time is a condemned heresy.  and really lodged in your bellies?  Phi. 
His body we say may be present in many places at one time.  Theoph. 
This you say, but what ancient Father ever said so before you? yea▪ rather why forget you that this is often refuted by them as a lewd and heretical fancy? Doth not Saint Augustine of purpose debate the matter and in evident terms give this flat resolution against you? 
m August. epist. ad Da●danum. 57  Doubt not, saith he▪ the man Christ jesus to be now there, whence he shall come (to judgement) but keep in mind and hold assured the christian confession, that he rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth (now at the right hand of his Father, and 
* Nec aliunde quam inde.  from thence, from no place else, shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And so shall he come, by the very witness of Angels as he was seen to go into heaven: that is 
* In eadem carnis forma atque substantia.  in the very same form & substance of his flesh the wh●ch he hath endued with immortality, not bereaved of the former) nature. According to this form (of his manhood) we must not think him to be diffunded in every place. For we must beware that we do not so defend the Godhead of a man, that we take from him the 
* If Christ's manhood be in every place he looseth the truth of his body.  truth of his body. It is no good consequent, that which is in God, should be euerie where, as God himself is. One person is both God and man, and one Christ jesus is both these: every where as he is God, in heaven as he is man. 
n In eadem epi. ad finem.  Doubt not I say that Christ our Lord is every where present as God, but 
* In aliqu● loco coeli.  in some one place of heaven by the means of his true body. And again, 
o August. in johan. tract. 30.  Let us give the same ear to the 
He speaketh of the truth of the gospel, not of the truth of the body of Christ.  holy Gospel, that we would to the Lord himself if he were present. The Lord is above (in heaven) but the truth is here which also the Lord is. The body in which he rose 
* β uno loco esse poorest.  β can be (but) in one place: ● his truth is every where dispersed.  
Doth not Vigilius a blessed Martyr and Bishop of Trident uphold the very same point against Eutyches, and his accursed companions? 
p Vigilius contra Eutych. lib. ● cap. 4.  The flesh of Christ, sayeth he, WHEN IT WAS IN EARTH, SURELY WAS NOT IN HEAVEN, AND NOW because IT IS IN HEAVEN, CERTAINLY IT IS NOT IN EARTH: yea so far it is from being in earth, that we look for Christ after the flesh to come from heaven, whom as he is God the word we believe to be with us in earth. Then by your opinion, either the word is comprised in a place as well as the flesh (of Christ) or 
* That the flesh of Christ should be every where was a sequ●l● of Eutyches heresy.  the flesh (of Christ) is every where together with the word, seeing one nature doth not receive in itself any different and contrary state. Now to be contained in a place, and to be present in every place be things diverse and very dislike: and for so much as the word is every where, and the flesh of Christ not every where, it is clear that one and the same Christ is of both natures, that is every where according to the nature of his divinity, & contained in a place according to the nature of his humanity. 
* Christ manhood contained in a place.  This is the catholic faith, and confession which the Apostles delivered, the Martyrs confirmed, and the faithful persist in to this day.  
Doth not Fulgentius handle the same question, 
* From this the jesuits be utterly fallen.  and precisely trace the steps of Saint Augustine and Vigilius? 
q Fulgent. ad Thrasimundum Regem. lib. 2. cap. 5.  One and the same son of God having in him the truth of the divine and human nature, lost not the proprieties of the true Godhead, and took also the proprieties of the true manhood: one and the selfsame: local by that he took of man, and infinite by that he had of his Father: one and the very same, according to his 
* Christ's human substance is not both in heaven & earth at one time.  human substance absent from heaven, when he was in earth: and forsaking the earth, when he ascended to heaven: but according to his divine and infinite substance, neither leaving heaven when he came down from heaven, neither departing from earth when he ascended to heaven. The which may be gathered by the most certain words of the Lord himself. I ascend to my Father, and your Father. How could he ascend but as a 
* If Christ be not local, he is no true man.  local and true man? or how can he be present with the faithful but as an infinite and true God? not as if the human substance of Christ might be every where diffunded, but because one and the same Son of God, albeit according to the truth of his manhood he were then locally placed on earth, yet according to his Godhead (which in no wise is concluded in any place) he filled heaven and earth. This true manhood of Christ which is local, as also his true Godhead, which is always infinite, we see taught by the Doctrine Apostolical. 
The body of Christ contained in one 〈◊〉 place, not diffunded in many.  For that Paul might show, the body of Christ as of very man, to be contained in a place, he sayeth to the Thessalonians: You turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God, and to look for his Son from heaven; declaring that he surely should corporally come from heaven, whom he knew to be corporally raised from the dead. His conclusion is this, Whereas then the flesh of Christ is 
* This without question is the Christian faith, and not the jesuits ubiquity or multilocitie.  proved without question to be contained in a place, yet his Godhead is at all times every where, by the witness of Paul, etc. These be no wrested or maimed allegations, but grave and advised authorities of learned and ancient Fathers, plainly concluding with us against you, that the flesh of Christ is not absent only from earth, and now sitteth above at the right hand of GOD, but also locally contained in some one place of heaven by reason of the truth of his body: and therefore not dispersed in many places or present in every place, as you would now make the world believe it is in your Masses.  Philand. 

This is a bare shift of the jesuits, & yet this is all the refuge they have.  This was spoken of the shape, but not of the substance of Christ's body. For Saint Augustine sayeth, 
r Aug. epist. 57  Secundum hanc formam non est putandus ubique diffusus: according to this (external) shape and form we must not think him every where diffused: and yet the truth and substance of his body may be in many places at one time.  Theop. 
You forget that the rest say nature and substance: as Vigilius, 
s Vigil. contra Eutych. li. 4. cap. 4.  Circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suae: Christ is circumscribed with place by the nature of his flesh: and Fulgentius, 
t Fulgent. lib. 2. cap. 5. ad Thrasimundum regem.  Secundum humanam substantiam derelinquens terram, cum ascendisset in coelum; according to his human substance leaving the earth, when he ascended into heaven: and again, 
u Ibidem.  Non quia humana Christi substantia fuisset ubique diffusa: not, as if the human substance of Christ should be every where diffunded. By the which it is clear that neither the form, nor substance of Christ's body can be present in many places at one time.  
And what doth Saint Augustine mean by the word form, but the perfection and truth of man's nature, 
Form is all one with truth and perfection.  as Ambrose, Leo, chrysostom & others do? What is, sayeth Ambrose, 
a Ambros. lib. 7. epist. 47.  in the form of God? in the nature of God? 
b Leo epist 97.  I demand, sayeth Leo, what is meant by this, taking the form of a servant? Doubtless the perfection of man's nature. 
c Chryso. in cap. 2. epist. ad Phil. serm●. 6.  The form of a servant is out of question, the nature of a servant, sayeth chrysostom. Therefore Augustine himself addeth this reason why Christ must not be thought to be every where present, 
d Aug. epist. 57  ne veritatem corporis auferamus, Lest we take from him the truth of his body: concluding that Christ is every where, 
e Ibidem. Per id quod homo is substance as well as shape. Christ can have no human substance without human shape.  per id quod Deus est, by that (nature) which is God: in coelo autem, per id quod homo, in heaven by that (nature) which is man: Where these words that which is man interpret what he mean by the former speech when he said: according to this form Christ is not every where present.  
But let the word be taken in your sense, yet doth it fully confirm our assertion. For human form and shape is inseparably joined to the substance of Christ's body: and Christ's human form by your confession can not be present in many places at one time: ergo neither his human substance. These swain, shape and substance can not be severed: he is no man that hath not the shape of man. Now choose whether that body which, as you say your hosts contain, shall keep the form and shape of man, or lose the nature and substance of Christ. For the Lord jesus as man, must have not only the substance but also the shape of a man. 
f Aug. epist. 57  So shall he come, as you have seen him go to heaven, that is, saith Austen, in the very same shape and substance of (his) flesh. 
g Phili. cap. 3.  Our vile body, saith Paul, shall he change to be fashioned like to his glorious body: but our bodies shall then have distinction of parts, proportion of shape, circumscription of place: ergo the glorified body of Christ hath and must have these very proprieties of our nature. So that if his bodily shape can be but in one place: his bodily substance can be in no more. Therefore saith Fulgentius: 
h Fulgent. ad Thrasimund●● reg●m. lib. 2. cap. 5.  Quod siverum est corpus Christi, loco potest utique contineri: if Christ have a true body, that no doubt may be concluded in a place. And Theodoret, 
i Theod. dial. 2. It is no human body that hath not shape, as well as substance.  Illud enim corpus habet priorem formam & figuram, & circumscriptionem, & ut semel dicam corporis substantiam: that body (which Christ carried to heaven with him) hath the same form, figure, circumscription, & at one word the same substance of a body, which it had before.  Phi. 
S. chrysostom and S. Ambrose affirm the contrary.  Theo. 
What affirm they?  Phi. 
That one and the some body of Christ is every where present. Their words are, 
k Ambro. in. 10. cap. ad Heb. & Chrys. hom. 17. in eadem epist.  Quoni●m multis in locis offertur, multi Christi sunt? ●equaquam, sed unus ubique est Christus, & hic plenus existens, & illic plenus, unum corpus. Because we offer in many places, are there many Christ's? no by no means: but one Christ is every where, here whole, and there whole, one body. And S. Chrysostom exceedingly wondering at so miraculous a presence crieth out; 
l Chrysost. de Sacerdotio. li. 3.  O the strangeness of the thing; O the goodness of (our) God! He that sitteth above with his Father (in heaven) at the very moment of time is handled with the fingers of all men.  Theo. 
Make you Chrysostom and Ambrose the disciples of Eutyches? 
chrysostom and Ambrose could not gainsay the rest, and be Catholics.   Phi. 
Make you no worse reckoning of them, than I do: and they shall have their due honour.  Theo. 
I think them to be far from Eutyches error.  Phi. 
And so do I.  The. 
Why then allege you their words for that erroneous position which was condemned in Eutyches?  Phi. 
I allege them for the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament.  Theo. 
Your real presence and ubiquity if you will have Christ's human substance dispersed in many places, without shape or circumscription, are the very bowels and inwards of Eutyches heresy.  Phi. 
No Sir, S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose were no heretics.  Theo. 
In deed they were not: and therefore you do them the more wrong to wrest their speeches to make for his madness.  Philand. 
We produce them to confirm a truth.  Theophil. 
The very same truth, that the church of Christ abhorred in Eutyches.  Phi. 
What did the church abhor?  Theo. 
Even this which you would prove by the words of Ambrose & Chrysostom: 
The Jesuits would draw chrysostom and Ambrose to be of Eutyches opinion.  ●hat the flesh of Christ after his ascension was not local nor circumscribed within any certain place.  Phi. 
We grant the manhood of Christ in heaven, is local and circumscribed with place: & that setteth us free from Eutyches error.  Theo. 
It doth if you constantly keep that point of faith and contradict it not by an other devise.  Phi. 
We verily believe, and publicly profess that Christ's human nature in heaven hath quantity, shape, distinction of parts, circumscription and all other conditions of a natural and true body: 
These conditions of a true body the manhood of Christ may have wheresoever it be.  what would you more?  Theo. 
We would no more, but if you fall from that, are you not within the compass of Eutyches fury?  Phi. 
We fall not from it.  The. 
Then how can Christ's body in the sacrament want all these, which christian religion affirmeth to be permanent & perpetual in the manhood of Christ? or why would you collect out of Amb. or Chry. against the very principles of faith that Christ's human flesh is uncircumscribed, and every where diffused?  Philand. 
We mean that of Christ's flesh in the Sacrament, not of his manhood in heaven.  Theophil. 
Be there many Christ's?  Philand. 
Who saith there are? 
There is but one Christ: & that one Christ hath but one body; which is not every where.  you heard that even now reproved by S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose, as a wicked absurdity, to say that there were many Christ's. And therefore they concluded there was but one Christ every where.  Theo. 
That one Christ, hath he many natural and substantial bodies?  Philand. 
Why ask you those questions of us? we be not infected with any such frenzy.  Theo. 
You may the sooner answer. Hath Christ two real and natural bodies, the one in heaven, the other in the Sacrament?  Phi. 
No, this is all one with that.  Theo. 
That by the rules of your creed is local and circumscribed: if this be the same how can this be without quantity, shape, and circumscription?  Phi. 
Believe you not Christ when he said this is my body?  Theop. 
yes verily: but you so expound his words, that you subvert the whole frame of his truth and our common faith, with your real and local presence.  Phi. 
Do we subvert the common faith with our opinion?  Theo. 
Our Christian faith is this. 
m Aug. de essentia divinitatis.  We must believe, sayeth Augustine, the Son of God, according to the substance of his Deity to be invisible, incorporal and uncircumscribed, but according to his human nature to be visible, corporal, and local. You heard Vigilius the martyr say, 
n Vigil. contra Eutych.. lib. 4. cap. 4.  For so much as the word is every where, and the flesh of Christ not every where, it is clear, that one and the same Christ is of two natures: everywhere according to the nature of his Divinity, and contained in a place according to the nature of his humanity: and this, sayeth he, is the catholic faith & confession which the Apostles delivered, the Martyrs confirmed, & the faithful stand in to this day. This faith and confession if you infringe of violate, you join hands with Eutyches against the church of God, and against the grounds of our common creed: and this you must needs impugn if you defend the natural body of Christ to be every where present, as you would gather out of Ambroses and Chrysostom's words.  Philand. 
We say not, every where, but in the Sacrament.  Theoph. 
But their words are, every where. 

The words of Ambrose and chrysostom as the Jesuits construe them, are against the very grounds of our common faith.  
How chrysostom & Ambrose must be understood.   unus ubique est Christus, one Christ is every where.  Philand. 
That is in the Sacrament.  Theophil. 
That is your additament. They say generally, one Christ is every where.  Phil. 
To say that his human nature is every where without any restraint, were in deed a branch of Eutyches error.  Theophil. 
And since they say so: you must either understand it of his divine nature, which is rightly and truly said to be every where present without addition, or else of the spiritual and effectual presence of his body which entereth the souls, and strengtheneth the hearts of all the faithful by the power of his grace and truth of his promise. And either of these ways their words are very sound, & your local presence no part of their speech.  Phi. 
S. Chrysostom saith, 
o Chrys. de Sacerdot. lib. 3. Chrysostoms' figurative & vehement speeches much abused by the jesuits.  Omnium manibus pertractatur: he is even handled with all men fingers.  Theo. 
You do that father very much wrong, to wrest his eloquent and figurative speeces to your carnal and gross surmises. The very tenor of his words will declare that he meaneth nothing less than your corporal and local touching, With our bodily hands, we neither can nor do touch Christ. S. Ambrose saith. 
p Ambros. lib. 10. in 24. Luc.  Non Corporali tactu Christum, sed fide tangimus: We touch not Christ with our fingers, but with our faith. And so S. Austen 
q August. epist. johan tract. 1.  Ipsum iam in caelo sedentem manu contrectare non possimus, sed fide contingere. We cannot handle Christ with our fingers sitting now in heaven: but with our faith we may. In this sense Chrysostom's words are very true but nothing to your corporal ubiquity of Christ's flesh.  Phi. 
How shall we know that this was his meaning: 
chrysostom himself excludeth the corporal understanding of his words.  finding no words of his to direct us to that sense?  Theo. 
His speech is otherwise so false, that none but jesuits would make any doubt of it. And yet the very next words before these are a plain admonition to the hearers what to conceive of this & such like places. 
r Chryso. de Sacerdot. lib. 3.  Anon evestigio in caelos transferris: anon carnis cogitationem omnem abij●iens nudo animo, mente pura circumspicis quae in caelo sunt. Art thou not presently carried up to heaven? Dost thou not, casting all cogitation of (thy) flesh aside, with a pure mind and soul severed (from the body) look round on the things which are in heaven? In this spiritual and yet hyperbolical vehemency he goeth on, amplifying every point, & saying that Christ is handled with all their fingers, and that 
s Ibidem.  in the open sight of all that stood about: concluding no corporal or local comprehension of Christ in the Sacrament by any of these mystical and figurative speeches (whereof he is full,) but only that 
t Chrys. Ibidem.  grace flowing into the Sacrifice should inflame all their hearts, and make them cleaner than silver, purged and tried in the fire. This is the presence of Christ which chrysostom avoucheth, even the influence of his (heavenly) grace: & that spiritual force and grace, as Gregory saith, may very well be constered to be the truth of his body and blood in the mysteries. So that the same christ is every where present, not by local or corporal diffusion, but by mystical operation: and one body is proposed to all, not to ●ill their mouths, but to cleanse their hearts, 
The power of God must never be alleged against his will, nor our faith which he hath commanded us to believe.  and to give them assurance of eternal life.  Phi. 
May not the body of Christ in the sacrament be such as we defend, though his body in heaven be not?  Theo. 
If the body of Christ in the sacrament be the very same that is in heaven, how can it so much differ from it? If it be an other, how can it be his, since he hath but one natural body, and that by no means capable of such contrarieties as you imagine?  Phi. 
Is not Christ omnipotent?  Theo. 
Almighty he is in working his will, not in changing his nature.  Phi. 
Will you limit his might?  Theo. 
The christian faith is not repugnant to his might, but agreeable to his truth, which you may not subvert with a pretence of his power at your pleasures. Tertullian saith very well, 
u Tertul. adverse. Praxeam. God's omnipotency a common refuge with heretics.  If in our own presumption we abruptly use this reaso●, (nothing is hard to God,) we may feign what we list of God, as though he had done it because he could do it. We must not, because he can do all things, therefore believe he hath done that, which he hath not. But we must search, whether he hath done it or no. For this respect some things may be hard unto God himself, to wit, that which he hath not done, not because he could not do it, but because he would not.  Phi. 
Can not the power of Christ alter the nature of his manhood?  Theo. 
Were it possible that the manhood of Christ might be changed and altered in his essential proprieties, 
When we produce gods power for our fancies against his truth we make him a liar, and in subjection to our wills.  (which assertion the Church yet always rejected as heretical) why stand you so much on this what Christ can do, when you plainly perceive by your Creed what Christ will do? Shall his power overthwart his will? Or his arm disappoint his mouth? We need not dispute whether it be possible or no, this sufficeth us, that the Lord himself saith, he will leave the world and be no more in the world: Whatsoever he can do, this we be sure, he will do: his word is truth, and his will known: against that if you stand and oppose his power to make him a liar, assure yourselves he hath power enough to be revenged on your obstinacy, for urging his power (which is no part of your care) against his will, which he hath commanded you to believe and obey. 
The jesuits pretend god-power against the christian faith.   Phi. 
It is you that neither believe his will, nor agnise his power: we build ourselves on both.  Theo. 
His words by which you gather his will, you ●rame and invert to your own purposes: and when we would reduce you from the misconstruction of his speech by the very tenor of the Christian faith, you plead his power to delude his truth and overflorish a lewd heresy with a show of his omnipotency.  Phi. 
We do not pretend that power of God for any untruth.  Theo. 
If the Christian faith be truth; you urge his power against his truth.  Phi. 
Go we against the Christian faith?  Theo. 
Confess you the distinction of two natures in Christ after his ascension?  Phi. 
We do.  Theo. 
And the proprieties of either to remain without confusion, conversion or alteration?  Philand. 
What else?  Theophil. 
This then is the Christian faith, that h●th natures in Christ now do, and ever shall keep and continue their several and different proprieties without failing or changing.  Phi. 

* Or if you do not see yourselves condemned in the great council of Chalcedon, Act. 5. definitio. 2. as he●e●i●s for not believing it.  That we believe.  Theo. 
How then can the manhood of Christ be in many places at one time? Or how can it in any place or time be without shape, quantity, circumscription and such like proprieties of man's nature?  Phi. 
In heaven it hath them.  Theo. 
If they can not be changed or altered, the manhood of Christ must have them: not in heaven only, but in earth also, & in every place where the substance of his body is.  Philand. 

* 
A very witty exception.  
Then you believe the Christian faith to be true euerie where saving in the Sacrament, and what is that but wilfully and openly to deny the faith where you list?   Save in the Sacrament.  Theophi. 
If that be the same body which was on the Cross, it must have the same natural proprieties of a body which that had.  Phi. 
It hath as many as it may.  Theo. 
It must have as many as it should.  Phi. 
Which be they?  Theo. 
Proportion of shape, distinction of parts, extension of quantity, circumscription of place, and the very same substance of flesh which he took of his mother Marie.  Phi. 
You name these things which you see be not in the Sacrament.  Theophi. 
I name those which the manhood of Christ must have, wheresoever it be.  Phi. 
Must have? What necessity is in that▪  Theo. 
As much as the denying of your faith & contradicting of his truth. For these proprieties the body had that hung on the Cross, and without these he can be no true man.  Philan. 
In heaven we tell you he hath them.  Theophil. 
And in the Sacrament, we tell you, ●ee hath them not: Ergo the manhood of Christ is not in the Sacrament.  Phi. 

Whatsoever he can do: you be heretics in the mean time for contradicting the christian faith.  Cannot Christ be where he list without those consequents?  Theo. 
His body can not.  Phi. 
Do not you now deny him to be omnipotent?  Theophi. 
Do not you now allege his power to frustrate both his will and your faith?  Philand. 
You hold christ cannot, if he would.  Theo. 
We say christ would not, though he could. And since his will is evident by his word, as our common faith avoucheth, you do wickedly to cross his will with his power, and make his might attendant on your follies. 
* Tertul. adver. Prae●eam  Dei velle, posse est: & non posse, nolle. The power of God (which we must stand on) is his will: and that which he will not, that he cannot. You must not therefore imagine what you list: and then ground upon the power and strength of GOD: it is error and impiety whatsoever is repugnant to his truth, and to father your falsehoodes on his almighty power is irreverent and insolent blasphemy.  Phi. 
You do not so much as confess that he can do it: and that causeth us to suspect you doubt of God's omnipotency.  Theo. 
Because we suffer you not to unload your absurdities and impieties on God's power at your pleasures. 
The Jesuits incur not only Impieties but impossibilities.   Philand. 
First grant he can do it, and of that we will commune afterward.  Theo. 
What shall I grant?  Phi. 
That Christ according to his corporal presence may be in many places at one time if it please him.  Theo. 
What then shall become of S. Austen that said: Christ 
a August. con●ra ●austum. li. 20. cap. 11.  could not concerning his corporal presence be at one time in the sun, in the moon, and on the cross? And of S. Cyril affirming that Christ 
b Cyril. in joan. lib. 15. cap. 3. These fathers were not afraid to say, Christ could not be in many places at one time.  could not be conversant with his Apostles after he once ascended? If he could not be in three places at one time, how could he be in more? If not in earth when he was in heaven, how both in heaven and earth as you yourselves conceived and would have us confess?  
And yet the thing, which we withstand, is far more impossible than this. For the manhood of Christ, by the tenor of the christian faith hath and must have, after his ascension, human shape, parts, length, breadth, both extended & circumscribed: and otherwise to think, is the wicked and cursed opinion of Eutyches condemned long since by the church of God for a mere impiety. You to avoid the burden of that sentence confess these properties are & must be permanent in the body which our saviour took of the virgin: & wherein he now sitteth at the right hand of God his father: 
The jesuits whiles they would shun Eutyches error, run headlong into contradictions & yet stick in the same mire that Eutyches did.  marry the selfsame body you defend to be in the sacrament without shape, parts, length or breadth either extended or circumscribed, which is we say simply impossible. For shaped not shaped, extended not extended, circumscribed not circumscribed, be plain contradictions, & those of one thing, at one time, are not possible.  Phi. 
Is any thing impossible to God? 
c 2. Tim. 2.   Theo. 
Doth not the Apostle say, 
d Hebr. 6.  
e Aug. de civit. Dei. lib. 5. c. 10.  Negare seipsum non potest, God cannot deny himself? & Impossibile est Deum mentiri, it is impossible that God should lie? S. Austen well noteth Dicitur omnipotens, faciendo quod vult, non patiendo quod non vult, unde propterea quaedam non potest, quia est omnipotens. God is said to be omnipotent, in doing that he will, not in suffering that he will not. And therefore can he not do some things, because he is omnipotent. And S. Ambrose likewise, 
f Ambr. lib. 6. epist. 37.  Quid ergo ei impossibile? Non quod virtuti arduum, sed quod naturae eius contrarium. What then is impossible to God? not that which passeth his power, but that which is contrary to his nature. 
g Ibidem.  Impossibile istud non infirmitatis, sed virtutis & maiestatis: quia veritas non recipit mendacium, nec Dei virtus levitatis errorem. This impossibility proceedeth not of infirmity, 
What things are impossible to God, and why.  but of might and majesty: because the truth (of God) admitteth not a lie: nor the power of God any note of inconstancy. So that all changes against his nature, or falsehoods against his truth be utterly impossible to GOD: and that because he is almighty.  Phi. 

Of contradictions one part is ever false: and all falsehood impossible to God.  That we know.  Theo. 
Then this also you must needs know, that contradictions be impossible: for, of them if one part be true, the other is ever false: and that God should be false it is not possible. You must therefore either with Eutyches affirm the manhood of christ to be changed from his former shape, parts, quantity and circumscription: and consequently from his former substance: or else against religion and learning, reason and sense defend contradictions, that is truth and falsehood to be possible both at one time; 
A lie in work is as bad as a lie in word, & as contrary to the nature of God.  which is nothing but to make God a liar in his works as you be in your words for maintaining that error.  Phi. 
At divers times, and in 〈…〉 contradictions may be true.  Theo. 
There can be but one part 〈…〉 other at the same instant is inevitably false: and as for your 〈…〉 the proprieties of Christ's body, which we speak of, be absolute and inherent necessities, no relations nor comparisons: you may keep them for some better ●art: in this assertion they will do you no service. 
This is right jesuitical skill to say the body of Christ is and is not contained in a place.   Phi. 
What if we say the body of christ in the Sacrament, hath the same proportion of shape, extension of parts, and circumscription of place which it hath in heaven, how can you refel us?  Theo. 
Never take the pai●es to incur new contradictions: a shorter answer will serve you for all: and that is: say you believe, you cannot tell what. For otherwise men will think you mad, if you fall to these positions that Christ in the host hath an human shape, and yet the host, which covereth him, fully round: that he is there in the 
* These be worse than the Poet's chimers.  just length and breadth of a man, and yet exactly enclosed in every crumb of the bread, & drappe of the wine, that he is * circumscribed with place, and yet contained in no place, that he * consisteth of skin, flesh and bones, and yet breaketh in shivers, and is poured out like liquor: these with infinite other such outrageous and enourmous absurdities and contrarieties will declare rather the weakness of your brains, than the manner of his presence. You shall do well therefore either to show us what father ever taught these things before you, or else keep this confusion of all religion & learning for those that list to jeopard their souls upon such jests: The Realm of England is not yet minded to admit th●se monsters into their Creed.  Phi. 

The best grounds you have for these things are dreams and miracles of your own making.  We teach not these things without good grounds, and such as the Catholic Fathers before us embraced, and allowed.  Theo. 
If you follow their steps, then show us their writings for that you affirm.  Phi. 
Can we not think you?  Theo. 
What you can do, I care not: you do not, I see.  Phi. 
What one thing defend we, which we have not their witness and warrant for?  Theo. 
You have not one father for this whole question.  Phi. 
Not for the real presence?  Theo. 
You may run on with some misconstructions of the Fathers: which are as soon answered by us, as objected by you: but an evident testimony for any of the parts which I have proposed, you have none.  Phi. 
What parts?  Theo. 
Your head is wandering that you have since forgotten 
* For none of these points have the jesuits so much as one ancient father.  them. 
* For none of these points have the jesuits so much as one ancient father.  That Christ spoke not of the bread when he said, this is my body: or that the sense of his words was literal, or that the substance of bread ceaseth after consecration, so as nothing remaineth of the former elements but accidents: or 
* For none of these points have the jesuits so much as one ancient father.  that the corporal eating with the mouth (of which the Fathers speak) must be meant of the things themselves, and not of the signs called by those names and having those virtues after sanctification: or 
* For none of these points have the jesuits so much as one ancient father.  that the material substance of Christ's natural body may be present in many places at one time: or 
* For none of these points have the jesuits so much as one ancient father.  that it is no heresy to defend the body of Christ after his ascension may lack circumscription, extension or shape: For any of these bring us but one sufficient and ancient authority, we will omit the rest, and admit your Mass.  Phi. 
Will you stand to that word?  Theo. 
If you will undertake the proof.  Philand. 

* You be good at undertaking, but nought at performing.  I will.  Theo. 
And what if you perform it not, will you bethink yourself how lewdly you seduce the people of this land under a pretence of piety and resist the anointed of God under a colour of blind devotion and zeal to your holy Father the worker of all this wickedness though the founder of your two Celledges?  Phi. 
If I perform not that, I will do any thing: marry provided always you shall not cavil at the Father's works, when I cite them, and say they be forged.  Theo. 
Provided also, that you produce the Father's works themselves, and not the bare reports of your fellows, that have falsely conveyed many things in the Father's names.  Philand. 
You shall have their own works.  Theoph. 
Then keep on your own course.  Phi. 
The rest of the points, which you propose, I am already past: only transubstantiation, which you most impugn, I kept to the last to give you the list: But if I prove it so, as you shall not deny it, will you be as good as your promise, and become a catholic?  Theo. 
A Catholic if I were not, I would be with a good will, but not of your making. For if you cannot show me one Father that ever taught your Transubstantiation, well you may 
It is enough for the jesuits to call themselves Catholi●es, though they cannot sh●w one writer for a thousand years that taught the●r transubstantiation.  call yourselves catholics' and christes own fellows if you will: but all that be Godly and wise will take you for deceitful, if no● for desperate, heretics. But why spend you time with tri●ling thus? It were better your fathers were on foot, at lest, if you have them.  Phi. 
Have them? Such as shall amaze you when you hear them.  Theo. 
Your vain is in. A stourdie preface doth ill become an hungry Orator.  Phi. 
Mark the end.  Theo. 
I would see the man, that I might mark him.  Phi. 
S. Austen shallbe the 
* 
Which will say never a word for your purpose.  
This is cited out of S. Austen by friar Walden tomo 2. de Sacramentis cap. 83 a divine work in D. Allens judgement. lib. 1. de Euch. sac● pa. 34●.  
This forgery with others was judicially allowed by Pope Martin the fifth and his Cardinals in their Consistory.   man.  Theo. 
Was he a Transubstantiator?  Phi. 
Fairly, flatly, fully.  Th. 
So was the moon first made of green cheese.  Phi. 
You will not believe him, till you hear him.  Theo. 
He is not long in coming ●hath he not yet learned his lesson? or are you scant resolved whether it be he or not?  Phi. 
It is even he: and these be his words, Non dubitare debet al●quis, cum panis & vinum consecrantur in veram substantiam Christi: ita ut non remaneat substantia panis vel vini: cum multa alia etiam in operibus Dei non minus miranda videmus. Hominem enim substantialiter mutat Deus in lapidem, ut uxorem Loth: & in parvo artificio hominis faenum & filicem in vitrum. Nec credendum est quod substantia panis velvini remaneat: sed panis in corpus Christi: & vinum in sanguinem convertitur, solummodo qualitatibus panis & vini remanentibus. No man ought to doubt when bread & wine are consecrated into the true substance of christ, so as the substance of bread & wine doth not remain, whereas we see many things in the works of God no less marvelous (than this). A man God changeth substantially into a stone, as Loathes wife: & in the small workmanship of man, hay & fern into glass. Neither must we believe that the substance of bread or wine remaineth, but the bread is turned into the body of Christ, & the wine into (his) blood, the qualities (or accidents) of bread & wine only remaining. What say you to this check, is it mate or no?  Theo. 
The words are sufficient, if the writer be ancient.  Phi. 
Then are you gone: for the author is S. Austen▪  Theo. 
He seemeth to have been some glass maker, rather than S Austen: for he saith the 
* This young Austen lacked not only learning and truth, but Latin and wit.  working of glass is as wonderful a feat, as the turning of bread into Christ's body.  Phi. 
You would disgrace the writer: but he will not so be put out of countenance.  Theo. 
I think he will not: for had he, or you, any shame left, he would have blushed all his while to bear S Austin's name, which was none of his: & you would have had some remorse to deceive the world with such apparent & evident treacheries.  Phi. 
I thought where we should have you. Now you cannot shift the words, you 〈◊〉 the place for a forgery: but this is against the first proviso, which I made with you.  Theophi. 
Then show up where you find it in his works: for that was the second proviso, which you agreed to.  Phi. 
I assure myself these words are Saint Austin's.  Theophil. 
Your assurance is not currant. Show us where, that we may find them.  Phi. 
What if I have not the book in a readme●?  Theo. 
Name the place and it sh●ll suffice.  Phi. 
Perhaps it is 
* Had you not been ashamed of your occupation you would have printed i●.  not printed.  Theo. 
By whom then is it reported?  Phi. 
By such as would not lie.  Theoph. 
By Walden the friar that wrote against Wicleff?  Phil. 
What if he were the reporter?  Theophil. 
Where had he it?  Phi. 
In an old copy, written with an ancient and set hand.  Theo. 
Which never no man saw besides himself.  Philand. 
That you cannot tell.  Theoph. 
Nor you: but where is that copy now?  Philan. 
Why ask you me? out of S. Augustine he had it.  Theo. 
Show us the book, and bear the bell.  Philan. 
He saith it.  Theo. 
As though your friarly practices, and manifold forgeries under the father's names were not too well known to trust a Romish Coruester upon his bare word, in a matter of such importance.  Phi. 
In my conscience, 
The words did so plainly betray themselves, that they have since suppressed the book for ver●e shame.  he would not wilfully belie S. Augustine.  Theophil. 
Your conscience is no good consequence. In my knowledge there was no such doctrine taught in the Church, as these words import while S. Augustine lived: nor five hundredth years after his death: but the contrary was earnestly maintained and avouched, as I have proved by Gelasius, Theodoret, and others. And therefore either Walden must make it of his own head, or ignorantly light on a patch of Anselmus, or some such late writer, under the name of Saint Augustine: which was common in your abbeys and is at this day confessed by your own fellows.  Philand. 
If you think Saint Augustine were mistaken: 
Bede likewise forged by Walden.  you shall have in venerable Bede as plain words for this point as in Saint Augustine.  Theophil. 
And as plainly forged as Saint Augustine was?  Philand. 
Hear what he saith before you judge.  Theophil. 
I am as ready to hear as you to speak.  Philand. 
His words are, 
* Citatura The. Walden, tomo 2. ut supra cap. 82.  Ibi forma panis videtur, ubi substantia panis non est. There the form of bread appeareth, where the substance of bread is not.  Theophil. 
These places hit your hands as pat as if yourselves had framed them.  Philand. 
You were best say this is forged,  Theophil. 
I need not. It saith so much of itself, crept you can show where it is written.  Philand. 
In his 
* He never wrote any such book▪  book de mysteriis missae.  Theophil. 
There be extant eight tomes of his works: is it in any of them?  Philand. 
It may be, it is not.  Theophil. 
Did he ever write any such book, as de mysteriis missae?  Philand. 
What else?  Theo. 
Who saith so?  Phi. 
This is alleged out of that book.  Theo. 
But is he never wrote any such book, how can thi● be alleged out of him?  Phi. 
If he did not, you say something: but how prove you, that he wrote no such book?  Theo. 
N●y you must prove he did. We having the Catalogue of his labours witnessed by Tri●●emius and others of your own friends: and eight t●mes of his writings at this day extant find no such book named as Walden mentioneth.  Philand. 
All this notwithstanding, he might write such a book. 

The credit of both these places lieth only on friar Walden, who 〈◊〉 fourteen hundredth years after Christ, and never any man saw the books besides him.  
Why should not a man believe the legend, as well a● 〈◊〉 Walden, the legend that being of more authority & antiquity than the friar?    Theo. 
He might, is not enough: you must prove he did, before we acquit you of corruption.  Phi. 
Walden repeateth those words as out of his book.  Theo. 
We had too late experience of Walden in S. Austen, to believe either him, or you.  Phi. 
You will deny all things.  Theo. 
You yet bring nothing, but that which is no where found in the father's works, if it be not lewdly forged in their names. Think you with such trumpery to try yourselves Catholics?  Phi. 
We have found and good records.  Theo. 
Bring out those, for these be worse than rotten. A friar, fourteen hundredth and thirty years after Christ, to come with new places out of Austen and Bede clean contrary to the rest of their writings, and such as never any man alleged before him: and never any man saw them after him, who but seducers would blear the world, and blind themselves with such authorities?  Phi. 
We did but allege them to sound what you would say.  Theo. 
Then leave them with shame, since you see what they are; and get you to other, if you have any.  Phi. 
You would have them ancient.  Theo. 
Would you prove yourselves Catholics by men of your own faction?  Phi. 
If you count that a faction, all the fathers were of 
* From Pope Hildebrand downward, a number of proud and stately prelate's have been of your faction.  our faction.  Theo. 
You may soon make them to any faction, if you follow friar Waldens fashion: but bring us their works that we may judge of their words, or else you strive in vain.  Phi. 
Hereafter I will.  Theo. 
Then have you a cold suit of this question. For of accidents without subject, or abolishing the substance of bread, never father spoke one word.  Phi. 
yes: S. Chrysostome ●aith, 
a Chrys. sermo. 1. the Eucharist. in Euc●eniis. Chrysostoms' words examined.  Dost thou see bread? dost thou see wine? Do these things go to the draft as other meats do? Not so. Think not so. For as when wax is put to the fire nothing of the substance remaineth, nothing redoundeth: so here also think thou the mysteries consumed with the substance of the (divine) body. Hear you this Theophilus? Nothing of the former substance remaineth but the same is consumed with the presence or substance of Christ's body.  Theo. 
I hear it well Philander, if you would take it right. When you put wax into the fire, nothing, neither show, nor substance remaineth: this is so true, that it will do you small good.  Phi. 
Will it not? So it is in the mysteries, saith this father.  Theoph. 
You would have it so. But chrysostom saith, 
* That is, think not on the clements but lift up the eyes of thy mind above them, as if they were consumed.  so think, when thou comest to the mysteries.  Phi. 
And should we think a falsehood, when we approach to the mysteries?  Theo. 
No: but pull both your hearts and eyes from the material elements, as not regarding them: and fix your cogitations on the celestial grace and virtue that prevaileth and worketh in the mysteries.  Phi. 
He would have us think the mysteries to be consumed.  Theo. 
If any real mutation were to be concluded by this place, your holy forms and accidents of bread and wine must be packing, as well as the substance. For when wax is thrown into the fire, what accidences can you ●et us remaining? do they not perish together with the substance? If you consult the Schools, they will tell you the accidents only perish, the matter doth not. So that Chrysostom's similitude maketh little for your conversion of substances without accidences, 

Accidents must be consumed as well as substance by Chrysostom's similitude.  
That which is not is no mystery: and chrysostom saith the mysteries are consumed.   his illation certainly maketh less. Think, saith he, that the mysteries in like ●ort be consumed. The substance of bread, which you say is not, can no way be taken with you for the mysteries: but the shows and forms of bread and wine by your opinion must be counted in this and all other places the sacred mysteries: and therefore if any mysteries be consumed, your accidences can never scape the brunt of these words: Howbeit Chrysostom's true meaning was not to turn the bread and wine from their former qualities or substances, but the communicantes from all unworthy and earthly cogitations of the mystical elements: and to stir them rather to mark in this Sacrament the wonderful power and effects of God's spirit and grace, than the base condition and natural digestion of bread and wine.  Phi. 
Would S. Chrysostom have us think the mysteries to be consumed, unless in deed they were consumed?  Theo. 
His directing our cogitations for religion and reverence rather to the inward force, than outward appearance of the mysteries, doth not change the sensible qualities of bread and wine, whereof he spoke, 
The end of Chrysostom's admonition and instruction.  much less the substance alone, whereof he spoke not: but draweth the receivers from that which their eyes behold, to that, which by faith they believe to the secreter and diviner part of the Sacrament: not abolishing the one, but preferring the other, as more worthy to be considered and desired by the comers to the lords table. And in this sense he willeth the people not to think that the Priest is a man in the very next words that follow without line or letter betwixt. 
b Chrys. in Eucaeniis. sermo. 1. de Eucharist.  Wherefore approaching (to the lords table) do not think that you receive the divine body at the hands of a man, but that you take a fiery coal by the Seraphims tongues, which Esay saw in his vision.  
Can this be Chrysostoms' meaning, 

chrysostom would have the communicants think the Priest is no man and the sacrament is a fiery coal.  
It is wilfulness to understand one part of this sentence and to pervert the other.   that in act and very deed the Priest is changed into a Seraphim, his hand into a pair of tongs, the body of Christ into a coal of fire? Except you be past your five wits, you will say no: yet Chrysostom in the same place persuadeth the communicants so to think as he did before that the mysteries were consumed by the substance or presence of Christ's body. Then if the latter words infer no such change: why should the former? If you be not so foolish as to mistake the second part of this sentence, why be you so wilful as to pervert the first, uttered at the same time, to the same purpose, with the very same phrase of speech? Chrysostom's intent is no more to transsubstantiate the bread, than the priest, or the body of Christ: but with vehement amplifications (as his manner is) he persuadeth the people to come to the lords table with no less reverence than if they were to receive a fiery coal (as Esay did in his vision) from one of the glorious Seraphims. And to this end also doth he kindle them what he can, not to be basely minded and affected toward the mysteries, as if they were only bread and wine, in that sort to pass through the belly with other meats, but to prepare their hearts, and to lift them up to God, 
Ibidem.  as they promised to do when the Priest said, lift up your minds and hearts, & they made answer, we lift them up unto the Lord. These words therefore force no real mutation in the things received, 
The right construction of Chrysostoms' words.  but lead the receivers from thinking on the weak creatures, which they see, to the mighty power of God's graces, which they see not: and this is done with a religious consideration, not with any monstruous transubstantiation or annihilation of the sacred mysteries.  Phi. 
S. cyril of jerusalem saith: 
Cyril. Catechis. mystagogica. 4.  Know you for a surety, that this bread which is seen of us, is not bread, though the taste find it to be bread, but the body of Christ. And so Theophilact, 
d Theophil. in 26. Matth. That the Sacrament is no bread: is a new kind of speech though not much material for the jesuits.  It appeareth to be bread, but it is flesh.  Theo. 
The first authors of this speech were late writers, as Theophilact, or lately set forth by your fellows not without great suspicion, as cyril of jerusalem: and the speech itself doth somewhat vary from the stile both of the Scriptures and fathers which acknowledge this mystery to be bread & wine. 
1. Cor. ca 10.  The bread, which we break, saith Paul, is it not the communion of Christ's body? We all are partakers of one bread. 
f 1. Cor. 11.  As often as you eat of this bread & drink of this cup, you show the Lords death till he come. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. And our Saviour in the Gospel speaking of the cup: 
g Matth. 26.  I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine. Tertul. 
h Tertul. lib. 1. contra Marcionem.  Christ hath not, even at this day rejected the water of the creator, by which he doth wash his, nor the bread, by the which he doth represent his very body. Clemens Alexandrinus, 
i Clemens Alex. lib. 2. cap. 2. pedago.  This is my blood, even the blood of the grape. Cyprian, 
k Cypr. lib. 2. epist. 3.  We find it was wine, which the Lord called his blood. The Lord called his body, bread kneaded together of many corns, and his blood, wine pressed out of many clusters of grapes. Origen, (
l Orig. in 15. Matth.  The Lord's bread) according to the material (parts) thereof goeth into the belly and so forth by the draft. Austen, 
m August. tract. in johan. 26. The elder fathers affirm the Sacrament to be bread.  As the men of God before us did expound this, the Lord commended his body & blood in those things which are made one of many. For the first is kneaded of many corns into one (lump) the other is pressed of many clusters into one (liquor). That than which you saw, is bread; which also your eyes can tell you. cyril of Alexandria, 
n Cyril. in joan. lib. 4. cap. 14.  To the believing Disciples Christ gave pieces of bread, saying; take, eat, this is my body. Hesychius, (He meaneth) 
o Hesych. in Leuit. cap. 8. two. 12.  that mystery, which is both bread and flesh. The phrase itself therefore (It is not bread) savoureth of later ages and writers: and crosseth that course of speech which both Scriptures and Fathers observed: and yet if you suffer them to declare their own minds, they may soon be reconciled to the rest.  
Theophilact 
* What they mean that say it is no bread.  expressing the same point in other words, saith: 
p Theophil. in Marc. cap. 14.  Speciem quidem panis & vini servat, in virtutem autem carnis & sanguinis transelementat. (Christ) keepeth the shape (or kind) of bread and wine, but changeth them into the virtue of his body and blood. cyril openeth his own saying more at large, 
q Cyril. Catech. mystagogica. 3.  The bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost, is now no more common bread, but the body of Christ. 
r Idem Catech. mystagogica. 4. No bread: that is, no bare and common bread.  In the new Law, the heavenly bread and cup of salvation sanctify both soul and body. As the bread serveth for the body, so doth the word for the soul. Think not therefore (of the Sacrament) as of bare bread and bare wine, it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lords own words. And although sense tell thee this (that is bare bread and wine) yet let faith confirm thee, neither judge them by taste, but rather by faith assure thyself without all doubt that the body and blood (of Christ) are given unto thee. This assertion, we grant, is right and good; and this intent had he, when he said, the bread which is seen is no bread, meaning no common, no bare bread.  
In which assertion other ancient Fathers concur with him. justinus, 
s Iust. Apol. 2.  We receive not these things as a common & usual bread, or accustomed drink, but we be taught, that the food blessed by prayer of the word received from him, is the flesh and blood of that jesus which took flesh (for our sakes.) Ireneus, 
t Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.  The bread having the invocation of God is now no common bread, but an Eucharist (or thanksgiving) consisting of two things, a terrestrial & a celestial. So Ambrose, 
u Ambros. de iis qui mysteriis initiantur. ca 9  (The Sacrament) is not that which nature hath framed: but that which blessing hath hallowed. They do not avouch the Sacrament to be simply no bread; they teach it to be no natural nor usual bread, because the virtue, power and force of Christ's flesh is united to it and received with it, though to sight and ta●● it keep the show of nothing else but bread.  Phi. 
What is species panis which the Fathers speak of, 
Species panis is not taken for the qualities of the bread without the substance. We have no trial of substance, but by sense.  but the utter appearance of bread, when the substance is altered?  Theo. 
Doth species signify a ●hape without substance?  Philand. 
It signifieth the shape, and not the substance.  Theo. 
Every creature hath his substance joined with his sensible shape and form: and therefore though the one do not signify the other: yet the one inferreth the other by the very necessity of nature: neither hath GOD given us any perfecter trial of substance than by sight and sense: which is sure enough, because shows without substance are no creatures.  Philand. 
But this in the Sacrament is miraculous: and that is the reason, why species in the Fathers doth signify a show without substance: or as our Schools rather like to say for perspicuities sake: accidents without a subject.  Theophil. 
Your Schools were perspicuous, as the Land of Egypt was light-some, when it was covered with palpable darkness: but where doth any Father speaking of the Sacrament, take species for a show without substance? 
Species doth rather import than exclude the substance of these and all other creatures.   Philand. 
That is ●uerie where the meaning of the word, when they apply it to the Sacrament.  Theo. 
How prove you that?  Phi. 
It needeth no proof: the very word doth ●o signify.  Theophil. 
The word, species, doth no more exclude the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament: than species humana, the show, shape and form of a man, which you have, doth take from you the substance & truth of man's nature. Which if you think it doth look what answer you will make to him that shall ask what lieth under the shape of a man in you: it must be the substance of a man, or some worse thing. And if you can keep both the shape and substance of man; why may not the bread and wine do the like▪ for all the word species, which is verified of men and other creatures aswell as of the bread and wine in the mysteries?  Phi. 
The comparison is not like. 
The comparison is liker than you are ware of.  For the bread is changed and so am not I.  Theophil. 
Do you not often change both the inward and outward man, I mean the state of body and soul?  Phi. 
I change as others do.  Theo. 
You can be no christian; if you be not changed from the state in which you were born. You were born the child of God's wrath, and servant of sin: if you be renewed and freed from that, then are you wholly changed.  Phi. 
This is no 
No more is that in the bread any substantial change.  substantial change, such as we affirm to be in the bread.  Theo. 
If you would prove that which you affirm, you might happen to conclude that, which now you can not.  Phi. 
That is soon proved.  Theo. 
I marvel than you stay long, before you do it: and faint so often when you begin it. You avouch that the word species in the Fathers signifieth your shows without substance, and accidents without subject: and when the very show of men, which you bear about you, convinceth that folly: you presume a substantial change to be in the bread to help forth the use of the word, which you imagine against all learning & reason, was their meaning.  

The word species taken for evident truth  For the word species, though it be diversely used among the Fathers and often iterated in this matter of the Sacrament: yet shall you never bring us any one place, where it is taken for a show without substance: and therefore by that word you can hardly infer the bread to be changed in substance, and nothing to be left besides the accidents. Saint Ambrose sayeth it importeth as much, as an evident sight and truth. 
a Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis cap. 4.  Speciem pro veritate accipiendam legimus. Specie inventus ut homo. We read this word species to be taken for the very truth (of a thing.) As Christ was found (not in show, but) in truth like a man. And of the lords cup, 
b Idem de sacramentis. li. 4. c. 4.  Perhaps thou wilt say, speciem sanguinis non video, sed habet similitudinem. I see not the truth of blood, but it hath the resemblance. Which objection Ambrose repeateth shortly after in these words, 
Lib. 6. cap. 1.  Similitudinem video, non video sanguinis veritatem. I see the resemblance, I see not the truth of blood. Where note that species is not only contrary to the only likeness and appearance of any thing, but equivalent with the truth and nature of every thing. Then are shows without substance your fancies without judgement: you never received any such doctrine from the Catholic Fathers, yourselves have devised it of late, since barbarism prevailed in your Schools, and Antichrist was exalted in your churches.  Philand. 
So species is now and then used: but doth that infer that this is the general signification of the word wheresoever we find it?  Theo. 
This sufficeth to exclude your shows without substance, 
Species is the substance & kind of any creature.  unless you can bring some better enforcement than the very word: which you can not. And yet Saint Ambrose giveth an other use of the word, (and that treating of the Sacraments) which utterly subverteth your accidental shows. 
Ambr. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis. cap. 4.  Creaturae non potest esse veritas, sed species, quae facile soluitur at que mutatur. No creature can be (said to be) a truth, but a show or appearance, which is soon dissolved and abolished. In this sense species is all one with any creature or substance, which soon decayeth, as every mortal thing doth: and the learned Father's writing of the Sacrament continually use the word to signify the nature and kind of every creature, and not the naked shows or accidents.  
Saint Ambrose, 
Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis. cap. 9  Ante benedictionem alia species nominatur: before it be blessed, it is called an other (not show but) kind. 
f Ibidem.  Gravior est ferri species, quam aquarum liquor. The kind (or nature) of Iron (not the show of iron) is weightier than the liquor of water. 
g Ibidem.  If the word of Elias were able to fet fire from heaven, non valebit Christi sermo ut species mutet elementorum: shall not the word of Christ be of strength to change the kinds (not the shapes) of these elements? So doth Augustine likewise. 
h August. de catechizandis rudibus. ca 26.  Non sic habendam esse speciem benedictione consecratam quemadmodum habetur in usu quolibet: the kind (or element) consecrated with blessing, must not be so reckoned of, as it is in common use. 
i Idem in psal. 77.  Idem cibus illorum qui & noster, sed significatione idem, non specie: the (Fathers of the old Testament) had the same food which we have: but the same in signification, not in (external) kind: 
k Idem tract. 26. in johan.  Aliud illi, aliud nos, sed specie visibili: they (drank) one thing, we (drink) an other thing, but in visible kind: 
l Idem in tract. 45. in johan.  Ibi Petra Christus: nobis Christus, quod in altari Dei ponitur. Si speciem visibilem intendas, aliud est. To them the Rock was Christ: to us that is Christ which is set on the altar of God. If you look to the visible kind, it is an other thing (than that they drank.)  
In these places you can not interpret species, a show without substance, unless you will transubstantiate Manna which the children of Israel did eat, 
Species is nothing l●sse with the ancient fathers than a show without substance.  the rock which they drank of, the hatchet which Elizeus made sw●m, the bread that is in common use without & before consecration: for these things Austen and Ambrose (comparing them with this Sacrament) do call visibiles species, visibles kinds, as they do the bread and wine proposed to the faithful at the lords table.  
And were you so perverse that against the meaning of the Father's, ●nd signification of the word, you would needs have species to be taken for your miraculous and mystical accidences, I can tell you they are like to shrink in this change as well as the substance. For Ambrose saith, 
Ambro. de iis qui initiantur myster●is. cap. 9  Sermo Christi mutat species elementorum, the word of Christ changeth by your interpretation) the shows of the elements: which is so apparently false, that yourselves dare not abide it: And therefore species must stand, not for the outward forms and shows, but for the things themselves. As Saint Augustine speaking of the Sacramental bread, saith: 
n Aug. ●ermo. ad infants. Cita●ur à Beda. 1. Cor. cap. 11.  ut sit visibilis species panis, multa grana in unum consperguntur. Many corns are kneaded together to make (not the show, but) the visible kind (or creature) of bread. By which it is evident that species with ancient writers in their discourses of this Sacrament, is not a show without a substance, as you vainly suppose, but a kind or creature, which is far from accidents hanging in the air, you know not how, by miraculous geometry.  Philand. 
We ground not ourselves so much on the bare name of species, as on the change of the bread and wine, made by virtue of consecration: as all the 
* A change of the elements they confess, but not yours.  Father's witness.  Theo. 
It is a very simple foundation to build on a bare word, which hath many significations besides that, and any signification, rather than that, which you conceive: and yet that is one of the best foundations you have for your new found shows without substance: and as for the change of the sacred elements made by the words of Christ, and mentioned in the Fathers: if you did not urge your fancies on their phrases, but examine their doctrine, you should soon spy your error: which now you will not, you be so wedded to the prejudice of your own opinion.  Phi. 
Do not all the Fathers with one voice confess a change to be made in the elements by the words of Consecration?  Theo. 
Do not we acknowledge the same? How could usual bread taken of the fruits of the earth, and serving only to feed the body, 
The change in the elements is indeed wonderful.  become a Sacrament & instrument of heavenly grace and life, to quicken and strengthen the soul of man, but by some great and marvelous change?  Phi. 
Such as none could perform, but the mighty finger of God himself. For so S. Ambrose and others to persuade this change, have recourse to Christ's eternal power and truth.  Theo. 
Yea verily.  Phi. 
That confession is sufficient to confute the doctrine which you defend.  Theo. 
I see not how.  Phi. 
If the bread were not changed from his former substance, it could neither be miraculous, 
One sacrament in his effect and force is more miraculous than many corporal and sensible wonders.  nor need the omnipotent power of Christ. For figures & similitudes men may make: but this mutation is wrought by the mighty power of the holy Ghost: and the manner is unsearchable.  Theo. 
Greater power & truth are required for the finishing of one Sacrament, than for the working of many miracles. Miracles not only the godly, but also the wicked have diverse times wrought. The Sorcerers of Egypt did some wonders. Antichrist hath his miracles, and those not a few: But Sacraments, no Saint, no not the chosen and elect Angels of heaven can institute. For who dare promise, who can perform the spiritual and celestial graces of God to be annexed to the visible signs, but only God? 
Christ's eternal power & truth is required for the working of ●●erie sacra●●nt.  How could water regenerate the soul, if the word were not God? How could bread and wine nourish to life everlasting, unless the same God had likewise spoken the word?  
We must in all sacraments be fully persuaded of Christ's infallible truth, & all-sufficient power, before we can either believe, or enjoy the promises. If his word might lack truth, or want power, than should our faith vanish, & these outward elements perish without profiting us: but with him is no changing, neither can any thing defeat his will: & therefore when we be taught to look not on the weakness of the creatures which be corruptible, but on the perfection of his heavenly word, which is puissant & predominant over all things, what doth this help your real & corporal conversion of bread into Christ? What maketh this for Transubstantiation? God is wonderful in this and all other his sacraments, not by casting away substances, 
God is marvelous in his sacraments without transubstantiation.  and leaving accidences, but by working that in our hearts by the mighty power of his spirit above nature, which the visible signs import to our senses: and this is more marvelous in any wise man's eye, than your accidental shows without a subject.  Phi. 
God is marvelous in all his works: but in this more than in any other: because the substance of the bread & wine is changed, 
No father avoucheth the substanee of bread and wine to be changed.  where the qualities are not.  Theo. 
That change you dream of; but who avoucheth it besides yourselves? or what ancient father ever mentioned any such?  Phi. 
They all confess the change which we speak of.  Theo. 
You be so deep in your empty shows, that we take your all to be as much as none.  Phi. 
Think you, as you list: we know what we have.  Theo. 
If your store be so great, why make you such curtsy to name us one?  Phi. 
You will quarrel with him, when I bring him.  Theo. 
Yourself mistrust him, before you offer him.  Phi. 
I mistrust your carping, not his writing.  Theo. 
If mine answer be not sound, wherefore serve you but to refute it?  Phi. 
Well then, 
De cons. dist. 2. ¶ quia corpus.  Eusebius Emissenus hath an evident testimony for this matter. Recedat omne infidelitatis ambiguum, quandoquidem qui author est muneris, ipse est etiam testis veritatis. Nam invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis & sanguinis sui verbo secreta potestate convertit, ita dicens, Accipite & comedite: hoc est corpus meum. Et sanctificatione repetita, accipite & bibite, ait. Hic est sanguis meus. 
This sermon is forged in Eusebius Emisenus name.  Ergo sicut ad nutum praecipientis Domini repent & ex nihilo substiterunt excelsa caelorum, profunda fluctuum, vasta terrarum: ita pari potestate in spiritualibus Sacramentis, ubi praecipit virtus, seruit effectus. Let all doubt of infidelity departed, because he that is the author of the gift is also the witness of the truth. For the invisible priest turned the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood with his word (and) secret power, saying, take, eat, this is my body, and repeating the sanctification he said, take & drink; this is my blood. Therefore as at the lords beck commanding, the high heavens, the deep waters, the wide earth were made on the sudden of nothing: so with like force in the spiritual Sacraments, when (his) power commandeth, the effect followeth. These words be plain enough, if either truth or authority can content you.  The. 
Either shall content me, if I may be sure of either.  Phi. 
Here you find both.  Theo. 
Who wrote this sermon which you cite? 
If his age be not known, how can his authority be esteemed?   Phi. 
Eusebius Emissenus.  Theo. 
When lived he?  Phi. 
Why do you ask?  Theo. 
Reason we know his age before we receive his testimony.  Phi. 
His age I can tell you is as ancient as his doctrine.  Theo. 
I think both of one antiquity. For neither the man, nor the matter were known in the church of Christ for 900. years and upward.  Phi. 
How you be deceived? S. Hierom maketh mention of Eusebius Emissenus, that 
* Hier. de scriptoribus eccles. in Euseb. Emeseno.  wrote short homilies upon the Gospels somewhat before his time.  Theo. 
And that made your fellows put his name to certain latin homilies, that were none of his: and to bear men in hand he was a frenchman: but when he lived they can not tell.  Phi. 
Yes, S. Hierom saith he died under Constantius, more than twelve hundred years ago.  Theo. 
Eusebius Emissenus then wrote and then died: but who wrote these latin homilies that were extant in his name?  Phi. 
Himself.  Theo. 
What countryman was he? 
The jesuits say he was a Frenchman.   Phi. 
I think a Frenchman.  Theo. 
So Canisius both your colleague, and the compiler of your huge chaos or catechism, sayeth: marry when he lived, that he could not tell: and therefore of his own authority placeth him 200. years after S. Hierom with a perchance, 
Canisij Chronologia in 500  lest if we should ask him for his proof, he might be taken with a lie. His words are, Eusebius Emissenus Gallus, 
* Perhaps, is as much as you cannot tell when.  cuius habentur homiliae, hoc fortè tempore claruit, Eusebius Emissenus of France, whose homilies we have extant, perhaps lived at this time: that is, 500 years after Christ.  Phi. 
And so it may be.  The. 
But this is not he, that S. Hierom speaketh of. For he died under Cōstant●us; whose reign and life ended 343. after Christ.  Phi. 
The elder he was, the better his credit for this question.  Theo. 
But the worst is, 
Emesenus is bishop of Emesa in Syria.  that Eusebius Emissenus was a Bishop in Syria, & wrote in greek: and therefore to assign him latin homilies, and to suppose him to be a frenchman, was a very gross corruption, and such as children will deride.  Phi. 
Might there not be an other of that name?  Theo. 
Ye as in that place, but in France there could be none.  Phi. 
Why not?  Theo. 
Because Emesenus doth signify Bishop of Emesa in Syria, where this Eusebius lived, and as S. Hierom writeth, was buried at Antioch the chief Metropolis of Syria.  Phi. 
But this is Eusebius Emissenus which Gratian allegeth.  Theo. 

Gracian hath put Emissenus for Emesenus by negligence or wilfulness choose you whether. No such place in all Europe as whence Emissenus should be derived. This was a common practice with the friars in the fathers' wo●●●s.  It is not the first word by five hundred, that Gratian hath altered. For Eusebius Emesenus Saint hierom's certificate is very good: for Eusebius Emissenus the first record that we find is in Gratian: where by the very stile, periods, casures, members and agnominations you may perceive him to be a latinist, & as Canisius adds, a Frenchman. Now in what age he lived, & in what place he preached, we require some proof before we can or will admit these things to be his, which you have forged in his name. Emissenus must be a derivative from some place: show any such place in Europe, and then you say somewhat for the likelihood, though not enough for the certainty of this writer.  Philand. 
What if we can not?  Theophil. 
Then he that hath but half an eye, may soon discern 〈◊〉 treachery.  
Your Monks & Friars seeking to colour their feigned holiness, & late sprung faith with the reverend titles of ancient fathers, pr●fered the names of Austen, Ambrose, Hieron Cyprian, Isidore, & others before diverse of their own d●● fe●: 〈…〉 & finding in S. Hierom, Eusebius Emesenus to be an old writer, gave him a new livery with the rest, and ascribed certain latin homilies such as they had unto him: whom themselves, or Gratian that first lighted on this old new writer corruptly called Eusebius Emissenus. And because the forgery did hardly hang together, the right Eusebius being a Grecian and of great antiquity, Canisius the general Attorney for your religion, hath devised twoe more of that name: one a frenchman, that perchance, he saith, flourished in the fift century, and an other that 
* Canisij Chronologia in anno Dom. 500  wrote after Gregory the great and expounded the gospels: but when either of them lived, or where they taught, neither he nor you can bring us any proof besides your bare and vain supposals.  Phi. 
Will you not trust the inscription of the work itself?  Theo. 
That were the way to let every friar and forger, 
Nothing is more easy than to give a false inscription to ai●e book.  create new fathers at his pleasure. It is as easy for them that copy out other men's works, to make false as true inscriptions, and so have your Monks played with every father that was ancient, as the most partial of your own side do confess, and in this is too apparent. For how many men's names think you, did this homily bear, which you allege, not yet two hundredth years ago?  Phi. 
What can I tell?  Theo. 
Then I can. Look in Walden, and in one Chapter you shall find this very sermon bear three men's names.  Phi. 
Is that possible?  Theo. 
The less possible the thing: the more palpable your forging.  
In the 67 chapter, 

Tomo 2. de sacramentis.  
Walden citeth a piece of this sermon under Anselmus name before he was ware.  
Walden tomo 2. de sacramentis. cap. 68   his adversary alleged the words, which you bring out of Isidore, in his sermon beginning with Magnitudo caelestium. That Walden doth not much impugn, but very often so calleth him: and yet at length remembering himself, he or some man for him, yieldeth to the decrees, and calleth that writer Eusebius Emisenus by Gratian'S authority: marry with a single s: where now a double is gotten both into the word, and into Gratian, and yet in the 68 chapter forgetting what he himself or others for him had done, he citeth an other part of the same sermon under Anselmus name: Ratificat eandem comparationem in sermone s●pe dicto, qui incipit Magnitudo caelestium, Anselmus dicens: This comparison Anselmus doth ratify in his sermon often spoken of which beginneth Magnitudo caelestium, though afterward in the same chapter he return again to his former staggering, and call the writer of your words Isidore or rather Eusebius.  Phi. 
Let him be Isidore, or Eusebius, we 
* You mu●t care for the author before you cite him as a witness in religion.  care not whether.  Theo. 
Since the Sermon is not his, whose name it beareth, we may not suffer you to chop names as you list: neither need we so much as regard the words, before we know the author: lest we reverence lewd and late Friars under the names of ancient and learn●● Fathers.  Phi. 
Whatsoever he was, ancient he was, and taught the same doctrine, without all question, which we do.  Theo. 
His antiquity you know not, and his doctrine you understand not. For though we like not your shuffling and exchanging of names with the fathers, and broaching your fancies and heresies under their 〈…〉 this wh●le sermon we can and do admit, as having nothing either dissident from true antiquity or repugnant to that which we teach.  Phi. 
Will you say that doctrine of his is not repugnant to yours?  Theo. 
Why should I not?  Phi. 
Will you confess that the visible creatures are turned into the substance of christs flesh by the secret power of his word? 
* They are, but by no material or corporal change.   The. 
His words I say, make nothing for your abolishing the substance of bread and wine, and leaving the accidents.  Phi. 
He saith, the visible creatures are turned into the substance of Christ's body and blood.  Theo. 
But he saith not, the substance of the visible creatures is turned into the substance of christs flesh.  Phi. 

* How are we made flesh of Christ's flesh and bones of his bones, and yet keep our earthly substance?  How can one creature be turned into the substance of an other, but by losing his former substance?  Theo. 
In natural mutations it is so, but this is nothing less than natural.  Phi. 
It is divine and supernatural.  Theo. 
And so is it likewise spiritual and mystical: not really changing the matter and substance of the elements, but casting grace unto nature.  Phi. 
Nay he saith the substance of the creatures is changed.  Theo. 
Where saith he so?  Phi. 
He saith which is all one, that the visible creatures are changed into the substance of christs body.  The. 
But by no material nor corporal change.  Phi. 
How can the creatures be turned into christs substance, but by a material & corporal change?  Theo. 
That is your error, not your author's addition.  Phi. 
It is not possible to be otherwise.  Theo. 
What if your own writer in this very case and place reprove you for a liar?  Phi. 
That 
Yea forsooth the next words will tell you so much.  earthly creatures should be turned into Christ's substance, without a material and substantial change? Never say it: it cannot be.  Theo. 
Will you look but two lines farther, and you shall see this great impossibility avouched by your own author. Quomodo tibi nowm & impossibile esse non debeat, quod in Christi, substantiam terrena & mortalia convertuntur, te ipsum, qui in Christo es regeneratus, interroga. 
De cons. dist. 2. ¶ quia corpus.  How this to thee should neither be strange nor impossible, that mortal & earthly creatures are turned into Christ's substance, ask thyself which art regenerated in Christ. 
How mortal creatures may be turned into Christ's substance.  Sometimes since thou wast far from life, excluded from mercy, and banished from the path of salvation as being inwardly dead, & suddenly initiated by the laws of christ & renewed by the healthful mysteries, thou didst pass into the body of the church, not by sight but by faith, & thou which wert the son of perdition obtainedst to be made the adopted child of god by a secret purity: remaining in the same visible measure, thou grewest invisibly without increase of quantity: & being thyself & the very same, 
Such a change is in the sacred ●lements by your authors own confession.  that thou wast (before) in process of faith thou becamest another: in the outward (man) nothing was added, & all changed in the inward: Taking this spiritual & immaterial change of every christian in baptism, to show in what sort, & how he meant that mortal & earthly creatures by cons●●ration are converted into the substance of christ: which is far from a corporal & substantial change, such as you would urge by pretence of his words in the creatures of bread & wine.  Phi. 
This construction cannot stand: 
A thing may be changed, and yet keep his former substance.  that creatures should be turned into an other substance, and yet remain in their own and former substance: For then how are they changed?  Theo. 
In your physical conceits it cannot: but if you consult those Fathers that were the first introducers of this speech, you shall find it may. Gelasius joineth them both together in one sentence, the one to expound the other. 
Gelasius contr● Eutich.  In divinam transeunt spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam, permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae. (The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ) pass into a divine substance by the working of the holy Ghost: and yet remain in the propriety of their own nature. And lest you should cavil that they kept their former qualities and not their substance, in express words he saith, & tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis & vini: and yet (for all they pass into a divine substance) the (former) substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not, nor is abolished: no more than the manhood of Christ was changed from his former substance, when after his ascension it was replenished with divine glory.  Phi. 
You frustrate the sayings of the fathers with your comparisons.  Theo. 
They be their own comparisons & principal intentions in those places where they speak these words: and therefore if you will rack the one to your length, 
A man may soon rack a wo●d to any purpose, if he respect not the intent & concu●rents.  and not respect the other, you may soon force some phrases to feed your fancies. But this is not the safest way for you to walk in matters of faith: nor the rightest course for you to take to come by their meaning. You must look how far they press their own words, & what they would conclude, not what you l●st to conceive: or imagine of their speeches. Howsoever they mention a change of the bread into the divine essence & substance, no father avoucheth any corporal, material, or substantial change of the elements into the body & blood of Christ: but a spiritual, mystical and effectual annexing & uniting the one to the other, either pa●t retaining the truth of his former and proper nature and substance.  
This is apparent by those very places & sentences, which you bring to prove a change: the fathers teach not the one without the other, as you saw for example in Gelasius and your Eusebius: and so in Cyprian: 
Cypr. de caen● Domini.  Panis iste, quem dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro: This bread which the Lord gave to his disciples, changed not in shape, but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh: and lest you should dream of any material or substantial change, as your manner is, the very next words in the same sentence, are: 
Cypr. Ibidem.  Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur, & latebat divinitas: ita sacramento visibili, ineffabiliter divina se infundit essentia: and as in the person of Christ, 
Two substances in the sacrament as there we●e in Christ.  his humanity was seen, his divinity was hid and secret: so in the visible sacrament the divine essence doth infuse itself, after an unspeakable manner.  Phi. 
Did you bring this place for us or against us? you could not have lighted on a fit for our purpose, if you should have sought these seven years.  The. 
I know it is one of your best authorities, as you make your account: and yet it is no way prejudicial to us, if you suffer the father himself to tell out his own tale: 
This is one of their surest places.  and be content to hear as well the ending as the entering of it. He saith the bread is changed: in nature; into the flesh of Christ; by the almighty power of the word, expressing in what, into what, and by what the bread is changed: more parts you cannot make.  Phi. 
We need not.  Theo. 
And yet all these notwithstanding he meaneth no material nor corporal change of the bread or wine, but that, as in the person of Christ there were two distinct & perfect substances united and joined, the one his manhood that was seen, the other his godhead that was hid: even so to the visible Sacrament persisting in his former substance, doth the divine essence infunde itself after a secret and unsearchable manner, 

Virtutis divinae invisibili efficientia probans adesse praesentiam.  
Cypr. de ●aena Domini.   proving the presence of an heavenly virtue to be there by the invisible efficience.  Philand. 
If you will have the bread keep his proper and perfect both nature and substance, what change is there made in the bread?  Theoph. 
This change is not the casting away of any thing, that was in the bread, either nature or substance; but the casting unto it of an heavenly and invisible grace: and so Theo●orete expresseth the mutation that is in this sacrament. 
Theod. dial. 1.  Non naturam ipsam transmutans sed naturae adiiciens gratiam. Not changing (or casting away) nature itself, but adding grace unto nature. And that is S. Ambrose his meaning when he saith, 
Ambos. de Sacrament. lib. 4. cap. 4.  Sunt quae erant, & in aliud commutantur. (The bread and wine) are the very same that they were (
* And so Bertram 700. years ago did expound these words of S. Ambrose.  both in nature and substance) and are changed into an other thing.  Philand. 
How can this be that they should be changed and yet continue the same: but as we expound it, that in substance they be changed, and yet in show continue as they were before?  Theoph. 
This is your fancy we know: but the learned fathers by their change mean no such thing: they teach not any detraction or diminution of that which was, but an adjection and apposition of that which was not. And therefore they witness both: as well the permanence of the elements in their former nature, as their change into an other. chrysostom said as you heard before. 
Chrysost. ad Caes●rium.  The bread (sanctified) is counted worthy to be called the lords body, etsi natura panis in ipso permansit: though the nature of bread remain there still: and Theodoret, 
Theod. dial. 2.  Neque enim signa illa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à sua natura, those mystical signs do not by Consecration departed from their nature. And Gelasius: 

Gelas. contr● Eutychen.  
De cons. dist. 2. ¶ Hoc est.   Non tamen desinit esse substantia vel natura panis & vini: and yet the substance or nature of bread & wine doth not cease (or perish). And to this very sacrament S. Austen appl●eth this Rule: Omnis res naturam & veritatem illarum rerum in se continet: ex quibus conficitur. Every thing containeth (or keepeth) the nature & truth of those things, of which it consisteth.  Phi. 
You refu●● Cyprian, you do not expound him. He saith the nature (of the bread) 
* It is changed by adding grace unto it, not by taking substance fro it.  is changed; you prove it remaineth: be not these contrary?  Theo. 
B● your exposition they are, by ours they are not. For the nature of bread, we say remaineth, and is in nothing diminished, but increased with an heavenly virtue that is added to it. And this, though it be a change to that which it was not, yet is it no change from that which it was.  Philand. 
That is properly changed which is altered from that it was.  Theo. 
And that is as properly said to be changed, which is increased with that it was not, though it be not altered in substance from that it was. The soul of man is often changed, but never in substance. The body from the cradle to the grave hath many increases and changes, but in substance persisteth the same that it was before it came into the world. Every thing that groweth, keepeth that it had, & achieveth that it had not, and yet is that a change.  
But what need we other examples, since the fathers themselves do both by their words, & similitudes show what changes they meant? A child is 
* By these examples the fathers declare what change is in the bread.  changed by baptism: not in losing or altering the substance of body or soul which he had: but in attaining the grace & blessing of God which he had not. The Lord himself is 
* By these examples the fathers declare what change is in the bread.  changed in person by his ascension, not that the truth, shape or circumscription of his flesh are abolished, but endued with immortal glory. So shall he 
* By these examples the fathers declare what change is in the bread.  alter our vile bodies not by spoiling them of their substance, but by imparting to them of his brightness, and as S. Paul writeth, 
1. Cor. 15.  We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed.  Phi. 
S. Paul's words are nothing to the Sacrament.  Theo. 
They are somewhat to the use of the word which I proposed: and yet Ireneus doth not stick to resemble the change in the Sacrament to the very hope and assurance which our bodies now have of that glory before they be changed, or have cast off their mortal and earthly corruption. As, saith he, 
Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.  the bread which is of the earth receiving the invocation of god, is now no common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly & an heavenly, so our bodies receiving the Eucharist, be now not corruptible (that is not wholly destinated to corruption) [as] having hope of resurrection.  Phi. 
But S. Ambrose repeateth 
* De iis qui mysteriis initiantur. cap. 9  examples of corporal and substantial changes, when he would prove that blessing in this sacrament overbeareth nature.  Theo. 
S. Ambrose doth not say, 
S. Ambrose by his seven examples showeth the power of the word, not the manner of the change that is in the Sacrament.  that the bread is changed after the same manner, but meaning to show that prayer and benediction worketh where nature cannot, yea many times altereth nature: he bringeth seven examples, whereof five are no substantial changes: & in the end concludeth, that if the prayers & speech of men could turn & alter things above & against nature, much more can the word of christ bring to pass that the elements shall be that they were, & yet be changed into that they were not, and which by nature they are not.  Phi. 
He hath no such words in that chapter.  Theo. 
His conclusion there is this, Sermo ergo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt, in id mutare quod non erant? 
Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis. cap. 9  The word of Christ, who could of nothing make that which was not, can he not change those things which are, into that which before they were not? And in the next book entitled De Sacramentis, assuming the same matter, and producing almost all the same examples and arguments: he resolveth in these words, 
Ambros. de Sacramentis. lib. 4. cap. 4.  Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini jesu, ut inciperent esse quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur? If there be such force in the word of the Lord jesus, that the things which were not, (at his word) began to be, how much more can it work this, that they shall be the same they were, & (yet) be changed into an other thing? 
Ambr. Ibidem lib. 4. cap. 4.  And to show us an example, how a thing may be that it was, & yet be changed: he forthwith addeth, Tu ipse eras, sed era● vetus creatura, posteae quam consecratu● es, nova creatura esse caepisti: Vis scire quam novae creatura? Omnis inquit, in Christo novae creatura. Accip● ergo, quemadinodun sermo Christi creaturam omnem mutare consueverit: & mutat quando vult instituta naturae. 
In this chapter his examples are no substantial changes, though he purposely pursue the 〈◊〉 point that he did before.  Thou thyself waste: but thou wast an old creature: after when thou wast baptized, thou begannest to be a new creature. Wilt thou know how (true it is that thou art) a new creature? Every one, saith the Apostle, (is) in Christ a new creature. Learn then how the word of Christ is accustomed to change every creature▪ and when he will, he altereth the course of nature ● keeping the same similitude of Baptism for the explication of himself that the rest do: & thereby declaring he meaneth nothing less than that the matter and substance of the bread and wine should be changed. For he that is baptized, suffereth no material, substantial nor corporal change: though he be borne a fresh and put on Christ: and even so the sacred elements are turned into the flesh of our Saviour, without abolishing their former nature or substance.  Phi. 
If these places of S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose conclude not for us: certainly they conclude nothing against us: and therefore you cannot refel our assertion by them.  Theo. 
I do not. I show, the places which you take most hold of, have no such sequel as you surmise: & so your transubstantiation is your late and private imagination, without all antiquity.  Phi. 
Call you that late or private, which hath been the general and constant confession of all Christendom for these 
* Never catch ● jesuit without a crack.  fifteen hundredth years?  Theo. 
It doth you good to crack, though there be neither truth nor sense in that you say. Hath all christendom for these fifteen hundredth years confessed the substance of bread and wine at the Lords table to be changed into the real & natural body & blood of Christ?  Phi. 
It hath.  Theo. 
How shall we know that?  Phi. 
You may find it in their writings.  Theo. 
How chanceth than you can not show one that for 800 years made that confession?  Phi. 
We can.  Theo. 
You do not as yet.  Phi. 
yes we 
* Some forgeries you showed us, but one place of any ancient writer you neither did nor can show us. The sum of all the objections that they can make, which are worth the answering.  have done it. S. Augustine told you plainly, the substance of bread and wine did not remain, but only the qualities: and venerable Bede said, there was the show, but not the substance of bread. Be not these direct and fair proofs?  Theo. 
Fairly forged they be: but otherwise the writers themselves were never of that opinion.  Phi. 
I have proved by S. chrysostom and S. Cyril that it is no bread.  Theo. 
No bare; nor common bread, as our sense doth judge; but yet the nature of bread still remaineth though endued with a more divine and mighty grace.  Phi. 
The bread is changed as S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose teach.  Theo. 
Not by losing that it had, but by annexing that it had not.  Phi. 
It is converted into the substance of Christ.  Theo. 
But by no materal nor corporal change of the former substance.  Phi. 
This is your deluding of fathers.  The. 
That is your abusing of them.  Phi. 
You recall their words to your liking.  Theo. 
And you enforce them against their meaning.  Phi. 
Who shall judge of that?  Theo. 
Not you.  Phi. 
Nor you.  Theo. 
Let their own mouths be trusted.  Phi. 
I am well contented.  Theo. 
Then are you condemned. For where their words bear our exposition as well as yours: 
We prove our exposition by other direct places: they have nothing but the general ambiguity of the words.  you urge a corporal and substantial change on their speeches in every place: which they in plain words protest to be no part of their faith.  Phi. 
Where find you that protestation?  Theo. 
Is your memory so short, that I must now make a new repetition?  Phi. 
You went about to prove that the substance of bread remained.  The. 
And that which I professed, I performed: you may turn back & view the words. 
See fol. 756.  The substance of bread doth not cease to be: the signs remain in their former substance. As touching the substances of the creatures they are the same after Consecration that they were before. And that was Cyprians meaning when he said, 
Cypr. de caena Domini.  Corporalis substantiae retinens speciem: retaining their kind of corporal substance: as also this substantial bread. This is warrant sufficient in any Christian man's judgement for us so to interpret the father's words, as we do not abolish the substance of bread, which they confess remaineth.  Phi. 
Had that been their doctrine, would their after-commers think you, 
Their after-commers kept the same doctrine for almost a thousand years.  have so soon swerved from their faith?  Theo. 
They did not. That very confession, that the substance of bread remained after consecration, dured almost a thousand years in most parts of the West Church, and namely in this realm.  
Omit Bertram that lived 830. after Christ, whose book is extant, purposely and largely treating of this matter. Walafridus an other of that time giveth flat evidence against your changing of substances in the sacrament, when he saith, 
Walafrid. Abbas. de rebus eccles. cap. 16. Citatur a Garetio.  In caena, quam ante traditionem suam ultimam cum Discipulis (Christus) habuit, post Paschae veteris solemnia, corporis & sanguinis sui sacramenta in panis & vini substantia eisdem Discipulis tradidit. In the supper which (Christ) had with his Disciples last before he was betrayed, after the solemnities of the old passover, he delivered to the same disciples the sacraments of his body and blood in the substance of bread and wine. And so doth Druthmarus reporting our saviours act at his last supper, in these words, 
Christianus Druthmarus in Matth.  Transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus suum, & vinum in sanguinem: (Christ) changing the bread into his body, and the wine into his blood spiritually. And so Paschasius, though you have here & there interlaced that book to help yourselves, and printed it, under the name of Rabanus as well as of Paschasius. 
Paschas de corpore & sanguine Domini, cap. 28.  Panis confirmat cor hominis, & vinum letificat, etc. propter quod in eadem substantia iure celebratur hoc mysterium salutis. Bread confirmeth and wine cheereth the hart, etc. wherefore in that substance is this mystery of (our) salvation worthily celebrated.  
Waleramus Bishop of Medburg a thousand years after Christ continued the same doctrine, though some Italians than began to fortify their new conceits of shows without substance. His words are, 
Cit●●●r a Tho. Walden. to. 2. de Sacramentis▪ cap. 65.  Materiae vel substantia Sacrificij non simpla est, sicut nec pontifex solius divinae, vel-humanae solius substantiae est. Est ergo tam in Pontifice quam in sacrificio divina substantia, est & terrena, Terrena in utroque est illud quod corporaliter vel localiter videri potest: divina in utroque verbum invisibile, quod in principio erat Deus apud Deum. The matter or substance of the sacrifice is not single, 
Two substances in the sacrifice as well as in Christ.  as also the high priest himself, is neither of a divine substance only, nor of an human only. There is then as well in the high Priest as in the sacrifice an heavenly substance, there is also an earthly substance● The earthly substance in them both is that which may corporally & locally be seen. The heavenly in them both is the invisile word, which in the beginning was God with God.  
The Church of England, even to the conquest held the same Doctrine, and taught it to the people of this Land in their public homilies which are yet to be seen of good record in the Saxon tongue. The sermon then read on Easter day, throughout their Churches is a manifest declaration of that which I say: where amongst others, these words are occurrent. 
The doctrine preached in the Saxons Churches of this realm until the conquest.  The holy font water that is called the wellspring of life is like in shape to other waters, and is subject to corruption: but the holy Ghosts might cometh to the corruptible water, through the Priest's blessing, and it can after wash the body and soul from all sin through Ghostly might. Behold now we see two things in this one creature. After true nature that water is corruptible water, and after Ghostly mystery, hath hallowing might. So also if we behold that holy housel after bodily understanding, then see we that it is a creature corruptible & mutable: 
The sacrament is a corruptible & mutable creature.  if we acknowledge therein ghostly might, them understand we that life is therein, and that it giveth immortality to them that eat it with belief. Much is betwixt the invisible might of the holy housel, & the visible shape of his proper nature. It is naturally corruptible bread, and corruptible wine, and is by might of God's word truly Christ's body and his blood: not so notwithstanding bodily, but Ghostly. Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in, and the body that is hallowed to housel. The body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary, with blood, & with bone, with skin, and with sinews, in human limbs, with a reasonable soul living: 
The sacrament is not Christ's body corporally.  and his Ghostly body, which we call the housel, is gathered of many corns: without blood and bone, without limb, without soul. 
This then is not the real and natural body of christ.  And therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily, but all is Ghostly to be understood.  Phi. 
What care we for your Saxon records?  Theo. 
Less care we for your Romish & Monckish records so lately and grossly forged, as we have proved: yet this to your inward grief you may now see: & shall an other day to your utter confusion feel, that your novelties touching the Sacrament were never hard of in the Church of England, 
Lancfrancus and Anselme since the conquest the first authors of transubstantiation within this realm.  nor in the Church of Christ, till Lancfrancus, Anselmus & other Italians a thousand years after christ, came in with their Antichristian devices and inventions: expounding Species and forma panis for the qualities & accidents of bread without any subject or substance: which once taking place you fell amain both to sacrilegious sophisms against truth, and rebellious practices against Princes; & ceased not till you brought them to their height in your late Lateran Council under Innocentius the third, 1215 years after Christ. This is your Catholicism that you so much vaunt of, which the Christian world was utterly ignorant of for almost a thousand years; and to the which you would now reduce the simple with a show of holiness; pretending great gravity and admirable antiquity with bold faces and eager speeches, though you be void of both, if you were well examined.  Phi. 
Were the doctrine of elder ages in some doubt, which we know to be fully for us; yet you confess these last five hundredth years are clear on our side.  Theo. 
The mitre and Sceptre were yours: 
Worldly kingdoms & honours have been subject to Antichrist in these latter ages.  the mystery of iniquiiie working as was foretold; and infecting the West Church with hypocrisy and heresy, as fast as the Turk oppressed the East with rage & tyranny: Yet in every of these last & most corrupted ages, God raised a number of innocent and simple men, with the confession of their mouths, and expense of their lives, to witness his truth against the pride and fury of their adversaries, whom your holy father hanged, burned, and otherwise murdered for repining at his proceed, that whom with honour and ease he could not allure: at lest he might quail with terror and torment.  Phi. 
Should we leave the fellowship of holy Popes, famous Prelates mighty Princes, learned and Religious Monks and Friars, yea Saints: 
The jesuits are even drunk with the glory and renown of themselves and their adherents.  and join ourselves to a few condemned and infamous heretics, as you do?  Theo. 
That which is precious and admirable before men, may be odious & detestable before God. The dignities of men cannot deface the truth of Christ; the higher their states, the greater their falls, if they did oppose themselves against the highest.  Phi. 
You say they did.  Theo. 
I do not: but this I say, that if the respect of their external and temporal glory, be the ground of your conscience, you have a wicked affection as well as Religion. To follow men against God, is to magnify them afore God.  Phi. 
You condemn them for castaways.  Theo. 
I am not their judge. 
God may call in all times & places whom he please, though we know it not.  He that made them, might be merciful to them amidst the defects and dangers of those days, as he hath been to some in all ages and places: yet that is no safety for you to defend their open errors, and wilfully to continue their wickedness.  Phi. 
Were not our father's religious and holy men?  Theo. 
justify not your fathers against God, lest their mouths condemn you for a pernicious ofsprng. God will be glorified, when he judgeth, say you and your fatther● what you can to the contrary. reprove not the sharpness of his justice, which he never showeth but for great and urgent cause: submit yourselves rather, and acknowledge it is his undeserved, and yet not unwonted mercy that you be not consumed as your fathers were before you, but have yet time and warning to repent.  Phi. 
And are you such Saints that you ●eede no repentance? 
It is not of our worthiness but of his great mercy that w● have his truth which others had not.   Theo. 
We desire to live no longer, than we confess before heaven and earth, that as God hath been righteous in revenging the sins and iniquities of our fathers, by taking his truth from them, and leaving them to the power of darkness, and kingdom of Antichrist: so he might most justly for our ungodliness & unthankfulness have wrapped us in the same confusion and destruction: save that of his infinite and unspeakable mercy, he would have his Gospel preached afresh for a witness to all Nations before he come to judgement: 
Mat. 24.  to make all men inexcusable, that have either not believed, or not obeyed the truth. And this causeth us, not only with all that is within us, to give glory to his name for so great a blessing, but to beseech him, that though we be lighted on the ends of the world when charity waxeth cold, 
Mat. 24. Luk. 18. jude.  and faith is scant found on the face of the earth, we may not be carried away with the error of the wicked to perdition; especially not to follow the way of Cain, that dipped his hands in his brother's blood; nor take the wages of Balaam, to curse and revile the people of God; nor perish in the contradiction of Corah, for resisting both God and the Magistrate: but rather that we may be sanctified and saved by the might of his word, and store of his mercy laid up in Christ his son for all that believe him, and call upon him.  Phi. 
God send us such part as our fathers had.  Theo. 
You be so displeased with God for punishing the sins of your fathers with blindness and error in these later ages, 

We must neither dislike the justice of God towards others, nor refuse his mercy offered to ourselves.  
The jesuits are so deep in love with themselves & their fathers, that they take scorn to stoop to the grace of God.   that now you will none of his light, nor grace, though he offer it freely to save your souls: but if you will needs perish, your own blood be on your own heads: yet have us excused, if we think our sins heavy enough, though we add not thereto the neglect of his word, and contempt of his truth as you do. In the knowledge of God and reverence of his judgements there is a path way to repentance, and hope of mercy: in the proud dislike of his severity towards others, and s●ubberne refusal of his goodness towards ourselves, there is nothing but an heaping of extreme vengeance, which shall consume the wicked and impenitent resisters of his word and spirit.  Phi. 
We be not of that number.  Theo. 
Were you not; you would be more careful to search, and willing to embrace the truth of Christ once understood with all readiness and lowliness of mind, knowing that God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble, and not with an high-looking and self-pleasing persuasion, that all is yours, neglect your duty to God and man.  Phi. 
We observe both.  Theo. 
You observe neither.  
Subjection to your lawful Prince you have forsaken, and not only fled the Realm, 

What subjection the jesuits yield to their Princes that displease the Pope.  
The Jesuits talk a pace of their catholicism but they prove it very slowly.   and incited others to do the like, but the Christian allegiance, which the Prince requireth of her subjects you impugn with shifts and slanders, in favour of him, who wickedly and injuriously taketh upon him to be the supreme Moderator of earthly kingdoms, & chief disposer of princes Crowns: and so fast are you linked in confederacy with him, that in open view of all men you will allow no Prince to bear the sword longer than shall like him, but proclaim rebellions of subjects against their Sovereigns to be just & honourable wars, if he authorise them by his Censures.  
And where, to cloak your wicked and enormous attempts you boldly surmised, that you did, whatsoever you did, for that Religion which was ancient & Catholic: we have presently taken you so tardy & short of your reckoning that for six of the greatest and chiefest points now in question betwixt the Church of England and the Church of Rome, and reform in this Realm by public authority: you cannot bring us so much as one ancient & evident testimony, that your faith and Doctrine was ever taught or received in the primative church of christ, and yet you please yourselves in your owm conceits, and compass the earth to 
An old practice of the pharisees.  get prosilites fit for such teachers, whom you may train up in error, and use as instruments to catch unstable souls, and fire unquiet heads: that you by them may disturb realms and fish for Prince's thrones and lives in troubled waters.  Phi. 
All this is as false, as God is true. 
We desire n● more of their own friends but to weigh their proofs in these cases.   Theo. 
God himself shall scant be truth if you may be the judges: except he take your parts. But facing and craking laid aside, you must refer the judgement of your doings and sayings to others, and not to yourselves.  Phi. 
To Catholics I am content.  The. 
They must be then of your instructing: that is, such as will trust neither fathers nor Scriptures against your Canons: otherwise in that you have said they shall find no great cause to like your impugning the Prince's power, & right to establish Laws within her own land without the Pope's leave: and to hold her Crown against his censures: and as little shall they find to call you, or count you Catholics.  Phi. 
Men of your own pitch will soon assent to any thing.  Theo. 
Let them be but indifferent and weigh what you have brought.  Phi. 
More we can bring, when we see our times.  The 
It skilleth not how much, but how sound that is which you can bring.  Phi. 
Of that hereafter: and yet in the mean time there be many other things besides these that you have handled, that 
These God willing shallbe handled afore it be long.  must be discussed, before we can be pronounced no Catholics. And as in these you seem with wresting and wrenching to have some advantage: so in those we could forthwith confound you.  The. 
Even as you have done in these.  Phi. 
A great deal more readily if I had time to stay the trial of them: but this holy tide I must spend in other matters of more importance.  Theo. 
What: In spreading news, that the king of Spain doth stay but for the next summer?  Phi. 
We meddle not with foreign affairs,  Theo. 
A 
They study Machavel more than S. Paul.  number of you be better seen in policy, than in divinity: you were borne belike to be rulers, though it be but of Rebels as Sanders was, that thought it a praise to take the field in person against his Prince.  Phi. 
My travel is not to that end.  Theo. 
You leave that for others: and travel to sound the hearts of your adherents, whether they be in number, wealth and zeal likely and ready to give assistance, if any should invade.  Phi. 
What unchristian conjectures you have of us:  Theo. 
None but such as your own deeds and words occasion.  Phi, 
What cause have we given you to speak this of us?  Theo. 
What greater cause can you give, 
If they defend rebellions in open sight, what do they in secret corners.?  than openly to avouch as you have done in your Defence of catholics (as you call them) the rebellion's against such Princes as the Pope deposeth are godly, just & honourable wars?  Phi. 
If he may depose them they are.  Theo. 
You have in print affirmed both, and sought to prove them with all your might: and therefore what shall we think your secret whispering and recon●ling to the Church of Rome is, but a crafty bait of malcontents to make rebels?  Phi. 
The parties themselves can witness we never mention any such thing in our absolution. To them we appeal for record.  Theo. 
For my part I think you do not: It were too gross conspiracy & treason to take vows and oaths of subjects against their Prince by name: and therefore if you should take that open course you were worthy to ride to Tyburn not only for traitors but also for disards. 
Persons reconciled must in the end be traitors whether they meant it at first or no● the jesuits have so tempered religion and treason to flatter the Pope.  But when you reconcile them, you take assurance of them by vow, oath, or other adjuration that they shall embrace the Catholic faith and hold Communion & unity with the Church of Rome for ever after.  Phi. 
Why should we not?  Theo. 
Then when it pleaseth my Lord the Pope to deprive the Prince and to excommunicate all that assist or agnise her for a lawful magistrate, what must your reconciled sort do: Is it not against their oath & faith given to you at their restitution to the bosom of the Catholic Church (as you term it) to obey their Prince against the censures of your Church?  Phi. 
I have haste in my way Theophilus: and I have said as much as I will at this time.  Theo. 
I can hold you Philander no longer than you li●t: but yet remember this as you ride by the way, which I reiterate, because both your Seminaries shall think the better of it: that as many as you reconcile, so long as you teach, this for a point of faith, 
* Unless they recall this position, the conclusion is inevitable.  that the Pope may depose Princes and must be obeyed in those his censures of all that will be Catholics, so many both heretics against God, and traitors against the Prince, you hatch under the hood of religion: and also that the things now reform in the Church of England are both catholic and christian, notwithstanding your fierce brags, and fiery words, lately sent us in your RHEMISH Testament.  
To the KING everlasting, immortal, invisible, unto GOD which is only wise, be honour and praise for ever and ever. Amen   

The special contents of every part.  

The contents of th● first part.  The jesuits pretenders of obedience. 
Pag. 2  The causes why they fled the Realm. 
5  The proofs and places of their Apology. 
7  Forcing to Religion. 
16  Two Religions in one Realm. 
21  Toleraunce of error. 
26  Toleraunce of error in private places and persons. 
27  Compulsion to service and Sacraments. 
29  Exacting the oath. 
30  Their running to Rome. 
35  This Land receiving the faith from Rome. 
40  Preachers sent from Rome with the King's consent. 
41  Preachers, not conspirators from Rome. 
41  How the Fathers sought to Rome. 
42.48  Athanasius at Rome. 
44  Chrysostom's request to Innocentius. 
51  A forged Bull against Arcadius. 
53.  Chrysostom's banishment. 
55  How Saint Augustine sought to Rome. 
56  How S. Basil sought to Rome. 
58  S. jeroms letters to Damasus. 
60  The Rock on the which the Church is built. 
62  S. Cyprian lately corrupted. 
65  Gratian suspected. 
66  Peter's person laid in the foundation of the Church. 
67  Theodoret and Leo. 
67  The Bishop of Rome resisted. 
68  Paul resisted Peter. 
69  Polycarpus resisted Anicetus. 
70  Polycarpus resisted Victor. 
70  Cyprian resisted Stephanus. 
71  Flavianus withstood four Bishops of Rome. 
72  Cyrillus withstood the Bishop of Rome. 
72  Counsels resisting the Bishop Rome. 
73  The Council of Africa resisted the Bishop of Rome. 
74  Forged Decretals. 
76  The council of Ephesus threatening the Legates of Rome. 
78  The Council of Chalcedon against the Bishop of Rome. 
79  The Council of Constantinople against the Bishop of Rome. 
81  Corruptions in the Canon law. 
81  The Brytons resisting the Bishop of Rome. 
82  The Grecians detesting him. 
83  The Germans deposing him. 
84  His own Counsels depose him. 
85.  France resisting the Pope. 
92  Paris appealeth from him. 
94  The french King resisting the Pope. 
95  The Kings of England against the Pope. 
97  Our resistance more lawful than theirs. 
104  Peter's dignity not imparted to the Pope. 
104  S. jeroms praise of Rome. 
105  The manners of Rome since his time. 
105  The manners of Rome in his time. 
106  S. Cyprian forced to make for Rome. 
106  S. Augustine forced to make for Rome. 
107  From Peter's seat is from Peter's time. 
107  The intent of the Seminaries. 
108.  High experiments of Popes. 
112  High experiments of the Pope's clergy. 
114  The jesuits slander England and Scotland. 
118  What the jesuits work & teach in this land. 
119  The Pope succeed his Ancestors neither in seat nor belief. 
12●   

The contents of the second part.  The Prince's power to COMMAND for truth. 
124  Princes be governors of countries, Bishops be not. 
127  Bishops by God's laws subject to Princes as well as others. 
128.  The Prince by God's law charged with Religion. 
129  Princes may command for religion. 
133  Constantine commanding for Religion. 
134  Constantius commanding Bishops in causes ecclesiastical. 
135.  justinian commanding for causes Ecclesiastical. 
137  Charles commanding for causes Ecclesiastical. 
139  The laws of Charles for causes Ecclesiastical. 
140  Ludo●ikes laws for causes Ecclesiastical. 
144  Ludovikes laws & visitors. 
144  What is meant by (SUPREME.) 
146.  Supreme is subject to none on earth. 
146  Princes subject only to God. 
147.  Princes not subject to the Pope. 
147.  The Pope subject to his Prince. 
148.  Constantine superior to the Pope in causes ecclesiastical. 
150  Emperors superior to the pope in causes Ecclesiastical. 
152  The Prince superior to the Pope. 
160  Jeremy'S words expounded. 
160  How Prophets may plant and root out kingdoms. 
161  How Kings must serve the Church. 
162  How Bishops are to be obeyed. 
164  How the Church is superior to Princes. 
167  What is meant by the Church 
168.  The Prince not above the Church. 
171  Princes have power over the persons of the Church. 
172  The words of S. Ambrose to Valentinian. 
173  The behaviour of S. Ambrose towards Valentinian. 
174  Valentinian refused to be judge between Bishops. 
177  Valentinians fault. 
178  Theodosius searched and established the truth. 
178  Princes decreeing for truth. 
179  Athanasius: Osius; Leontius. 
179  Athanasius reproved Constantius. 
180  Athanasius expounded. 
181  Why Constantius was reproved. 
182  Osius words examined. 
188  Leontius discussed. 
189  What Hilary misliked in Constantius. 
190  Kings commended in the scriptures for meddling with religion. 
191  Moses & ●oshuaes example. 
192  King David's care for religion. 
193  Princes charged with the whole law of God. 
194  Asa, jehosaphat, & Ezekiah performed that charge. 
193  Manasses Idolatry & repentance. 
196  josiah reform religion. 
197  Nehemiah correcteth the high Priests doings. 
197  Princes meddled with religion. 
198  Princes used to command for religion. 
198  God commandeth by their hearts 
199.  Prince's commanding for Religion. 
200  Princes have full power to command for truth. 
202  Princes may prohibit and punish error. 
203  To command for causes Ecclesiastical was usual with Princes. 
204  To command Bishops for causes Ecclesiastical was usual with ancient Princes. 
206  The Jesuits purposely mistake the Prince's supremacy. 
213  The jesuits cavilling absurdities against the Pope's power. 
221  This land oweth no subjection to tribunals abroad. 
228  This land not subject to the Pope's tribunal. 
229  What subjection the Pope requireth. 
231  The Pope maketh it sacrilege & blasphemy to doubt of his tribunal. 
231  A right Rhomish subjection. 
232  patriarchs of the west. 
233  patriarchs subject to Princes. 
234  This Realm not in the Pope's Province. 
135  The Patriarke●dome dissolved. 
235  The words of the oath examined. 
236  It is easy to play with words. 
237  Princes govern with the sword, Bishops do not. 
238  Princes only bear the sword in all spiritual things & causes. 
238.  Prince's supreme bearers of the sword. 
240  Supreme governor displaceth not Christ. 
241  Princes may not command against the faith or Canons. 
242.  Gregory shamefully corrupted. 
243.  Spiritual men a● matters. 
244.  Carnal things called spiritual 
245  Carnal things made spiritual to increase the Pope's power and gain. 
245  Carnal things made spiritual. 
246  Princes charged with spiritual things. 
247  Princes chiefly charged with things truly spiritual. 
247  Princes charged at God's hands with things spiritual, not temporal. 
249  The Prince charged to plant the faith and rule the church. 
250  The King of England's charge. 
250  The Prince charged with Godliness. 
251  Their power is equal with their charge. 
252  The sword prohibited unto Bishops. 
253  Only princes bear the sword. 
254  The words of the oath. 
254  Supreme concluded out of saint Paul. 
255  The Apostles subject unto Princes. 
255  Suffering is a sign of subjection. 
256.  The direction of the sword. 
257  Who shall direct the sword. 
257  No man judge of truth. 
258  Discerners of truth. 
259  The people are charged to discern the truth. 
260  The people must discern teachers and try spirits. 
261  We be not bound to the Bishop's pleasure. 
262  Wherein Bishops are superior to Princes. 
263  The function not the person. 
264  The priests person subject to the Prince. 
264  The right direction unto truth. 
265.  The best direction for Princes. 
266.  Who shall direct Princes. 
267.  Succession is no sure direction. 
268  Bishops may err. 
26●  Counsels may err. 
270 & 276  Number no warrant for truth. 
270  Counsels have erred. 
272  Consent without staggering due only to the Scriptures. 
276  The Pope may err. 
277.304.311  Christ prayed for Peter. 
278  Peter failed in faith. 
279  Christ prayed for all. 
280  No one set over the Church. 
281  The Roman Church may fail in faith. 
283  Cyprians place discussed. 
283  The misconstering of (Non potest) 
284  Cyprians opinion of the Romans. 
286  S. Paul's warning to them. 
286  S. Jerome misconstered 
287  The Romans may err. 
288  Moses chair might err. 
289  The high Priests did err. 
290  Christ's promise to his Church. 
291  The godly may err. 
292  S. john's words abused. 
293  The whole Church erreth not. 
294.  The Jesuits condemned for flatterers by their own fellows. 
294  What Popes have erred. 
296  Liberius an heretic. 
297  Honorius an heretic. 
299  Vigilius an heretic. 
301  Anastasius an heretic. 
302  Shifts to save the Popes from erring. 
303  Caiphas free from error 
305  Caiphas as free from error as the Pope. 
305  The Pope's tribunal hath erred. 
306  Vain mockeries of the Jesuits to save the Pope's error. 
309  Their own Church confesseth the Pope may err. 
310  The judge of faith must not err. 
312   

The contents of the third part.  The Pope hath no power to deprive the Prince. 
314  What God hath allowed to Princes, the Pope cannot take from them. 
317  Princes not deprivable by the Pope. 
318  The Prophets deposed no Princes. 
319  Saul rejected by God, not deposed by Samuel. 
320  Saul deprived of the succession, not of the possession of the Crown. 
321  David anointed to succeed. 
325  jeroboam plagued, not deposed. 
325  Prophets may threaten. 
326  Vzziah stricken with the leprosy, not assaulted with violence. 
327  Lepers severed from men's company, but not disherited. 
328  Vzziahs' pride. 
329  Athalia slain. 
329.  Achab reproved, not deposed. 
330.  Elias induced the King and the people to kill Baal's prophets. 
331  Elias no executioner. 
332  Fire from heaven at Elias word. 
332.  jehu willed by God to take the sword. 
333  Elizeus deposed no King. 
333  No Scripture confirmeth the deposition of princes. 
334  Kings hold their dignities of God, not of priests. 
335  The priest no judge of the prince's crown. 
336  The priest to direct, the judge to decide. 
338  Princes not subject to priests. 
339.  Princes deprived priests. 
340  Princes broke covenants with God, and yet were not deposed. 
341  No prince deposed in the old testament. 
341  Christ is King of Kings, but not the pope. 
342  Christ have many prerogatives which the pope may not have. 
343  Binding of sins, not of Sceptres. 
344  Depriving is not feeding. 
345  Temporal revenge not lawful for priests. 
445  Heretics must not be saluted, yet princes must be obeyed. 
346.  Heretics must have their du. 
347  Society not duty prohibited. 
348  We must shun the wicked, but not disobey the magistrate. 
348  Excommunication inferreth no deposition. 
350  The Jesuits claim temporal and external power for the pope. 
350.351  God, not Paul stroke Elima● blind. 
352  What is meant in S. Paul by delivering unto Satan. 
353  The Apostles laid violent hands on no man. 
354  The goods and bodies of men are Caesar's right. 
355  Priests no judges of temporal things but makers of peace between brethren. 
357  The temporal and spiritual distinct regiments. 
358  The Civil state directed, not punished by the spiritual. 
359  Princes committed to the preachers charge, not subjecteth to the pope's court. 
360  Princes may be put in mind of their duties. 
361  Nazianzene subject to the prince. 
361  How the preacher correcteth. 
362  How many degrees the pope will be above the prince. 
363  If he hear not the Church let him be to thee as an Ethnic. 
364  Ethnics must not be deposed. 
364  The Church cannot depose the prince. 
365  The Church submitted herself to Princes. 
366  The Church hath no commission to depose Princes. 
367  The church with them is the Pope 
367  Never king obeyed the Pope's Censure. 
368  The Church never decreed that Popes should depose Princes. 
368  Impertinent examples. 
369  Excommunication is not deposition. 
370  The fact of Babylas. 
371  Babylas died under Decius. 
371  The Prince penitent for his sins. 
372  S. Ambrose and Theodosius. 
373  Anastasius excommunication uncertain. 
374  Michael's excommunication unproved. 
374  Lotharius mistaken. 
375  Of seven examples but one proved. 
375  S. Austin's opinion of such excommunications. 
376  The end of excommunication ceaseth in Princes. 
376  The Church prayed for tyrants. 
377  The Church prayed for the welfare of heretical Princes. 
378  The Church prayed for Constantius. 
378  A lusty leap from the keys to the sword. 
379  Rebellion against Princes defended to be just and honourable wars. 
380  Grand thieves & murderers. 
381  The Popes warrant to rebels. 
381  The Pope cannot warrant Rebellion. 
382  Scriptures abused to serve Rebellion. 
383  Asa removed his mother from her dignity. 
383  The judicial part of Moses Law is ceased. 
384  The execution of Moses Law committed to none but to the magistrate. 
384  No revenger but the Magistrate. 
384  Phinees fact had Moses warrant. 
385  Moses a magistrate and no priest after Aaron's order. 
386  Moses a Levite but no priest. 
387  Moses a Prophet, no sacrificing Priest. 
388  And so was Samuel. 
389  Many offered that were no priests 
389  saul's sin was infidelity. 
389  The Priest did not appoint the wars. 
390  The wars of Abiah. 
391  Edome & Libnah revolting. 
391.  Ten tribes might fight with two 
392  The Church of Christ never allowed rebellion. 
392  S. Basil allowed not the people to rebel for his defence. 
393  S. Ambrose allowed no tumult at Milan in favour of him. 
394.  Athanasius did not stir Constance against Constantius. 
396  Athanasius never spoke evil of Constantius. 
396  Athanasius never disobaied Constantius. 
397  Athanasius would not have the people rebel for his cause. 
398  The tumult at Alexandria for Peter against Lucius. 
399  Atticus harboured strangers but not armed subjects against their Princes. 
400  The Persian war was lawful. 
400  What Leo requested of the Emperor. 
401  The Christians were subject to julian, though he were an Apostata. 
403  The Church of Christ wanted no forces to resist. 
404. 406  Christ's church obeyed wicked Princes for conscience sake. 
405  Leo the third was denied his revenues in Italy but not deprived by the pope. 
408  The pope did not appear in this rebellion of Italy against Leo. 
409  The division of the Empire was not for religion. 
412  Their own stories do not pretend religion for the division of the Empire. 
413  The division of the Empire. 
416  Platina reproved. 
417  Who deposed Childericke. 
418  Childericke deposed for a fool. 
419  Wavering about Pipines' title. 
421  Philippicus rejected as a rebel. 
421  jews the third. 
422  The line of Pipine ended. 
423  An other change of the Empire. 
423  The pope gained by rolling the Empire to and fro. 
424  Henry the fourth. 
424  Pope Hildebrand attempting to deprive Henry the fourth. 
425  The jesuits commend Hildebrand to the skies for fitting their rebellious humour. 
426  Hildebrand & Henry the fourth. 
428  Spitesul slanders of the Jesuits against Henry the fourth. 
430  Hildebrands virtues by the confession of his own countrymen and Cardinals. 
431  Hildebrand favoured of Monks for taking their part against majied priests. 
433  hildebrand's undermining Henry the fourth. 
433  The true causes of Henry's excommunication. 
434  Henry the fourth no Symonist● 
435  The Monks to flatter the pope diffame the prince for simony. 
436  What Hildebrand meant by Simony. 
437  The Prince's consent for placing of Bishops was no simony. 
437  The Pope sought unjust quarrels against Henry the fourth. 
438  The prince not bound to the pope's penances. 
440  Hildebrands success. 
441  Hildebrand the first that offered deprivation to Princes. 
441  The Romish art to weary princes. 
442  The ●on d●splaceth the father. 
443  Hildebrand and Boleslaus. 
444  Princes not punishable by Priests. 
445.  Adrian & Frederick the first. 
446  Frederic●s answer to the Pope's letter. ● 
447  Adrian conspireth against Frederick. 
447  The Pope conspireth against the Emperor. 
448  Alexander made Pope by the conspirators against Victor. 
449  Alexander's election not good. 
450  Frederick tired by the Pope's practices. 
451  The Pope's foot in the Prince's neck. 
451  Honorius & Frederick the 2. 
452  The Pope's quarrels against Frederick the second. 
453  The lewdness of Gregory the 9 against Frederick the second. 
454  The Italian stories spitefully pursue those Princess that withstood the Pope. 
456  frederick's peace with the Turk could not justly be disliked. 
457  The Pope hath been the ruin of both Empires. 
458  The Pope crossigned Soldiers against Frederick as against a Turk. 
459  The second quarrel between Frederick and the Bishop of Rome. 
460  The Pope nourisheth rebellion against Frederick. 
461  And to help the matter deposeth him. 
462  The causes of his deposition examined. 
462  The censure of Innocentius against Frederick. 
463  frederick's right to the kingdom of Sicily. 
464  The Pope's proceedings against Frederick. 
465  The whole west Church in an uproar about the deposing of Princes. 
466  Eberhards' oration against the Pope for presuming to depose Princes. 
467  Frederick poisoned and stifled in his bed. 
468  Lodovic the fourth and john the 22. 
469  Germany taketh part with Lodovic against Pope john. 
470  The Pope maketh it heresy to mislike his pride or his wealth. 
471  What submission the Pope required of Lodovic. 
472  The Germans swear obedience to Lodovic for all his deposition. 
473  King john of this Realm. 
474  King john pursued by the pope for standing in his own right. 
475  To interdict whole Realms for one man's offence is unchristian policy. 
476  The Bishops of England eager to have King john deposed. 
477  The discord of Princes exalted the Pope. 
478  The french King finely cozened by the Pope. 
478  King john the Pope's farmor. 
479  King john could not bind his successor. 
479  The Nobles lament the servitude of this Realm. 
480  George King of Bohemia molested by the Pope's censures. 
481  Half the kingdom of Navarre surprised by the Spanish King. 
482  Thomas Becket an arrogant resister of his Prince. 
483  Princes brought under the Pope's feet by their own dissension. 
484  The Kings of France overreached the Pope. 
485  The stir between Philip of Sweveland & Otho the 5. 
486  The Emperor taketh his farewell of Italy by selling all he had both there and elsewhere. 
487  These tragical uproars prove no right in the Pope to depose Princes. 
488  The jesuits mistake an imprecation in Gregory for a deprivation. 
489  The Realm never con●es●ed the Pope's power to deprive princes. 
490  jesuits within compass of treason by the ancient laws of this land. 
491  Treason to aid the Pope against the Queen by the statute of Edward the third. 
492  The Commons ●ide their King against the Pope. 
493  The King of England's oath. 
493  The patriarchs of Constantinople deposed no Princes. 
494  The people might covenant in their elections. 
494  Zimisces an usurper & a murderer. 
496  A seditious patriarch living at the same time with Hildebrand. 
497  Baptism bindeth no Prince to the ●opes deprivation. 
498  Bishops may not prescribe conditions to Princes. 
498  They have no power to prescribe conditions to Princes. 
499  Princes not deprivable by the Pope. 
500  Wicked reasons of the jesuits for the depriving of Princes. 
501  Christians may not kill tyrants though Heathens did so. 
502  The Pope & his Cardinals worse than Heathen. 
503  The Cardinal's letter for the kill of the Queen. 
503  Murdering of princes maintained by the jesuits. 
504  The princes life is sought for by their wars for religion. 
505  Obedience to Christ forceth us to no rebellion against the prince. 
506.  Princes appoint pains for others not for themselves. 
507  Caluins name falsely pretended for rebellion against princes. 
509  Beza doth not allow subjects to displace their prince. 
510  The Nobles of France might lawfully defend themselves against the Guise. 
511  Private men may not bear arms against a tyrant. 
512  Zuinglius words concern not our case. 
513  Zuinglius alloweth no man to use violence to tyrants. 
514  Succession established by God himself. 
515  Goodman and Knokes. 
516  Luther did not allow rebellion against Princes. 
517  The Germans no Rebels in descending▪ their liberty. 
518  The jesuits case not like the Germans. 
518  The jesuits object they care not what. 
519  The laws sometimes permit resistance 
520  The stirs of Germany, Flaunders, France & Scotland. 
521  The manifold rebellions of papists. 
522  The jesuits treasons. 
522  Complaint of persecution. 
522  Treason made religion by the jesuits. 
523  Deposition of Princes is against religion. 
524  Pastors have no power to compel. 
526  Death inflicted in England not for religion, but rebellion. 
527  The power which the Pope claimeth is no point of religion. 
528  peter's keys abused to colour the Pope's tyranny. 
529  Supreme head misliked by some of the Germans. 
530  Supreme head mistaken by wrong information 
631  Supreme head not urged by us. 
532  The Magistrate no governor of the conscience. 
533  Where God commandeth there no authority wanteth. 
534  Truth is authority sufficient against all the world. 
535  One man with truth is a warrant against all the world. 
536.  The faith of our fathers is not always truth 
537  God forbiddeth us to follow the steps of our fathers. 
538  The godly confessed their fathers did err. 
539  All human laws & bars give place to God. 
540  The prince might make laws for truth maugre the Pope. 
541  Princes have settled religion without Counsels. 
542  Christian religion received upon the direction of a lay man. 
543  Truth authorised the Apostles against Priests & Princes. 
544  Railing on Princes is a capital crime. 
545   

The contents of the fourth part.  No point of Popery Catholic. 
546.  What is truly CATHOLIC. 
547  The worshipping of Images is not Catholic. 
547  The west Church against the worshipping of Images. 
548  Corruption to help the credit of the second Nicen council. 
549  The worshipping of Images detested in the Church of Christ as Heresy. 
550  The ●mage of God made with hands may not be worshipped. 
552  The jews & Gentiles did erect their Images unto God. 
553  The heathen adored their stocks as the Images of God. 
554  The Image of man set up unto God is an Idol. 
556  The wooden Image of Christ may not be worshipped 
557  The honour done to a wooden Image is not done to Christ. 
559  Adoration of Images no Apostolic tradition. 
562  S. basil forged to make for adoration of Images. 
563  The shameful forgeries and falsities of the second Nicene council. 
564  Both Scriptures and fathers wickedly abused by the second Nicene Councils. 
565  The second Nicene Council convincing itself of forgery. 
566  What an Idol is. 
567  A wrong service of God is Idolatry. 
568  The Church of Rome giveth divine honour unto Images. 
569  Christ's honour may not be given to Images. 
570  The having of Images is not Catholic. 
572  Athanasius palpably forged in the second Nicene Council. 
574  The Church next to the Apostles, rejected Images. 
574  Images came first from Heathens unto Christians. 
575  Images rejected by godly Bishops. 
576.  No corporal submission may be given to Images. 
577  The Nicene Bishops play the sophists in decreeing adoration unto Images. 
577  The wooden cross of Christ may not be adored. 
578  Not one word in scripture for adoration of Images. 
580  No point of faith may be built on traditions. 
581  No point of faith believed without Scripture. 
582  Baptizing of Infants is a consequent of the Scriptures. 
583  It may be a tradition, yet grounded on the Scriptures. 
584  Baptism of Infants proved needful by the Scriptures. 
585  Rebaptisation repugnant to the Scriptures by S. Augustine's judgement. 
588  The perpetual virginity of Marie the Mother of Christ. 
589  The Godhead of the holy ghost expressed in the Scriptures. 
590  His proceeding from the father and the son confirmed by the Scriptures. 
592  Express scripture is the sense and not the syllables. 
593  Fathers wrested to speak against the scriptures. 
594  The Popish faith is their own tradition against the scriptures. 
597  Their adoration of images is a late and wicked invention of their schools. 
598  Images adored in the Church of Rome with divine honour 
600  Images rejected by Catholic Bishops. 
601  S. Austen condemneth Images as unprofitable signs. 
602  Custom without truth is but the antiquity of error. 
603  Prayer in an unknown tongue prohibited by Saint Paul in God's name. 
604  S. Paul speaketh of unknown tongues 
606  An unknown tongue cannot edify. 
607  Divine service in a known tongue cannot choose but edify. 
608  S. Paul speaketh of three learned tongues as well as of others. 
610  S. Paul speaketh of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin as well as of other tongues. 
611  S. Paul's words comprise both Church service & sermons. 
612  Saint Paul 1. Cor. 14. speaketh of Church service. 
613  The Church under the Apostles had no set order of divine service. 
614  The Church under the Apostles did sing, bless, and pray by the gift of the spirit. 
615  The Apostle had no certain prayers or service. 
616  The jesuits halting reasons that S. Paul did not speak of the church Service. 
616  S. Paul to the Corinthians speaketh of Church service. 
620  No man may say AMEN to that he understandeth not. 
624  Necessary to understand our prayers. 
625  The primative Church had never her prayers and service in an unknown tongue. 
627  The latin service was understood in the Countries where it was. 
629  Alleluia is used in all tongues aswell barbarous as others. 
630  The Britan's had no latin service. 
632  Alleluia sung at the plough. 
632  The jesuits manner of alleging impertiment authorities. 
633  Bede doth not say that the people of this Realm had the latin service in his time. 
634  The prayers of the primative Church were common to all the people. 
636  The Mass book proveth that the people should understand the Priest 
639  The Priest needeth no speech in his prayers but to edify the hearers, 
640  Prayer is as acceptable to God in a barbarous, as in a learned tongue. 
642  Service in an unknown tongue is no custom of the universal Church. 
643  The primative church had her service in such tongues as the people understood. 
644  The primative church allowed prayers in barbarous tongues. 
 Whether side cometh nearest to christs institution. 
650  S. Paul by the Lord's supper meaneth the sacrament. 
651  The name Mass whence it first came. 
655  We do not serve from christes institution. 
657  Christ did bless with the mouth, and not with the finger. 
658  Blessing in the scriptures applied to diverse and sundry things 
659  To do any thing upon or over the bread is not needful 
660  The rehearsal of christs words maketh a sacrament. 
661  We show our purpose at the Lords table by our words and deeds. 
662  The word believed maketh the Sacrament. 
664  Vnl●uened bread is not of the substance of the Sacrament 
664  Water is no part of Christ's institution. 
663. & 670  Water is not necessary in the lords cup even by the confession of their own schools. 
668  No water mingled whiles the Apostles lived. 
672  The Mass an open profanation of Christ's institution. 
673  Private Mass everieth all that christ did or said at his last Supper. 
674  Christ did not sacrifice himself at his last supper. 
676  The primative church had no private Mass. 
678  The Lords supper ought to be common. 
679  The Lords cup was delivered to the people as well as the bread. 
679  Christ's precept for the cup extendeth as well to the people as to the Priest. 
680  In the primative church the lords cup was common to all. 
682  The causes for which the church of Rome changed christs institution. 
683  The ancient church of Rome very vehement against half communions. 
684  Forbearing the Lords cup condemned in laymen as sacrilege 
685  Sacrilege in the Priest can be no religion in the people. 
686  The jesuits proofs for their sacrifice. 
687  How the fathers call the lords supper a sacrifice. 
688  Their own Mass book contradicteth their sacrifice. 
690  The Lords death is the sacrifice of the Lords supper. 
691  A memorial of christs passion is our daily sacrifice. 
692  The elder sort of Schoolmen knew not their sacrifice. 
693  The jesuits heap up fathers for a show though they make, nothing for them. 
694  The Sacrifices of the new Testament be spiritual. 
695  What sacrifice it is that Malachi speaketh of. 
696  The Lords Supper is a sacrifice for di●ers respects. 
699  The Priests act can not apply the death of Christ 
700  The jesuits sacrifice. 
701  The word Sacrifice is not used by the holy Ghost. 
702  S. Paul maketh nothing for the sacrifice of the Mass. 
703  Adoration of the sacrament. 
705  The Sacrament must not be adored. 
706  The jesuits proofs for adoration of the Sacrament. 
707  No Father teacheth the adoration of the sacrament. 
708  S. Austen was far from adoring the sacrament. 
709  Christ adored in the mysteries. 
710  chrysostom did not adore the sacrament. 
712  Nazianzene doth not say that his sister adored the sacrament. 
713  Dionysius made no invocation of the Sacrament. 
714  Dionys. corrupted by the jes. 
715  The whole church slandered by the Jesuits. 
716  Origen & Chrys●st. lengthened by the jesuits to serve the adoration of the Sacrament. 
718  origen's words 〈◊〉. 
719  Christ 〈◊〉 our root. 
719  Christ dwelleth in us more truly than in the Sacrament. 
719  The Church directed her prayers to Christ in heaven. 
722  The Sacrament is a corruptible creature. 
722  We must not basely bend our minds on the visible creatures. 
723  The mystical signs must be reverenced, but not adored with Godlike honour. 
724  The signs remain in their former Substance. 
725  The Real presence. 
726  Why the Jesuits mistake the fathers in this matter. 
728  The bread is made God by the Jesuits constructions of Christ's words. 
729  Christ said of the bread this is my body. 
730  The Papists say THIS in the words of Christ is taken for nothing. 
732  The causes why the words of Christ at his last Supper were not literal. 
733  For what cause S. Austen concludeth the words of Christ to be figurative. 
734  The jesuits cannot tell how to make the letter agree with their opinion 
735  The figurative sense of Christ's words avouched by the fathers. 
736  The sign in the Sacrament cannot be the truth. 
739  The 6. of S. john expoundeth the words of the supper 
740  The fathers refer the 6. of john to the lords supper 
741  The fathers themselves refer the 6. of john to the sacrament. 
742  The words in the 6. of john are figurative because the actions are spiritual. 
744  To eat christ is to believe and abide in Christ. 
745  In S. john the manner of eating is spiritual, the manner of speaking is allegorical. 
746  What the Capernits error was. 
746  How the jes. differ from the Capernites. 
748  What fathers the jesuits have for their literal sense & corporal eating. 
750  What the late Grecians meant by pressing the letter. 
751  The Sacrament is a sign of christ on the cross. 
753  In sacraments the signs have the names of the things themselves. 
754  The signs remain in their former substance. 
756  The power and operation of t●● sign is changed. 
75●  The substance of christs flesh doth not enter our mouths. 
759  Christ is not eaten with teeth. 
759  The Jesuits narrowly driven when they must take substance for accidents. 
761  Christ is not eaten with teeth or jaws. 
762  The refutation of Eutiches' error overthroweth transubstantiation. 
764.  Eutiches' error is not refuted but confirmed by the real presence. 
766.  Leoes words do not import the real presence. 
767  The jesuits make the fathers contradict themselves. 
769  That body which entereth our mouths increaseth the substance of our flesh. 
770  What manner of eating Christ in the Sacrament the Church taught for a 1000 years. 
772  The spiritual eating of Christ in the Sacrament excludeth the corporal. 
776  What the Sacramental eating of Christ is. 
778  The wicked do not eat Christ. 
779  The Church of Rome is not yet resolved of her corporal eating of Christ's flesh. 
780  The first Authors of their corporal eating, condemn each others opinion for heresy. 
680  The grossness of Papists worse than carnal o● capernitical. 
782  The Elements may putrefy, the flesh of Christ cannot. 
783  Their sluttish divinity is a necessity sequel to their real presence. 
783  We must ascend to heaven where Christ sitteth in his glory. 
384  Our hearts must be lifted up to heaven, not ●o the he●●. 
785  The true flesh of Christ is in heaven and absent from the earth. 
786  The manhood's of Christ is not in many places at once. 
788  The substance of Christ's body must be contained in one place. 
790.  Christ's manhood is not every where by the very principles of our faith. 
792  How one & the same christ is everywhere present. 
792  The power of God doth never cross his will. 
793  Contradictions be as impossible as falsehoods be. 
796  The Jesuits have not one father for their transubstantiation. 
797  S. Austen horribly forged by friar walden. 
798  Bede used in the same sort by the same friar. 
799  In what sense chrysostom said the mysteries are consumed. 
800  How the Sacrament may be said to be no bread. 
801  Species doth not signify shows without substance. 
803  The Persons of men cannot prejudice the truth of God. 
817  The happiness of our times is god's goodness not our worthiness. 
818  The Jesuits religion is like their subjection. 
819  The Jesuits positions be both traitorous and heretical. 
820.    

Faults escaped.  
The first number noteth the page, the second the line, m. margin, c. correction.  
Page 9 line 18. safely. read falsely. p. 20. l. 25. mercy. The breath. r. mercy, the breach. p. 25. l. 30. Anastasius r. Athanasius. p. 37. l. 38. Tiberius. r, Liberius. p. 63. l. 33 cunning r. coming. p. 64. l. 30. you can. r. Phi. You can. p. 66. l. 14. Seneca. r. Semeca. p. 72. l. 9 Athanasius r. Anastasius. p. 82. m. 4000 r. 1000 p. 93. l. 12. Burdeaus r. Burges. p. 97. l. 24. cattles r. chattels. p. 120 l, 41. convert r. contrive p. 128. l. 32. and if. r, Theo. And if. p. 149. l. 34. Maximus r. Mariaus. p. 173. l. 23. do you not. r, Phil Do you not. p. 180. l. 38. wh●ch spoken r. which is spoken. p. 201. l. 1. adjudge to have r. then to have. p. 204. l, 41. they do r. they may do. p. 228. m. whether the Pope. r. while the Pope. p. 229. l. 38. nec ipse nec alterum r. nec ipse possit alterum. p. 240. l. 13. goodline: r, godliness, p. 259. l. 8, & dare. r you dare. p. 270. l. 23 Protopius r, Procopius. 276, 12. sound r. found. 280. l. 3. resist r. sist. & 26 r. Theo. Sure. p. 301. l, 3. there r. three. 303. 3 your. r our. 35. l. 28. writing r. uttering. 318. l. 2. reasonable r. treasonable. 333. l. 31. perceive r. ● perceive. & 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 39 shaken r. not shaken. p. 337. l. 1. you do r. you not do. p. 339. l. 28. the defence r. you defend. 350. l. 19 maintaining r. maiming. p, 364. l. 42. christian princes r. christians to be. 373. l. 29. precepts r. presence. & 38. seals r. seats. p. 385. m. stay. say. 393. m. in the prayer r. in the praise. p. 407. m. what faces r. what forces. 421.15. others r. oaths 423. l. 37. Foroniliensem r. Foroiuliensem. p. 42●. l. 11. Rhemish r Romish. p. 430. l. 9 Fredrick r. Lodovic 439. l. 25. both r. but. p. 448. l. 43. Pavia r. Papia. 450. m r less than their. 474. l. 8. restrained r. restored. p. 485. l. 20. of Nations r. of all Nations. p. 502. we damned r. we be damned. 505. l. 37. They had. r. Theo. they had. 508.9 & 10. lines deal. p. 512. m. wars r. words. p. 513. m. manifest r. manifold. p. 548. l. 32. though r. ought 551. l. 12 restraining r. esteeming. 567. l. 23. aequè r. deductum aequè. 571 l. 29. salvation r. salutation. ●. 574.11, God r. gods. 586.38. satisfaction r. sanctification. p. 605. l. 30. fond r food. 607. l. 8. Phi. r. Theoph. p. 636 l. 7. We. r. Phil. We. p. 713. m. doth prove r. doth not pro●e 734 l. 3. to the r. to be the. p. 743. l. 33. my life r. any life. 758. l. 20. that is r. this is. p. 759. m. i● eaten r. is not eaten. 760. is pressed. r. is not pressed. 762. l. 38. promises r. premises. p. 773.17. present r. pleasant. 782. m. vide Antonium r. vide Antoninum.  

Quotations in the margin either wanting or falsely printed.  
P. 10. lib. imperf. r. lib. imper. 2. p. 13. lib. 10. r. lib. 1. p. 14. tract. 50. r. tract. 5 p. 20. 2. Cor. 34 r. 2. Chro. 34. p. 48 idem lib. 3 r. lib. 2. p. 57 epist. 90. r. 91. Ibid. in ep. 90. r. 91. p. 66. distin. 39 r. 93. p. 136.37. & 31. r 37. & 38. p. 137. Novel. conceit. 123.133. r. conceit. 5.123.133. p. 157. cap. 74. r. 78. p. 161. isaiah 6. r. Esaie. 60. p. 206. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 4. r. 34. p. 230. Council Afric. cap. 29. r. 92. p. 237. lib. cap. 37. r. lib. 1. cap. 37. p. 259. hom. 2. r. hom. 21. p. 262. 1. Cor. 17. r 1. Cor. 11. p. 265. definite. 8. r. definite. 80. p. 270. Socr. lib. 1. ca 2. r. lib. 2. cap 20.271. c●. 52.1.53.276. cap. 33. r. cap. 31.295. tit. 22. cap. 3. r. cap. 4.3.297. Socr. lib. 4. etc. r. Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 15.344. 1. Cor. r. 1. Cor 5.346. Mat. 16. r. Mat. 10.347. 1, john 10. r 2 john. 1, 351. cap, 5, r. Act. 5, p. 372. lib, r, lib, 5.377, 1480, r, 1580, ibid. 8. Tim, r, 1, Tim, 2, ib●●, ●e 'em, 19, r, 29, 417, fol, 888, r. 288, 422, gener, 23, r, gener, 24, 5●7, lib, 5, r, lib, 8, 581, tract, 44, r, 49, 625, expos, 1. r, expo●, 2.753, octo●● ta●●m, r, octoginta trium, Quotations wanting. 23, to the l, 38, Theod, lib, 4. cap, 1, 45, l, 1, Atha●, apol. contr, Arian, 385, l, r, in john. lib, 12, cap, 96.