A TREATISE OF THE VOCATION OF BISHOPS, AND OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTERS. PROVING THE MINISTERS OF THE PRETENDED REFORMED CHURCHES IN GENERAL, TO HAVE NO CALLING: AGAINST Monsieur du Plessis, and Mr. Doctor Feild: And in particular the pretended Bishops in England, to be no true Bishops. Against Mr. Mason.  
By ANTH. CHAMP. P. and D. of Sorbonne.  
He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbeth up an other way, he is a thief and a robber. joh. 10.1.  
I sent not the Prophets and they ran: I spoke not unto them, and they prophesied. jere. 23.21.  
He cannot be esteemed Bishop, that contemning Apostolical tradition, and succeeding to none, is sprung up from himself: for he can by no means neither have, nor hold the Church, that is not ordained in the Church. S. Cypri. epist. 76. ad Magnum.  
AT DOVAY, By JOHN HEIGHAM. With Licence of Superiors. Anno. 1616.   

TO Mr. GORGE Abbat, CALLED ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.  
MASTER Francis Mason having (as he saith) received from you direction and encouragement, in making his book of the consecration of the Bishops in the Church of England, doth therefore present you with it, as due unto you: And it seemeth to have been to your contentment, as sufficiently performing that, which he pretendeth therein. For (as I have heard) you convented divers Catholic Priests (whom you wrongfully kept in prison) to testify, that they had seen such registers, as he citeth for the justifying of your ordination; esteeming (as may appear) that nothing else wanted for the full clearing of that matter. Which sole action was the first occasion, that made me think of the disproof thereof. For perceiving thereby, that you and your assistants, made reckoning of the book, as of a full justification of your calling, I thought it labour neither idly, nor ill bestowed to make you see, (sithence you either did not, or would not see it before) how far short it cometh of that mark. I address therefore this Treatise unto you, to the end that comparing it with M. Masons Apologetical Dialogue, you may judge whether he hath indeed performed that, which he so confidently affirmeth in the first face of his book: to wit, to have justified the consecration of the Bishops of the Church in England, to contain nothing contrary to the Scriptures, Counsels, and Fathers, or approved example of Primitive antiquity. You may peradventure marvel, that I should put the trial of this matter to you, knowing you so far interested therein as you are. But the reason is, because I hold the negative so evident, that I am persuaded you cannot, without forfeiture of your judgement, determine the contrary.  
If you had not hindered the publication of the book written not many years ago, of this subject, by intercepting the written copy, which, (knowing belike that it cannot be answered) you still retain, I might and would have spared this labour, or have otherways bestowed it. But seeing you are not content, only to hinder the discovery of your no vocation, but do set others on work to maintain and bolster it up, to the prejudice of the truth, you cannot justly complain, if by this occasion, that be laid open to the view of the world, which you desire should remain unseen, and unknown.  
If you find yourself proved here to be no Bishop, but a mere Usurper of that title, I will desire (though I cannot greatly hope) that you should either depose it, or at lest make yourself capable thereof. But if you think there is no such thing here performed, I will expect that you should encourage either M. Mason, or some other, to satisfy the arguments here proposed to prove the same. If not, your silence shall be interpreted an acknowledgement of that where with you are here charged, that is, of your no lawful ministry and ordination, and consequently of your no Church, no Faith, no mean of salvation. All which important consequences evidently follow, of your want of lawful calling and ordination. And so wishing you with all my heart, as much love to the Ctholike truth (without which your soul shall never see with joy the face of jesus Christ) as you show hatred against it; I leave you to his holy disposition, who would have all men saved, 
1. Tim. 2.4.  and to come to the knowledge of his truth.  
Your servant and friend as you are Gods and his Churches: A. CHAMPNEY.   

The Preface to the Reader.  
IF Master Mason (court●ous Reader) in his Book of the consecration of the Bishops in the Church of England, had either directly proved their lawful calling, or impugned that of the Bishops of the Catholic Roman church, he might have expected from his Catholic adversaries some answer to the same. But seeing he pretendeth only to clear them, from the just imputations laid upon them by Catholic Authors (which he calleth slanders) and thereby maketh himself only Defendant, he cannot with any reason, expect from them any reply, in form of answer, to his book. For there are few but know this difference between the defendant, and the Plaintiff or Appellant: that the Defendant must necessarily answer to all and every objection brought against him whereas the Appellant is not bound to reply, to his answers made to every objection, but may (if he think good to impugn either his answers, or the cause he maintaineth) make his choice of one, two, three, or more, as he shall think most for his advantage. Which if he can in such sort enforce against his adversary, as he is not able to satisfy them, he shall clearly gain his cause against him. For example, he that being accused of felony, or treason, and therefore defedant, is necessarily constrained to answer to all, and every important accusation laid against him, and if he fail in the answer but of one only, he will be found guilty; whereas his adversary being appellant, is not tied for the evicting of his cause, to reply upon his answer to every accusation, but may make free choice of such, and so many, either of his former accusations, or any other, as he findeth fittest for his purpose, which if he can press in such sort, as the defendant cannot avoid them, he shall convict him to be guilty. M. Mason therefore making himself merely Defendant in this quarrel, is not to expect that I, intending as Appellant, to prove their Bishops to have no lawful calling, should reply upon every parcel of his whole book, in form of answer to that which he saith. For besides that this would cost both me, and the Reader more labour, than the thing is worth, it is no way necessary for my purpose: which is not to answer him (who making himself Defendant hath the place of the answerer) but to impugn the thing that he would maintain; which whether I have performed effectually or not, notwithstanding the answers which he hath already made in this his book, I leave to the censure of the judicious though otherwise partial Reader.  
Furthermore M. Mason thorough his whole Book making choice only of such arguments, as he thinketh good to propose against himself, and urging them only so far, as he thinketh he can make some show of solving them (like unto little children that build Castles of Tile-shards, and afterwards please themselves in throwing them down) cannot hope that his adversary should favour him so far, as (leaving his best advantage either in the choice of his arguments, or in the manner of urging them) to bestow his time and travel in refuting the answers, which he frameth to his own objections. This favourable course (to deal plainly) I intent not to hold with M. Mason. Yet will I promise' him, that where I find he saith any thing, either for the preventing, or answering any argument here by me proposed, it shall not be dissembled, but set down in his own words, and peradventure urged farther, than it is by him, which is as much, as he can with any reason expect at my hands in this cause. But, (to note this by the way) why is M. Mason so could in this matter of their calling, that he proposeth not to himself to prove it, neither by Scripture, Traditions, Counsels, nor Fathers, (all which kind of proofs he knoweth to be authentical with us) but only pretendeth to clear it from the slanders, 
In the face of his book.  and odious imputations of the Romanists, and to justify it to contain nothing contrary to the Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, or approved examples of primitive antiquity. It is known they exact of Catholics with all rigour and instance, positive and precise proof of Scripture for their doctrine in all points of controversy. Why doth not therefore M. Mason bring at lest such proofs, of Traditions, Counsels, or Fathers (which he knoweth are not rejected by us) for their new ministry, but contenteth himself with the buckler, and standeth only upon his defence? Mary for this reason: that neither Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, or Traditions yield him any one positive proof of their vocation; or if they do, I challenge him to produce it, and he shall gain his cause. Neither will I bind him to find his proofs out of the Fathers within the first five hundredth years after Christ, 
D. Humfray in the life of jewel saith he gave the Papists to large● scope: and M. Fulk hath the like in his Retentive. pag. 55.  as M. jewel did in his bragging challenge, and yet was reprehended by his brethren for being over liberal: but I give him for this purpose the whole 1500. years.  
Again, (to come yet more near him) what doth he think is sufficient, to clear and justify their calling, to contain nothing contrary to the Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, and Antiquities? Will he say it is a sufficient justification of this point, not to be driven by force of argument, to confess that it is against the Scriptures Fathers, & c.? If he will say so, I make no doubt, but he hath or will justify the consecrations, and calling of their Bishops and Ministers, to contain nothing contrary to the Scripture etc. But though he be absurd enough in many things, as will appear hereafter, yet I cannot think him so absurd as to affirm this. For so shall he be constrained to confess, that the Arrians, and all the obstinate heretics that ever have been, have justified their heresies to contain nothing contrary to scripture etc. none of them having yet ever been constrained by force of argument, to confess their doctrine to be contrary thereunto.  
He will peradventure say, that over and besides this, he will show the objections made against their Bishops, to be but slanders, and odious imputations. But how will he show this? by any other means, then by such, as the Arrians, and all other heretics pretended to show, the arguments of the Catholic Doctors against their heresies, to be but slanders? that is by making show of framing some kind of answer to them, that they might not be said to be overcome, and forced to grant the falsity of their heresy. In this sort surely and no other, doth M. Mason justify the consecration, and calling of their Bishops to contain nothing contrary to scripture, as will appear in the process of our dispute.  
And now must I acquaint thee (good reader) with the reason for which, having undertaken to prove the nullity, of our new English Bishops their consecrations, and calling, against M. Mason, I enlarge myself so far, as to disprove also that, of all the other falsely termed reform churches; which reason is this. Knowing that the whole multitude of heresies, that p●ster the world at this time (as likewise all other which have, or shallbe) are by no one kind of argument so easily and evidently refuted, as by that of the calling of their pastors: And having occasion offered me by M. Masons braving apology for the Protestant Bishops of England, to show the nullity of their consecration and vocation; Which though it have the greatest outward appearance of lawful calling, of any other of the new stamp, and therefore it being refuted the rest might be thought to be sufficiently refuted with it yet it being proper only to the pretended church of England, yea and not to that wholly (the Puritans, Brownists, Familians, and Anabaptists disclaiming from it as papistical and superstitious) I considered that it was not to any great purpose, for the impugning of all these heresies, to refel it alone and leave the others untouched. Therefore I resolved to make this treatise general, and to show that no one of the new churches, called of the reformation, have any true pastors, and consequently cannot be any true churches, nor therefore have any true faith, or means of salvation. And because in all good method those questions, that treat of matters more general, go before those that handle the more particular, therefore in my discourse, have those questions the first place, that treat of the more general points pertaining to this matter.  
Yet because my purpose is specially to disprove the calling, and consecration of the Bishops in England, as well for that it is peculiar to our own country, (and it being disproved, the rest can have no great probability, for that it hath more show of true calling then all the rest) as also for that the calling of the ministers of the French churches, which are the same with our Puritans, is already unanswerably refuted, by that famous prelate, and terror of the heretics of those days Cardinal of Perron, in a proper treatise of that subject, set forth long since, yet never answered, and so much thereof hereafter related, as pertaineth to the matter there in question, for these reasons (I say) I stand longer upon that point by much, then upon all the rest. If M. Mason or any other, shall think good, to continued the defence of this cause, let him frame a pertinent answer to the arguments here proposed, and he may expect a like reply, if God give health and assistance. In the mean while if thou (courteous reader) canst make any use of this my travail, for the maintaining of the Catholic truth, and rooting out of the contrary, either in thyself or others, I shall esteem my pains very sufficiently recompensed and so I commend thee to God's holy grace.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK.  

1. Chapter. THe true reason why so many in these days do err in faith, and that many more have difficulty to found the true faith. Page 1.  
2. Chap. Certain principles of this present controversy touching the vocation of Ecclesiastical ministers or magistrates confessed and agreed upon as well by Protestants as by Catholics. page 9  
3. Chap. It is no sufficient proof of lawful calling to ministry of God's word and Sacraments, that any one be judged either by himself, or others, or both, fit and able to exercise that charge and function. pa. 13.  
4. Chap. That one judged by himself or others fit for the ministering of God's word and Sacraments, though such as are in office are supposed not to discharge rightly their duties, cannot lawfully take upon him that office, as sufficiently called thereunto: neither is such a judgement and opinion any sufficient calling. pag. 15.  
5. Chap. That the truth of doctrine is not a sufficient proof of true and lawful calling to the ministry of God's word and Sacraments, nor is it any assured means for a preacher and pastor, to prove himself authentically called to that charge, for him to allege that the doctrine which he teacheth is good and true. page 41.  
6. Chap. That the sole election of the people is not a sufficient warrant and calling to the lawful ministry of God's word and Sacraments. page 54.  
7. Chap. Not all ordination, consecration, or imposition of hands is a sufficient calling to the administration of God's word and Sacraments. page 63.  
8. Chap. The defects found in the callings to the ministry hitherto refuted cannot be supplied by any extraordinary calling, not is there now in the church of Christ, any extraordinary calling to the ministry of God's word and Sacraments. page 78.  
9 Chap. Not all external ordination, or consecration by such as bear the name and pretend to be Bishops, is a sufficient and true calling to the ministry of God's word and Sacraments. page 115.  
10. Chap. The calling of the now English superintendents cannot be lawful, supposing that of the Bishops of the Roman church, from which it is taken, to be unlawful. page 130.  
11. Chap. Cranmer continued not lawful Bishop till his death. page 141.  
12. Chap. That the Bishops made in King Edward's days were no true, or lawful Bishops. page 151.  
13. Chap. The whole essential matter, and form of Episcopal order consist not in imposition of hands, and these words, receive thou the holy ghost. page 158.  
14. Chap. That M. Parker bearing sometime the name of Archbishop of Canterbury, was not true and lawful Bishop .. page 188.  
15. Chap. That M. Grindall, M. Horn with the rest preferred to Bishoprics in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign were not true, and lawful Bishops. page 202.  
16. Chap. Of the oath of the Prince's supremacy, for denying whereof the old Bishops were deprived. page 218.  
17. Chap. Those that succeeded M. Parker, and the rest in the places of Bishops, down to this present day, neither were nor are true, and lawful Bishops. page 241.  
18. Chap. That neither the present superintendents in England have, nor their Protestant predecessors ever had any lawful Episcopal jurisdiction. page 310.    

APPROBATIO DOCTORUM.  
Nos infrascripti legimus diligenter librum Anglicè scriptum cuius titulus est. Tractatus de vocatione Episcoporum & aliorum Ecclesiae ministrorum: quo omnes cuiuscunque praetensae reformationis ministelli legitimacarere vocatione probantur, contra Plesseum & Fieldeun: quo etiam peculiariter praesentes Angliae superintendentes falsò Episcopi vocari convincuntur, contra Masonium: Antho. Champneo Doctore Sorbonico authore. In eoque nihil invenimus quod sacrosanctae fidei Catholicae, Apostolicae, Romanae repugnet, vel morum sanctitati praeiudicet, quinimo veritatem Catholicam doctè & neruose propugnat, & contrariam haeresim solidè, detegit & confutat, quare dignissimum iudicamus qui ad utilitatem publicam gentis Anglorum praelo mandetur ut publicetur.  
Parisijs 29. januarij 1616. Frater Gabriel de S. Maria Theologiae Doctor, Theologus Macloviensium, Benedictinorum Macloviensium Prior, & pro tempore insignis monasterij & ordinis Fontisebrardensis visitator. Guilielmus Bishope Theologicae facultatis Parisiensis Doctor.   

Henricus Dei & sanctae sedis Apostolicae gratia Parisiensis Episcopus, Omnibus praesentes inspecturis salutem in Domino.  
Notum facimus quod viso publico testimonio quo duo suprascripti Doctores Theologi nationis Anglicae sanctè professi sunt diligenter se legisse librum Anglico idiomate scriptum de vocatione Episcoporum & aliorum Ecclesiae ministrorum etc. Authore Anthonio Champnaeo Doctore Sorbonico. In eoque nihil inven isse quod sacrosancta: fidei Romanae repugnet, vel morum sanctitati praeiudicet, quinimo veritatem Catholicam doctè & neruosè propugnat, contrariamque haeresim detegit & refutat: pernisimus praedicto M. Antho. Champneo illum in lucem emittere.  
Datum Parisijs die tertia Februarij 1616. De mandato praefati R mi. Domini mei Domini Parisiensis Episcopi. Baudowyn.   

THE APPROBATION OF DOCTORS.  
We underwritten have diligently read a book written in English, entitled. A treatise of the vocation of Bishops and other Ecclesiastical ministers, wherein all the ministers of whatsoever pretended reformation are proved to have no lawful calling: against M. du Plessis and D. Field: and wherein the present superintendentes in England are convinced not to be true Bishops▪ against M. Mason. By Antho. Champeny Doctor of Sorboune: and have found nothing therein contrary either to the holy Catholic, apostolic, and Roman faith, or good manners: but the Catholic truth learnedly and forcibly maintained, and the contrary heresy sound confuted and detected; wherefore we judge it very worthy to be published in print for the public profit of all English men.  
At Paris the 29. of januarie 1616. Brother Gabriel of S. Mary's D. in Divinity, Theologall of S. Maloes', Prior of the Benedictins of S. Maloes', and for the present visitor of the renowned monastery and order of Fonteurauld. William Bishop Doctor of divinity of the faculty of Paris.   

THE BISHOP OF PARISH HIS PERMISSION for the printing of the same Book.  
Henry by the grace of God and of the holy see apostolic Bishop of Paris: To all those that shall see these presents, health in our Lord. Be it known that upon the sight of the public testimony of the above written Doctors in divinity of the English nation, wherein they faithfully profess to have diligently read a book in English written in English entitled. A treatise of the vocation of Bishops and other Ecclesiastical ministers etc. By Ant. Champney Doctor of Sorboune: and that they have found nothing therein repugnant either to the holy Catholic Roman faith, or good manners, but contrariwise that the Catholic truth is therein learnedly and forcibly maintained, and the contrary heresy detected and confuted, we have permitted the said Anth. Champney to put it forth.  
Given at Paris the 3. of February 1616. By the commandment of the aforesaid my most Reverend Lord the L. Bishop of Paris. Baudowyn.   

A TREATISE OF THE VOCATION OF BISHOPS AND other Ecclesiastical Ministers.  

The first Chapter. The true reason why so many in these days do err in faith, and that many more have difficulty to find the true faith.  
IF men were but half as circumspect and wary, in those things that appertain to their eternal felicity, as usually they are in those that concern their temporal prosperity, (whereas reason would they should be more) they could not be so often and foully deceived in them, as they are. For God of his infinite goodness and equal wisdom, hath provided them of means to avoid all error and deceit, in the things pertaining to their eternal felicity, by so much more easy and assured, then in the affairs of this world, by how much more the error or deceit in them, is more hurtful and less recou●rable, then in these: and therefore in respect of them, hath he promised to make a way so plain and direct, that the very fools shall not err or go astray in it, 
Esay 35.8.  which he hath no where promised in respect of these.  
1. How cometh it then to pass, (will some say) that so many do daily err, and many more do greatly complain, of the difficulty in finding the true way to salvation: And not without reason as it seemeth, there being so many divers ways proposed, whereof every one is avouched by some to be the only true way? The reason hereof is easily given, and the remedy of the evil which it bringeth, as easily found, and not with much more difficulty practised, if men be willing to embrace it.  
2. The principal yea peradventure the sole reason, why so many (not only now adays, but in all times) have and do go astray from the way of salvation erring from the true faith with out which it is impossible to please God; 
Heb. 11.6.  and that many more have difficulty to find the same: is because they first seek to know what they should believe, before they know, or seek to know whom they should believe, or of whom they should learn their faith and belief. This to some may peradventure at the first, seem either improbable, or at lest doubtful. Because it may be thought little to import of whom a man knoweth, or is taught the truth, so that he know it indeed: as in the like case, it importeth little or naught at all, of whom, or by whose counsel or means a sick man recovereth his health, so that he be truly cured: or by whom he that is bound for Jerusalem (for example) is taught the way, so that he be showed the true way. Yet that which I said is most true, as shall manifestly appear even by these familiar examples proposed. For if a sick man or traveler should consult and take directions, the one for his health, the other for his journey, of such as are as little skilful in these matters as themselves, are they not in evident danger to be deceived? And if they inquire of others, of whose knowledge they have no more assurance, then of the first, they may well be brought into more doubt and perplexity (one telling them one thing, and another the quit contrary) but they shall be never a whit further, the one from danger of going astray in his journey, the other from increasing his disease. Evident therefore it is, that the first thing these men are ro seek, is to know, who can give them true directions, and teach them how to find that which they seek, and which they desire to find.  
3. And this will be much more evident, if we put the case, that these men know, or at lest may most easily know, that there are appointed by public authority men to direct and guide them in all their doubts and difficulties, whose directions and advise if they follow they shall not be deceived: and withal are farther advertised, that there are others, who upon pretext of more skill than is in those that are publicly authorized, will not only offer their counsel and advise, but will thrust it upon men, as the only necessary mean to find that which they desire: whose counsel notwithstanding and advise if they follow, they shall without fail be deceived. These two things (I say) supposed, it is most clear, that he that will not in these cases be deceived, must necessarily first and before all things seek to know who can truly instruct, and direct him in his doubts, as appointed thereunto by public authority, that afterwards he may securely learn of him or them what he is to do, and what course he is to hold, for the attaining of that he desireth; whether it be the recovery of his health, or the prosperous atchiving of his journey.  
4. Even so and no otherwise doth it far with all Christians, in the great and weighty affair of their eternal felicity. For there is no Christian but either knoweth, or may most easily know these two things. First that God hath authorised and established here upon earth public Officers, and Pastors to direct and guide all men in the true way to life everlasting, and to teach them the only true faith: whose directions and conduct whosoever followeth, shall not go astray nor err. Secondly, that there are others, who having no commission or authority at all in these affairs, do not withstanding take upon them the charge of Teachers and Guides in this weighty business, pretending to have more skill, and knowledge therein, (and therefore more right to that office and function) than the publicly authorised Pastors have: but indeed, teaching false doctrine, and new ways of their own invention, lead all their followers into eternal ruin. There is nothing more evident and certain, to those that believe the holy Scriptures than these two things. For God by his wisdom foreseing that the ignorance or error in either of these things could not stand with the true mean to bring men to life everlasting: (the error in the first, taking away the mean to know, whom they should follow or believe; and the error in the second, not permitting them to know whom they should fly and avoid) hath himself most clearly and evidently testified both the one and the other in the received and acknowledged text of his sacred word. 
Math. 28.19.20.   
5. The first is testified in these words: Going teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
Pastors are appointed by God to teach 〈◊〉 ●uth.  and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things, which I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Here we see commission given and Pastors appointed to teach all men, all things, which are to be observed, for the gaining of the kingdom of heaven: and this commission is to last until the end of the world. And that we should not fear that they might deceive us, teaching that which they aught not, or which is against their master's doctrine: 
Luc. 10.16.  he saith unto them else where. He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me: whereby we are taught, with what security and confidence we both may and aught to embrace their instructions and follow their conduct. 
Ephes. 4.11.12, 13.  The same verity is delivered by S. Paul in these words. He gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet in the unity of faith. Where we see Commissioners appointed by sovereign authority, to teach and instruct all men to their eternal salvation, and their commission to endure for ever until the world shall fail. The true function and charge of which Teachers, the Apostle declareth in the words following, to be the certain knowledge of the truth, saying: That now we be not children wavering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine. And these so clear testimonies of the holy Ghost, are more than sufficient to convince this verity, though it were gainsaied by any, as it is not. For none of those that glory in the falsely named reformation, do deny, that God hath appointed Pastors in his Church to teach his people the truth of his doctrine: or that all men are bound to hear, and learn of them, as shall appear more amply hereafter.  
6 The second point before mentioned, is as manifestly testified by the warning which our Saviour giveth us in these words, Take ye great heed of false Prophets, which come to you in the clothing of sheep, 
Math. 7.15.  but inwardly are ravening wolves. And S. Paul in like manner. I know that after my departure, 
False teachers foretold.  there will ravening wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of this kind of cattles, are we so often and so plainly forewarned in holy Scripture, 
Acts 20.29.  that wonder it is, that any one that pretendeth to believe scripture, should be so deluded by them, as we daily see many are. But the true reason hereof is that which was said before, that men having small regard of their eternal felicity, do not care what masters they follow or of whom they learn their belief, and other things necessary for their salvation: whereas they should first with competent diligence seek out those masters who are by sovereign authority otdained to teach them, (who are not hard to be found, as shall by and by appear) and then with like diligence, but with all security learn, what they aught to believe and do. For seeing God hath so evidently testified that he hath provided such guides to direct us in the true way to eternal felicity, as following them we follow himself; and further that if we follow any other teaching contrary to them, we shall follow ravening wolves, what fair show so ever they make: who can doubt but the first thing, that any man that desireth to save his soul, is to seek to know who those guides appointed by God are, that having found them, he may securely learn of them the true way to everlasting life.  
7. Though this discourse be of itself clear, and evident, yet because it is a certain ground of that which is to be said hereafter, it will not be amiss to confirm it yet further, for which purpose serve most fitly these words of S. Paul. 
Rom. 10.13.14.  Whosoever shall invocate the name of the Lord shall be saved, how then shall they invocate him, in whom they have not believed? or how shall they believe him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a Preacher? and how shall they preach unless they be sent? Thus saith Saint Paul. Whereby it is evident, that before we can know, what we aught to believe, we must first know, whom we aught to believe. For seeing we cannot (as S. Paul saith) believe, unless we hear or be taught, and that we cannot hear and be taught by every one, but only by such as are sent, and authorised to teach us, we must necessarily, unless we wittingly be deceived, first and before all things seek to know, who those are that have commission, warrant, and authoriry to teach us, that of them we securely learn what we are to believe.  
And this course or order of learning our faith, so plainly expressed in holy Scripture, is also most conformable to that method which nature herself observeth in teaching us natural observeth knowledge: first making known unto us the things that are most easy, that by the help thereof, we may raise our thoughts, and studies to higher and more obscure matters. So the heathen Philosophers by the knowledge of God's creatures rose up to the knowledge of their Creator, 
Rom. 1.  as S. Paul witnesseth. Therefore it being a far more easy thing, to know who those are that are authorized, and appointed to teach us our faith, than it is to know what our faith is, or what we aught to believe: As it is a far more easy thing in any commonwealth, to know who is a true and lawful judge, then to know what is right judgement in any difficult case in law. We are bound under pain of perverting, not only Gods express ordinance, declared out of holy Scripture, but also the course of nature itself in learning our faith. First to learn who can teach us our belief, as being authorized thereunto, and then after to learn of them, what we aught to believe.  
8 The same thing is yet made more manifest by this evident reason. Faith is a knowledge, which is not gotten by subtlety of wit, or diligent study (being above the reach of either) but only by authority and revelation, 
Rom. 10.17.  Saint Paul testifying that faith it had by hearing. Therefore they only, whom God appointeth to teach unto others those things which it pleaseth him to reveal, are able to teach us what we aught to believe, or what is revealed from God: and if any other undertake to teach us contrary thereunto, we may and aught undoubtedly to esteem their doctrine, not to be revealed from God, but to be invented by themselves. 
Rom. 10.  For how can they reveal unto us Gods most hidden secrets, being not sent, nor instructed by him therein? and this is S. Paul's own argument in the place before cited. And most ancient Tertullian deduceth the same reason in this sort. If our Lord jesus Christ hath sent his Apostles to preach, 
De prescriptio. cap. 21.  other Preachers than they whom Christ sent, are not to be received, because (lo the reason) neither doth any but the Son know the Father, and to whom the Son hath revealed him, neither hath the Son revealed him to any, but the Apostles whom he sent to preach that which he hath revealed.  
9 Here some may say, seeing we have the holy Scriptures, wherein God hath revealed unto us all his will and council, what great necessity is there of other Teachers, or why may not every one instruct, and inform himself by Gods written word, without seeking out any other master to be taught by? 
The Scriptures teach us as well the manner how to learn our belief by our Pastors, ●s what woe are to believe: and that is first to be learned.  This same question is so far from showing that Pastors are not necessary in God's Church that it showeth them to be most necessary, notwithstanding the use of the written word of God. For seeing there are some that read the holy Scriptures, and yet do not found therein the necessity of Pastors, though so expressly contained in them, as the places before cited do show they are, is it not evident that they had need of teachers, to make them see, what is revealed to them in holy Scriptures? For with those, that make this objection I would argue thus. Either you find in the holy Scriptures the necessity of Pastors, Doctors, and Teachers to be in God's church, notwithstanding the benefit of the written word of God, or you find no such thing at all: if you found it, then must you believe it, as being taught by God's holy word, if you believe the Scripture: if you find it not, then had you much more need of Pastors, and Doctors to teach you the contents of holy Scripture, seeing you do not find in them that, which they so expressly contain.  
Where it is to be observed, that this argument concludeth not only directly against those, that admit not the necessity of Pastors and Doctors in God's Church (if any should deny them) but also indirectly against those that either say, the Pastors may be judged by their sheep in matter of doctrine: or that the decision of the question of the calling of Pastors aught not necessarily go before the decision of other questions of doctrine, when there is doubt of both. As for example, that the examination of this question, whether Luther, had true calling, and consequently was true Pastor or not, aught not to go before the examination of this point of his doctrine, whether after the fall of Adam man have free-will or no: and the like. For first, it is evidently against the nature and instruction of Pastors, and Doctors, to be guided and taught by those over whom they have the charge of Teachars and Governors. But if they chance to err, they are to be taught and judged by other Pastors, and not by their own sheep: because the Disciple cannot be above his master. Secondly, when any one is found to teach new doctrine, and is not known from whence he cometh, or who sent him to preach that doctrine, his calling and commission is first of all to be examined, and afterwards his doctrine; and not first his doctrine, and then his calling. And the reason is, not only because it is more easy to know when a man hath true calling, 
Act. n. 7.  than which is true doctrine (as is said before) and therefore men are not so subject to be deceived in the one as in the other but also because, if he be found without true calling, let his doctrine be never so true, he shall be esteemed a rebel and traitor to God and his Church, and all those that follow him, and therefore can have no right to dispute of doctrine as a Pastor but aught to hear and learn of the true Pastors as a sheep, though he esteem himself never so fit and able to teach others. For not he that commendeth himself is approved, 
2 Cor. 10.17  but whom God commendeth As in the like cause every officer or magistrate executing any office in the name of the Prince, must first show his letters whereby he hath power to execute that office, before he can justify his proceed in the same, whether they be according to equity or Noah. 
See the reason hereof in the 2. and 3. cap. n. 2.  For let them be never so just and upright, yet if he be found to have no commission to exercise that office, both he and all those that obey him, shall be judged rebels, and traitors to his Prince. So that by this whole discourse it remaineth manifest, that he that will not err, and be deceived in his belief, which importeth his eternal salvation, must first seek ●o know (if he know it not already) whom he may believe in matter of faith, and then study to know of them, what he must believe; and not first seek to know, what he must believe, before he know who may teach him, as having authority thereunto. This ground being laid as partly confessed of all parts, and proved by manifest testimony of holy Scripture, and evident natural reason, it only remaineth to search out by what assured means they may be known, who are by God's sovereign power and authority, approved and appointed to teach and govern his people in true faith, or in the true way to salvation, which being no harder to be known, (as by the ensuing discourse, shall appear) than the civil magistrates, and officers in any commonwealth or kingdom, are known and discerned from usurpers, and intruders; the way to eternal felicity will appear to be so plain and direct as the very foolish (unless they be wilfully and wittingly blind) cannot go astray therein. 
Esai. 35.8.  And therefore that which was said in the beginning of this Chapter is found evidently true, that if men were but half as wary, and careful, in those things that appertain to their eternal felicity, as they customarily are in those that belong to their temporal estates, they could not be so foully deceived therein, as daily experience teacheth they are.  
The whole drift and scope therefore of this ensuing discourse is, to show who those are whom we aught to believe, or who they are that have authority from God to teach us our faith and belief.   

The second Chapter. Certain principles of this present controversy touching the vocation of Ecclesiastical ministers or magistrates confessed and agreed upon as well by Protestants as by Catholics.  
1. FOR the avoiding of superfluous, and needles questions, and also that our dispute may proceed both more groundedly and with better order, I think it not amiss before I go any farther to set down some grounds and principles pertaining to this present controversy, wherein either party contending doth agreed, and which do specially serve for the true decision of the whole matter in question. Where I would have thee (judicious reader) to note by the w●y, that it is the Protestants ministry only (so I term for this time all the pretended Reformists) that is in question, whether it have any lawful calling or no. For the vocation of the Catholic Roman Priests and Pastors, was never by their adversaries called into question or dispute. A thing worthy of special note, as an evident argument, that it is clearly good and Canonical; or at lest sufficient, otherwise it could not have escaped the severe censure, of some one at lest, of so many most bitter and serpentin eyed enemies, as have these many hundredth years for one quarrel or other sought the overthrow of that church. To which purpose they could never, or ever can have so effectual a mean, as to show her Pastors to have no lawful calling. But this being so out of all controversy, as they could not fasten upon her any light suspicion thereof, they always have chosen to impugn her by other means, ever leaving this untouched; which notwithstanding if she were not, or had not been the true spouse and church of Christ, would first have been espied, and most hotly persecuted. But this by the way only. Now let us go forward.  

Confess: of. Geneva art. 29. & 31. Confess: of England art. 23.  2. The Protestants agreed with the Catholics first, that the office and charge of preaching, and ministering Sacraments in God's church, requireth necessarily a special power and authority, to the lawful and available exercise thereof. Which is to say that if any man undertake to exercise the same, not having such authority, his fact shall not only be unlawful and wicked, but also void and without all effect, as being destitute of sufficient power and commission, They therefore that shall attempt any such fact, without authority, and not only they, but all their followers and favourers, are guilty of sacrilegious rebellion against God and his church. And the reason is manifested. For who soever exerciseth any office not in his own, but in another man's name, and doth it without his warrant and commission, doth him manifest injury, usurping his authority (the most valued and esteemed right that any man enjoyeth:) and if the thing attempted be of moment, and the party whose authority is usurped, be his sovereign, as both happen in this case of preaching, and ministering Sacraments in the church, the usurper and all his abettors, by the avow of all men, cannot be but guilty of treason, and manifest rebellion. For fuller confirmation and declaration whereof (though manifest in itself, and not denied by the Protestants themselves) because it is a point of exceeding consequence, it will not be inconvenient, to bring one such testimony of holy scripture, as may serve both for an instruction, and motive to all sorts of men to abhor such sacrilegious usurpation. To which purpose the dreadful judgement which God executed upon Core and his complices, is most proper. The story is written in the book of Numbers, 
Numbers cap. 16.  and in brief is this. Core being only a Levite, and therefore could not by his office offer sacrifice●, which belonged only to Priests to do, murmured against Aaron the heigh priest, accusing him and Moses to the people of tyranny, as if they took unto themselves, the office of Priesthood, and debarred others from the same, whereas the whole number of God's people was holy and fit to exercise that function, as well as they. To his seditious suggestion, hearkened Dathan and Abiron, who were not so much as of the tribe of Levi, and drew with them many of the common people, whose sacrilegious rebellion God speedily and severely punished, for the perpetual example of all others. For Core with 250. of his complices, presuming (for trial of their right in the office of priesthood) to offer incense with Aaron, were all consumed with fire from heaven, and their censors by Gods special appointment, beaten into plates, and nailed upon the Altar, for a perpetual memory of God's wrath upon those sacrilegious rebels, and for a warning that none should dare to attempt the like after them: and thus perished the principal offenders. Their favourers and abettors, Dathan and Abiron with their wives, children, and whatsoever belonged unto them, were swallowed up by a hideous, and dreadful opening of the earth under them, and they descending quick into hell, received due punishment for their seditious conjuration. Neither did Gods justice cease thus; For the next day, the people murmuring against Moses and Aaron, as if they had slain the innocent, and for this cause moving a new sedition, God slew with fire from heaven 14000. and 700. of them, and God's wrath was appeased by Aaron's offering of incense. This history so authentically recorded by the holy Ghost for our learning (as S. Paul saith of all the rest that is written) abundantly showeth how grievous an offence it is before God, 
Rom. 15.4.  to usurp the office of his Priests, and to intrude upon his church, exercising ecclesiastical functions without lawful calling or commission, or any way to favour or further the same. Of which enormous crime whether our new masters of reformation, and their adherents, favourers, and followers be not guilty, will appear by the process of this ensuing Treatisse.  
3. And it is to be observed, that if they have no other means to clear themselves from the crime of Core, and his complices, but by disclaiming from having any power to offer sacrifice, in the usurpation whereof, his offence did consist, they will nevertheless, yea though they did not heretically err in denying all such power) infallibly be found guilty of his offence. For Core offended by thrusting himself into ecclesiastical or spiritual office, whereunto he was not called, nor had any authority to practise it which if these men be proved also to do, they shall also be convinced of the like crime in general, though with some difference in the particular. As he for example that usurpeth the dominion or government of one town or city only against his sovereign, is no less truly a traitor and rebel, than he that usurpeth the government of a whole province or country; though the rebellion of the one be greater, then that of the other.  

French Catechism sunday 45.  4. Secondly the Protestant's do grant and acknowledge together with the Catholics, that the office of preaching and ministering sacraments is by Christ his institution so necessary, that without it the church of God (the ordinary course of providence already established remaining) cannot be conserved, and therefore that there must of necessity be Pastors ordained in the same, for the lawful exercise and practise of this office and charge.  

This necessarily followeth of the other, and is too clear to be denied.  5. Thirdly they also grant with the Catholics, that none can have the authority necessarily required to the lawful exercise of the office of Pastor in God's church, unless he receive it from God, by our saviour Christ: to whom is given all power in heaven and earth. And who sendeth others to preach and minister sacraments, 
Math. 28.18. Io. 20.21. Hebr. 5.5.  as his father sent him: and therefore can no man of his own authority take upon himself this charge. S Paul saying expressly, that no man taketh upon him this honour, but he that is c●lled of God as Aaron. Which is so certain and infallible, that it is also true in our saviour Christ himself, who, (as the same Apostle in the same place saith) did not glorify himself that he might be made high priest, but he that spoke unto him thus: My son art thou, this day I have begotten thee. These principles being granted and acknowledged as evident truths by the Protestants themselves; that it may appear whether their ministers be true and lawful pastors or not, it remaineth to see, whether they have received this power from our saviour Christ. For if they have ●ot, they will according to the former grounds granted by themselves as certain truths, be found not only no true Pastors, but thieves and robbers, with which names and titles, our Saviour himself doth style them, that enter into his sheepfold which is his church, 
●o. 10.1.2.  not by his authority, who is the door, but climb up another way. Where it is to be observed, that these too things: to wit, to have true authority or calling; and to have true and sufficient proof of the same, are not here nicely or metaphysically distinguished, but they are supposed to be all one, and for as much as pertaineth to the question in hand, it is all one not to have any authority at all, and to have no proof or constat of it: and therefore he that cannot make it appear by sufficient proof, that he hath a lawful calling to the ministery of god's word, and sacraments, is truly judged to have none at all. Hence forward therefore shallbe particularly examined the proofs which the Protestants themselves do bring for their calling.   

The third Chapter. It is no sufficient proof of lawful calling to the ministers of God's word and sacraments, that any one be judged either by himself, or other, or both, fit and able to exercise that charge and function.  
1. IN this chapter (as likewise in those that follow) is mention only made of preaching and ministering sacraments, not because these be the only functions belonging unto the pastors of God's church, but because these are granted by all Protestants to belong to that office, and are sufficient for the deciding of the present controversy, without involving other questions, (of power to offer sacrifice, to make laws or canons,) not necessary for this purpose. Which observation made; for the resolution of the question proposed, I suppose (as a thing so clear and evident, as can need no proof) that there is some certain means, whereby both Pastors may so fully and sufficiently prove their lawful mission, that they to whom they are sent, cannot justly doubt thereof; and also whereby Christian people may be so assured of their canonical calling, that they need not stand in fear, to receive a wolf or a thief in steed of a Pastor or Shepherd, at lest, forsomuch as belongeth to his calling or commission. For if there were no such assured means to know this, our saviour Christ should have small reason so often to warn his people to beware of false prophets, wolves, thieves, and robbers. For how can they beware of them, whom they have no sufficient means to know? And likewise how can the people of God avoid that dangerous hazard, of despising both our saviour Christ, and his eternal father; in despising those whom he sendeth, to whom he saith. 
Luc. 10.16.  He that despiseth you, despiseth me? How can (I say) Christian people avoid this danger, unless there be some certain and assured mean to know whom he sendeth, and to discern them from those, that come of themselves, being sent by none. This presupposed, the difficulty of this question is not great.  
2. For evident and certain it is, that albeit a man be judged, never so fit and able to undergo the charge and office of a Pastor, he hath not for all that, that calling, commission, and authority, which is necessarily required, for the lawful and available exercise of that function, the holy Ghost expressly teaching that none can preach unless they be sent: 
Rom. 10.15. Hebr. 5.4.  and that none can take upon them this office but such as are called of God as Aaron was. For the more easy understanding of the reason hereof, it is to be noted; That the lawful and available exercise of any office, either civil or Ecclesiastical, is not like unto the exercise of an art or trade, which after a man hath learned, and is skilful therein, he may lawfully use, (some certain formalities, which civil policy hath brought in, in some places observed) yea if without the observation of these formalities, he exercise his trade, that which he shall do, is not voided, and of none effect, but is truly and availablie done. As for example, if a carpenter, which is not free of London, should build a house in London, he may, according to the statutes of the city, be amerced or fined, but yet the house, which he set up, shall remain a house. But it is otherwise in the exercise of any office, either Ecclesiastical or civil. For if one that is not appointed, and approved judged for example; should give sentence in any case either civil or criminal, his fact should not only be unlawful, but uneffectual yea none at all, though he should give a true sentence. And this not for any other reason, but because he wanteth the true authority of a judge: the same reason holdeth equally at lest in the exercise of spiritual or ecclesiastical offices. And the true reason hereof is, because the skill, fitness, or ability to exercise any office, whether civil or ecclesiastical is a far different thing, from the power and authority, whereby the officer is authorized to exercise the same; that, being or aught to be presupposed, this superadded. For the Prince, when he maketh any Officer or Magistrate, doth not make him fit for it, but finding or thinking him fit, giveth him authority and power to exercise it. A man being made fit for any office by nature, art, industry, or grace, is notwithstanding made Officer by the grant, patent, or appointment of him, who hath power to give it. And therefore we see, that all that are judged fit to bear office, either in the church or commonwealth, are not forthwith Officers. The function therefore of preaching God's word, and ministering Gods Sacraments, being not only an office, but the greatest in that kind, that ever was imparted to man, it doth necessarily require authority, and power for the lawful, and available exercise thereof, without which no fitness, neither of nature, art, nor grace (the ordinary course of God's providence and ordinance remaining) sufficing otherways to make it good and lawful. And this is so evident both by scripture and reason, that it is not denied of any, 
Mason pa 9 where besides divers testimonies of holy scripture he citeth Beza for the same purpose.  and M. Mason confirmeth it saying: though a man were wiser than Solomon or Daniel, he must expect till our Lord sand him; he that teacheth without a calling, how can he hope that Christ, will be with him?   

The fourth Chapter. That one judged by himself or other fit for the ministering of God's word and Sacraments; though such as are in office are supposed, not to discharge rightly their duties, cannot lawfully take upon him that office, as sufficiently called thereunto: neither is such a judgement and opinion any sufficient calling.  
1. THIS question is moved by reason of a piece of doctrine delivered by that great Rabin of the falsely reformed French church Mr. du Plessis who seemeth to affirm, that any one without any special calling, 
Treat: of the church cap. 11. after the beginning.  may preach and teach, every one having sufficient calling by his own ●eale, and the want of others, to discharge rightly that office. For first having showed no small disdain, that their ministers should be demanded of their calling, he saith: It is the same thing (to say unto their ministers, whence come ye? who sent ye?) that Sedechias the false prophet said unto Micheas. 
2. Paralip. 18.23.  By what way went the spirit of our lord from me to speak unto thee? The Pharisees to our saviour Christ. 
Math. 13.55. Marc. 6.1. Act. 4 7.  Thou art a carpenters son, who sent thee? The high priests to the Apostles. By what authority do ye these things? But these are testimonies against himself. For first there is no question, nor mention of the calling of ordinary Pastors, or Teachers in any of these places, as will easily appear, to any one that shall see the places themselves, and therefore are they impertinently alleged. Secondly. Though the question were there of the ordinary calling of Pastors, and also that they were wrongfully demanded of their calling, (whereof notwithstanding none of them complain) yet the case between them, and our now reforming ministers, is most different. For all these parties had already given such evident proof of their calling, that their adversaries could not deny it, which when these new preachers shall do, they shallbe no more examined of their calling: but till then let them not look to be esteemed any other than such, as our Saviour saith, 
Io. 10.1.2.  Enter not by the door, but climb up another way, only to rob and steal. Thirdly; Monsieur du Plessis doth make scripture of his own, when he saith in the 2. quotation (who sent thee? for there is no such thing in the whole gospel) we might answer (saith he, to wit to the question of their calling) in one word after our saviour Christ: The words that we preach, bear witness of us: and citeth. Io. 8. But this saying of our saviour is neither in that place, nor any where else in the whole Bible, that I know. Our Saviour saith thus indeed. 
Io. 5.36.  The very works themselves which I do, give testimony of me, that the father hath sent me. And again. If you will not believe me, 
Io. 10.38.  believe the works; Which rule being applied to the new reforming ministry (as our Saviour speaking of such creatures counseleth) saying (By their fruits shall ye know them) will descry that they came from the same master, 
Math. 7 16.  that the Arians and Donatists came from, 
Epist. of the council of Sardic in Theodo li. 2. cap. 8. cap. 15.  their works being altogether like. As pulling down of Altars, spoiling of churches, unuealing virgins, banishing, imprisoning, and diversly tormenting Catholic Bishops, Priests, and other professors of the Catholic faith, not by ecclesiastical, but by secular and usurped judgement. The Ecclesiastical Histories are full of the Arians proceed in this kind, 
Sozomen. li. 7. cap. 13. & 14. Atha. apolo, 2. & epist. ad solitariam vitam aegentes. D. Bishop's reproof. p. 42. D. Abbot p. 87. Li. 6. cont. Parmenian.  wherein our Protestants in those places where they have the temporal magistrate at their devotion, do far surpass them. And for the Donatists' manners, this one testimony objected by D. Bishop, and not rejected by D. Abbot shall serve our Protestants for a glass to see themselves in. They set Churches on fire, cast the most holy Sacrament of Ch●ists body to bruit beasts, th●ow down Altars, broke chalices, defiled holy oils, made sale of the holy ornaments of the Church: whose execrable facts ancient Optatus condemneth in these words. In this kind have ye procured as much damage to God, as you procured gain to the devil: you have wickedly melted chalices, barbarously broken down Altars, you have uncovered the heads of Virgins, veiled in sign of their profession, etc. But let us suppose that Monsieur du Plessis Scripture is canonical, I would know of him, how he would refute the Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Anabaptists, or any other heretics whatsoever, who will as readily and resolutely say, the words that we preach, bear witness of us, as they of Monsieur du Plessis new reform Church. For if this short answer be sufficient to stop the Papists mouths, demanding proof of the Protestants calling, (as Monsieur du Plessis saith) surely he must by the same rule have his mouth stopped, and admit all those for lawful Preachers, who can give the same answer, which all heretics can as easily, and as truly do as his Ministers.  
2. Besides this (saith Monsieur du Plessis of the Catholics) They allege their long succession, that they are the children of Abraham, S. Peter's heirs etc. To whom our Saviour answereth for us. I know you are Abraham's seed, but you are of your father the devil. And S. Paul: 
Io. 8. 2. Thes. 2.  Be not deceived brethren. The son of perdition shall sit and be worshipped in the temple of God.  
We allege indeed our succession from S. Peter, not to prove by it alone our lawful calling, but by it alone to disprove the calling of all those, who have it not: and to this purpose the argument is such, as never can be answered, as hereafter will appear more at large.  
The testimonies of our Saviour, and S. Paul, are as pertinently alleged against us, as they might have been by the Arians or any other heretics, against the Catholics that impugned their heresy, and not otherways. But that I may refute his whole doctrine with better method, than he delivereth it, I will first set down his conclusion, and then answereth his arguments, whereas he putteth most of his arguments before his conclusion, using therein more craft then good order: to wit, purposing by some sleight and apparent reasons, to blear the eyes of his less careful Reader, in such sort as he may make less difficulty to admit his conclusion, which is not only harsh but most absurd thus set down.  

Rom. 10.  3. Not to invert order, for we know it is said. How can they preach except they be sent? But because in a general disorder, men respect not always the formalities of order, and also because that to advertise either the Church of necessary reformation, or a particular person of his salvation, every Christian is sufficiently grounded upon a general calling, by the zeal which he oweth to the service of God, and by the charity that bindeth him to his neighbour, reserving to the Church the examination by the word, whether he be well grounded there in or Noah.  
By th●s doctrine we see that all men, yea and women (for he speaketh without restriction, of all Christians, and if his examples serve for any thing, they prove the same) have a sufficient calling to advertise not only particular persons of their salvation, but the church itself of necessary reformation. Which large and wide ground is doubtless laid of purpose; that if in case the new ministers shall by force of plain and evident argument, be thrust out of all other ground of calling, as they know right well they shall, they may have recourse to this at last, thereby to maintain their credit if it be possible. For if it were not for this end, no man endued with the lest dram of reason would ever have uttered such a proposition, which first is directly contrary to the express doctrine of the Apostle saying. 
Rom. 10.  How can they preach unless they be sent? which doctrine Monsieur du Plessis confesseth to know well, and therefore is guilty of greater judgement, by contradicting it, according to that of our Saviour Christ saying: He that knoweth the will of my Father, 
Luc. 12.47.  and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. What shall then become of him, that knowing it, doth voluntarily contradict it, as Monsieur du Plessis here doth? He saith that this is not to invert order, but only in a general disorder, not to respect the formalities of order. But S. Paul esteemeth the sending or mission 〈◊〉 teacher's not a formality of order, but so necessary and e●●●●●iall a condition thereof, as without it none can preach, no more than others can hear without a Preacher, or believe without hearing, all which S. Paul knitteth together in one form of speech. But belike Monsieur du Plessis thinketh it no disorder to break order, where he falsely presumeth it is once broken already.  
4. Secondly, it giveth liberty to every wilful, wrangling, and perverse spirit, to disquiet and perturb the peace of God's Church, furnishing every one with power and authority to reform the same. Which is the very true reason that there are as many new Reformers amongst them, as there are divers sects of their reformation. And how many these are doth easily appear, by the innumerable books written one against another. Whereof that the Reader may have some little taste, he may know that one Protestant author Hospinian, 
Hospinia. historia Sacramentaria part. 2.  maketh mention of above two hundred books, written in the space of seventeen years, by the brethren of the Reformation, one against another, in this one point only of the Eucharist. Neither is there any possible means, to avoid this evident mischief, the ground here laid by Monsieur du Plessis once admitted. For seeing Luther had sufficient commission by this general calling (for other he had not, as shall be showed hereafter) to reform the Church of Rome, why should not Zuinglius have the like power, to reform Luther's reformation; and Caluin that of Zuinglius, and so forward till they at last have brought forth the most ugly brood of Swenkfeldians, Arians, Libertines, Anabaptists, and many other pests of the Christian world? It is fourteen hundred years ago that Tertullian observed this liberty of reformation in all heretics in these words. Let me be a liar if they (Heretics) differ not amongst themselves from their own rules, 
De praescrip. cap. 42.  whilst every one by his own judgement doth mollify that which he received; as he who taught it him framed it of his own brain. The progress of the thing doth declare it own nature and manner of beginning. The same thing was lawful to the Valentinians that was lawful to Valentin himself: to the Marcionites that was lawful to Martion. (And why not then to the Lutherans as well as to Luther.) to innovat or change their faith and belieffe as they think good. And for this reason he saith there are seldom schisms amongst heretics: because every one maketh a sect and a body by himself.  
Neither is the proviso which Monsieur du Plessis addeth, saying: (that such Reformers aught to reserve, to the examination of the Church by the word, whether they be well grounded or not,) sufficient, to prevent this manifest mischief. Yea it is like, as if one should let lose a great number of ravening dogs, or wolves among the sheep, but with this caveat, that they kill none, unless the Shepherd allow them to do it. For let the world (which is already pestered with so many and divers sects whereof one condemneth the other to hell fire for their heresies) judge, whether this caveat of Monsieur du Plessis, be not over weak a bar to stop from rage, the furious torrent of turbulent spirits, set once at liberty by the former doctrine, to reprove in one another, whatsoever their fantastical spirits shall dislike, with the li●e freedom that Luther undertook to reprove the Catholic Roman Church. For I would know of this new doctor, whether he that upon the warrant by him here approved, doth advertise the Church of necessary reformation, as he termeth it, aught so to refer himself, to the judgement of the Church, that it judging his advertisement, to be the mere motion of an unquiet spirit, inspired by the father of all lies, sedition, schism and falsity, should be bound to submit himself thereunto, and to proceed no farther in his pretended reformation, under pain to incur the censure, and penalty of a seditious rebel, or no? If he answer that he is bound so to do, he shall give sentence, against all his reforming brethren, who have not yielded, to the judgement of the church, condemning their doctrine for heresy, by the same solemn manner of proceeding, to wit, by general counsel, that she condemned Arius, Sabellius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutiches, and all others, who by the judgement of these Reformers, are, and have been lawfully condemned. Neither can it be said, that this sentence is not juridical, being the sentence not of any competent judge, but only of the adverse party. For the same might the condemned heretics before mentioned, have answered for themselves, and their doctrine. Secondly, when Luther (upon this general calling here mentioned, for other he had none) began his pretended reformation, there was not so much as one man in the world, of his opinion in all points of his doctrine, not nor he himself at the beginning did hold all the heresies he taught afterwards: much less was there any church, which he would acknowledge for competent judge of his propositions. And therefore was either to reserve the trial of his reformation, to the judgement of the Catholic Roman Church, or to none at all, and then Monsieur du Plessis his caveat is nothing worth.  
If M●nsieur du Plessis answer, that such a Reformer is not bound to stand to the judgement of the Church, but in case only, that it judge according to the word: I will ask of him, who shall determine, whether the Church judgeth according to the word or no? the church, or the pre●ended Reformer? if he say the church, he and his remain condemned: if he say, the pretended Reformer, his caveat is no more than a very cobweb, to be blown away with the smallest breath of every one pretending reformation; who may with as good right challenge to reform the Church of G●neua, after the example of servetus, as Caluin did that of Ausburg, and Luther that of Rome. So that the world shall never be free from new reformations, so long as there is a devil in hell to inspire the giddy spirits of restless, and reckless men, who are as willing and ready to run into sedition, as he is to push them forward into it. For if Monsieur du Plessis or any other for him think to wind himself out of this labyrinth by saying, that this must be determined, neither by the church, nor by the reformer, but by the word: he shall show himself too too impertinent. For why then doth he say that it must be reserved to the Church, to judge according to the word, whether he be well grounded or no? Secondly, seeing that in this case, the whole controversy is reduced to the word in such sort, as it is now only in dispute, what the word doth testify, it is all one to say, that this controversy shall be judge of this controversy (than which nothing can be imagined more absurd) and to say, that the word shall be judge of this controversy, for the controversy (as I supposed) is now, what the word doth judge of the controversy in hand.  
5. Thirdly, I would know of Monsi. du Plessis, what he will answer to the Anabaptists, libertines, and Arians all objecting corruption and heresy in the Church of Geneva and France, and therefore grounded upon that general calling of zeal to God's service, which he here approveth, do advertise it of necessary reformation. If he say the Church (to wit of Geneva) doth condemn them and their reformation of heresy, they will appeal from that sentence, as from the sentence not of any competent judge, but of their adverse party. If he betake himself to the written word, they will contend with him, that the word doth wholly favour them, and will at last enforce him to confess these sayings of ancient Tertullian to be most true, 
Tertul. de praescriptio. cap. 11. 18. 19  though he will not easily grant them to us alleging them against him. The contention by Scriptures (against Heretics) profiteth nothing but either to turn the stomach or the brain. Whereof he giveth this reason. This heresy receiveth not some Scriptures, and those it receiveth it perverteth by adding and detracting to make it serve his purpose. The false sense no less impugneth the truth then the corrupted text. Differing presumptuous doctrines do necessarily deny that, whereby they are convinced, and do rely upon that which they have falsely framed. What wilt thou gain (most cunning scripturist?) whilst what thou defendest, thy adversary denieth, and what thou deniest he defendeth? Thou shalt indeed lose nothing but thy voice by crying: nor shalt thou gain any thing but choler by hearing blasphemies. And he for whose confirmation thou interest into this dispute by Scriptures, shall he be more swayed to the truth or to heresy? being moved by that he seethe thee to have gained nothing, the adverse part being equal in defending and denying, doubtless by th●s equal altercation he will departed more doubtful, not knowing whether doctrine he may esteem to be heresy. For this they (Heretics) will say, that we corrupt the Scriptures and their interpretation, and therefore that they defend the truth. Therefore are not we to appeal to the Scriptures, nor is the controversy to be settled in them, in which the victory is uncertain, or at lest not very certain. Thus far Tertullian, whose doctrine if Monsieur du Plessis will allow for currant (as he hath no reason to refuse it) he must necessarily grant, that the trial of controversies by only Scripture is neither easy nor effectual. But whatsoever he shall esteem of this testimony, yet shall he in fine be forced even by his own rule here set down either to admit of their reformation, whom he condemneth, to wit, the Arians, Anabaptists, and Libertines, or confess that his doctrine here delivered, is most wicked and pernicious, as giving liberty to all persons under a false pretence of reformation to disturb the peace of God's church at their own pleasure: which liberty were it to be practised in temporal government, would quickly turn all upside down in such sort, as could never be remedied. For if it were lawful for every ambitious and unruly spirit, to suggest against the established government, and governors, what he list, under the colour of necessary reformation: and his suggestions being rejected by the sovereign magistrates as seditious and wicked, might appeal from their sentence, as parties and might cast himself upon the trial of the law, and that to be understood no otherways then he will have it: what peace could be expected in such a commonwealth? Which in convenience in the spiritual or ecclesiastical government of God's church, is by so much more hurtful and hateful, then in the temporal government of any commonwealth (but that men are less careful of those things, that appertain to their eternal felicity then in those that touch their temporal weal) by how much more damageable it is to lose the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, then to lose some small temporal estate in this world.  
Having thus refuted this seditious doctrine of Monsieur du Plessis, (which doubtless was first hatched there, where there is no order, but all horror and confusion) I will now examine his grounds whereupon it is built. But by the way I will advertise thee (careful Reader) that he bringeth nothing at all, for the establishing of his doctrine, whereupon he groundeth this large commission of calling: but such stuff as the Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, and all other condemned heretics whatsoever might have brought against the Catholic chutch, and which the Anabaptists and Libertines, (who Monsieur du Plessis esteemeth heretics) may allege for themselves against him, which only observation is more than sufficient, to overturn all that he saith to this purpose. But let us see the particulars. They consist of similitudes, and examples, which is the worst, and weakest kind of argument of all other. For oftentimes they prove nothing at all but only serve to explicate the matter in question, and make it more easily understood: and that only when they are fitly applied, as his are not.  
6. When a fire (saith he) hath taken in a city, 
Plessis p. 362.  or the enemies scale the walls by night, if the meanest citizen give the alarm, yea or a stranger, while the sentinels are a sleep, they never ask him, by what commission he did it; much less do they call him into question for it, but they fetch water, and run to the walls, they see what the matter is, and every one c●nneth him thanks for so good a warning. Contrariwise when we discover Antichrist sitting in the Church, and take upon us, to confute him openly in the face of a Council, and in his presence, instead of hearing us, of weighing our reasons, of looking into the Scripture where he is so lively painted, and by which we are to view him, they fall to examine us of our qualities, and what Commission we have to give warning of him, yea they put us to death worse, then if we had betrayed the common wealth.  
Answer. This question, whence come ye? who sent you? where is your warrant to preach? 
Tertul de pros●riptio.  troubleth all Heretics and was proposed by Tertullian 1400. years agone to those of his time.  
Here is nothing in all this that Mr. du Plessis saith which the afore mentioned condemned Heretics, might not have said for their defence against the Catholics, or the Anabaptists may not now say against the Caluinists, and therefore is all idle, and empty words. Whereas if he had made his comparison, between the ecclesiastical, and temporal state, or government, his argument would have had more show of reason. But he saw well it was not for his purpose, but would have made evidently against him, 
above n. 5.  as appeareth by that which is noted thereof, not far above. For if he would apply his argument to the temporal government, and governors, and prove thereby the like liberty and power, in every one to reform the same as he would do in the ecclesiastical state, I doubt not, but he would quickly be condemned for sedition, and treason to his Prince, and country, and yet in any sensible man's judgement, is there more probability, in that then in this. But let us come more near unto him.  
His simile faileth foully in divers respects. First for that the pretended Reformers do not discover fire in the City, or the enemies scaling the Walls, but would gladly cast and kindle fire, and scale the walls of God's church: or if it be otherways, let them show some evident difference, betwixt their entry, or endeavour to enter, and of those that they themselves condemn for firebrands, and enemies of God's church, which they can never do.  
Secondly, what man of ordinary sense will say, that it is as easy a thing to discern error in doctrine of faith, or abuse in the Church government, as it is to discern fire in the town, or enemies scaling the walls, (which must be supposed for truth, or else this argument is nothing worth) seeing this is a matter of sense, wherein none is deceived, and that a matter of understanding and judgement, wherein the wisest, and greatest clerks have erred, as witness the laps of Tertullian, Origen, and Lucifer, to omit an infinite number of heretics, who were not of mean understanding, if they had had grace withal?  
Thirdly, this argument supposeth, that the watch of the Church may be so a sleep, that the enemies may surprise it, the watchmen (that is, the Pastors) being not ware thereof, which is directly against the Scripture, assuring us the contrary. 
Esay 62.6.  Upon thy walls Jerusalem (saith almighty God) have I placed a watch: night nor day shall they be silent for ever. And our Saviour himself, 
Math. 28.  I am with you for ever, even to the consummation of the world. The devil indeed may upon the good seed, sown in the hearts of men, sow cockle, that is, false doctrine, whiles the Pastor's sleep or neglect their office, as some expound the parable Math. 13.24 but it no sooner appeareth by external word, or action, than the ordinary servants of the master of the field, are ready to pull it up, if he should so think good, as followeth in the same parable, so that they need not to be advertised by such, as have no charge of that business. Wherefore with all reason, are such as come, pretending to advertise the Church of necessary reformation, first examined whence they came, who sent them, what commission they have? For our Saviour Christ foreseeing that false prophets would come in sheeps clothing (that is under the fair show of reformation) whereas they are indeed ravening wolves, 
Math. 7.15.  forewarned his spouse the Church to take great heed of them: which warning she warily following, and withal knowing by S. Paul's rule, that none can preach, unless they be sent, 
Rom. 10.  doth rightly demand all new Preachers testimony of their mission, and calling. Which if they will neither show, nor yet desist from troubling the peace of God's church: I refer it to any indifferent man's judgement, whether they deserve not, the reward of rebels to Christ, and his kingdom. And howsoever this aught to be is easily known, by the severity used against those, that are found guilty of rebellion, and treason in any human commonwealth only.  
And the more openly, or publicly, these pretending Reformers do take upon them, (these are his words) to impugn their sovereign Pastor, under pretence to discover Antichrist, the more impudent and less tolerable is their rebellion. As in the like case, it would be in that subject, that should publicly impugn his Sovereign Lord, under pretence to discover a tyrant, or an unlawful usurper. And if these zealous Reformers, had such earnest desire to confute the Pope, (whom they heretically, and rebelliously call Antichrist) openly in the face of a Council, (as Monsieur du Plessis vainly brageth,) why did they it not when there was a Council assembled, 
Council of Trent Sess 18  and they earnestly invited to it, with such safe conduct as they desired? But they have as much will, or purpose, to come to any lawful Council, as the Arians had, whose perverse proceed not unlike those of our new Reformers, the Reader that hath desire to see, may read part of them in the Epistle of the Council of Sardic recorded by S. Athanasius in his second Apology, and by Theodoret before cited. Monsieur du Plessis proceedeth.  

Plessis.  8. If the Governors of places should do the like, when men give them advertisements, what place is there, that would not soon be in the enemy's hands? And what Prince would not judge them traitors, and tbinke they had intelligence with his enemies.  
Answer. He falsely supposeth, that men giving advertisement of error, or abuse creeping into the Church, are either punished or examined of their commission. But if this be true, whence cometh it, that there have been so many Counsels General, Nationall, and Provincial, holden in the Church of Rome from time to time? was it not upon notice given, and taken, of errors and abuses rising in the church? And can Monsi. du Plessis bring any one instance, of any one punished or examined of his commission for giving such advertisement? well he may, of very many condemned, not for advertising of errors, but for their obstinate persisting in their errors, after canonical, and juridical examination had of them. And of this number is he, 
See the safe conduct granted by the counsel of Trent to all heretics. Session 18.  and all his obstinate adherents, whose advertisements have been patiently heard, and their reasons thoroughly weighed, and by lawful authority judged, to be repugnant to true faith, and therefore do they most wrongfully complain, as if they had not been heard, nor their reasons weighed. But they are grieved (and ever may they be) that the Pastors and Rulers of God's Church, 
Acts 20.28.  placed therein by the holy Ghost to govern it, will not suffer themselves to be thrust out of their charge, and the flock of Christ, for which he hath shed his most precious blood, to be delivered into the hands of robbers, and raveners. Of which sort all such are (by the infallible mark, which our Saviour giveth of them) that enter not into the Sheepe-fould by the door, 
john 10.1.  (that is, by lawful calling) but climb up by an other way. See his example of a Governor forcibly retorted upon himself, in the next paragraph.  

Plessis.  9 The question is not here of our qualities, but of the qualities of Antichrist, and of his doctrine: the matter toucheth the duty of those whom we advertise, it concerneth the salvation both of them, and of those that rely upon them, and of ourselves also. If the advertisement prove true, it is the safety of the Church: if it be found false, it cometh of our own. The question is then for examining of the circumstances of the advertisement, and not the quality of the advertisers.  
Here it well appeareth, Answer. how gladly they would leap over the question of their calling, to that of doctrine; not because they have more true ground, or advantage in the one, then in the other, but because they have more means to deceive, and as it were cast dust into the eyes of such, as either are not able to discern the true grounds of doctrine, or being desirous of novelty (as an infinite number in these days are) will not examine them, but upon every text of Scripture cited, (though in as bad sense and meaning, as that which the devil cited to our Saviour) think they have ground enough, for their new doctrine, and grateful error. Whereas in the question of calling or commission, they cannot easily deceive any man, but such as are willing to be deceived. For the proofs of calling being sensible, and as easy to be discerned, as the proofs of any commission in civil government, there can be small means of deceit therein. It is not any new manner of proceeding, with such as attempt to bring new doctrine into the Church, to demand of them proof of their calling, and commission. 
Tertull. de praescriptio.  For ancient Tertullian urgeth the Heretics of his time in this sort; What are ye, when, and whence came ye? what do you in my Teritory being none of mine? It is false therefore that Monsieur du Plessis saith, that the question is not of their calling, or quality (if he will have it so termed.) For the question between the Catholic Roman Church, and the pretended Reformers is both of their calling, and of their doctrine, but that of their calling is first of all to be decided, for the reasons before mentioned. Which also will more evidently appear, 
Cap. 1. n. 7. 9  by the example of a Governor of a place, used by himself, if the case be put a like. I will suppose therefore, for example sake, that one should come to Saumeur where he is Governor for his King, and should begin to command as Governor there telling the people that Monsieur du Plessiis is an Usurper the King's swo●●e enemy, and that his government is tyrannical, and therefore is not to be obeyed, and that he himself is their true and lawful governor, the King's loyal, and faithful servant, and that he will govern them justly, and according to the law: And being demanded by what authority or warrant he taketh upon him the government, and deposeth, or excludeth Monsieur du Plessis, who was placed there by lawful authority, and hath been so long in quiet possession of the same, should answer (as Monsieur du Plessis doth here) that the question is not of his commission or quality, but of Monsieur du Plessis his quality, that the matter toucheth the duty of those; whom he advertiseth: if the advertisement prove true, it is the safety of the place, whereof he is Governor, if it be found false, it only cometh from himself. The case being thus put (as it doth most resemble Mounsieur du Plessis doctrine and their proceed against the Catholic church) I dare to appeal to his own judgement for trial therein; To wit, whether he should think himself justly dealt withal in this case, and whether the people of Saumeur, could without evident rebellion to their Prince; and manifest injury to him, receive this new comer for their Governor, and thrust him out. This proceeding though it be in the sight of all men most manifestly unjust, seditious, and rebellious, yet will it appear more wicked and perverse, if we add thereunto another circumstance, which they use in their rebellion against the Church. That is, if Monsieur du Plessis his adversary, should not only refuse to show any warrant, or commission, for usurping his government, but should farther enforce him to justify himself of those crimes, which he objecteth against him, not before the King's Lieutenant, because he is esteemed by him party or partial, nor any other ordinary judge, but by the words, and text of the law itself, and that not to be understood in any other sense, than he (to wit, the unjust plaintiff) will have them to be understood: I no ways doubt, but Monsieur du Plessis would grievously complain of this proceeding, being most exorbitant, and unjust, as it is indeed. And if it were permitted in any civil government, it would make, that no magistrate should be two days quiet in his charge, nor any country should ever enjoy any peace. And hereby may the whole world see, how just and honest, our new Reformers be, whose proceeding against their mother the Catholic church, is no other in true substance, then is set down in this case. For it is to be noted, that they never proceeded as accusers, but as judges, nor did they at any time propose, their matters by way of doubt, to be discussed and tried by canonical trial which is not forbidden to any man to do, but they absolutely as sovereign judges, have condemned the Church of falsity and error, and her Pastors of Antichristian rebellion. And yet do they think much to be demanded, by what power or commission they do it. Which manner of proceeding how perverse it is the former example doth sufficiently declare. Which also proveth further, that though the Catholic Roman Church (by impossibility) should be convinced of error, and her Pastors of rebellion against Christ, 
Though the Catholic Pastors were proved usurpers: yet would it not thence follow that the Reformists should be true Pastors.  yet could not they (to wit, the reformists) be received for lawful Pastors, until they had made canonical proof of their mission or calling. For as the convicting of Monsieur du Plessis of treason, and intrusion would neither sufficiently warrent his adversary, to take upon him his government without the King's patents, nor the people to admit of him as their governor, though he should pretend never so much fidelity, and equity in his charge, but if they should do it, they should all be guilty of treason, and rebellion against their Prince. So neither can our new Reformers, nor those that receive them, be free from rebellion against Christ and his Church, if they should without canonical proof of their mission, take upon them the charge of Pastors: though the Catholic Roman church should by imposibility (as is said before) be convinced of error, and her Pastors of rebellion. And therefore howsoever the matter, in the question of doctrine should fall out with, or against our Reformists, yet is it manifest, that the question of calling, is necessarily to be decided, before they may lawfully pretend, any charge over Christ's flock either in preaching, or ministering Sacraments:  
10. In the conspiracy of Catiline, the Senate gave ear to a base woman, 
Plessis.  against the greatest men in Rome. When the Gauls would by night surprise the Capitol of Rome, the Sentinels spoke not, the Dogs were dumb, there was none but the Geese that cried, and yet every one made account of it, and ran thither, whereby the City, which afterwards conquered all the world, was saved. Wherhfore, if we were the vilest and most contemptible of the Church, we deserve (at jest the hearing) especially seeing we seek not to speak in the ear, as backbiters do, but in the face of the Church, and in their very ears whom we accuse, and not from ourselves, but from God by authority of his word.  
Answer. But what is there here that servetus might not have said to Caluin, who caused him to be burned at Geneva, he himself deserving as well the fire? Or the Anabaptists, Familians, or Libertines, who are esteemed by the other Reformed Churches damnable heretics, may not also say for themselves? They neither speak in the ear as backbiters, when they cry for reformation, as appeareth by their many books written to that end, nor from themselves, but from God by the warrant of his word, of the testimonies whereof their books are full. The same answer therefore that Monsieur du Plessis or Caluin himself would make unto these Reformers of their Church, (with that which hath been said above) shall serve for answer to his complaint here made against the Catholic Church. And I appeal to the indifferent Reader, what peace or order were like to be either in the Church or Common wealth, if this licentious liberty of reformation, which he here insinuateth, might upon pretence or colour of the warrant of God's word, be permitted to every one?  
11. We read that Christ who was promised in the jewish law, was revealed by the Angel to the shepherds watching their flocks, 
Plessis.  and the shepherds published him among the people. Now after our adversaries law, they should have been set by the heels.  
Answer. How beetle blind is heresy, and wilful obstinacy? Because the shepherds made relation of that which they had heard of the Angel, and seen with their eyes of our saviours birth, therefore would Monsieur du Plessis infer, that every one hath power to preach, and are authorized to reform the established Church: As though it were all one for a man to make relation of a miraculous work, which he hath seen or heard, to others, and to preach any doctrine, (especially if it be new) with obligation on the hearers part to believe it, under pain of their damnation: who seethe not the absurdity of this illation? That which he addeth of setting fast by the heels, is a childish taunt without either wit or weight. For the Catholic Church doth not imprison any, but such as after canonical declaration, and decision, of their error, do obstinately persist therein.  
12. Apollo also knew not but the baptism of john, 
Plessis.  and consequently could not have any charge in the Church. And yet for all that, through fervency of spirit, he goeth into the synagogue at Ephesus, and being mighty in the Scriptures, declareth the way of God, namely that jesus was the Christ. The brethren of Ephesus, who were the Governors of Christ's Church, so far are they from putting him back, that they commend his zeal, and exhort him to pass into Achaia, and writ to the Disciples that they should receive him.  
Answer. What he would infer hereupon is evident, by his former discourse: to wit, that every one should have commission to preach, and reform the Church. But this and that which Apollo did are as far different, as it is for a Student at law, to plead or dispute a cause, in the presence of others, with reasons and authorities for the proof thereof; and for a judge by authority to decide the same cause in public court. Now who is there so senseless as to say that he that may do the first, may also do the second? And who knoweth not, that the Catholic Roman Church, doth licence Lay-men, that are known for learned, and grounded in piety, to dispute in controversies of religion, either by word, or writing? who notwithstanding were never permitted to preach or minister sacraments. Apollo therefore did nothing, but that which the Catholic Church now alloweth in such men as he was, and therefore this instance is as impertinent, for Monsieur du Plessis his purpose, as the rest.  
13. Hereof we have examples also in the Primitive Church. 
Plessis.  In Aedesius and Frumentius, who being by some occasion carried into the Indies, do there preach the word of God, and make Christian assemblies, being but mere Lay-men, for Athanasius did not lay hands on Frumentius, that he should there do the office of a Bishop, till long after. In a poor woman slave also, who instructeth the Queen of the Iberians in the knowledge of Christ, and a while after the king himself, teaching them so well as she could the service of God, and advising them at lest, to sand to the Emperor Constantine for some Doctors.  
But how fitly these two Histories make for his purpose, Answer. will appear by the Histories themselves, whereof I will set down the sum: the diligent Reader may see them at large in the author himself, if he please.  
Aedesius and Frumentius being Christians and carried from Tire into the Indies, 
Theodor. l. 1. c. 23. & 24.  by their Uncle, to learn the knowledge of strange countries, were by accident, (as God permitteth sometimes) retained prisoners, all the rest of their company being slain by the Barbarous people. They were presented to the King of the Country, who understanding their prudent behaviour, gave them the charge of his house. He being dead, his son had them in greater estimation. They having been virtuously brought up, did exhort the Merchants, that if any Romans, that is Christians (as the custom was) came thither, that they would meet together, and celebrated the holy rites. After long time they obtained leave of the King, to return to their country, and Aedesius remained at Tire, but Frumentius preferring God's service before the love of his parents, went to Alexandria, and informed S. Athanasius (who was then Bishop of that place) of the great desire, the Indians had to be instructed, in the true knowledge of heavenly things. And Athanasius thinking no man fit for this religious employment, than Frumentius himself, made him Bishop, and sent him thither to preach, and instruct that Nation, which he did with happy success, God working by him great miracles, for the conversion of that people. And thus much of Frumentius.  
About the same time was there a woman captive amongst the Iberians, who showed them first the way of truth, she prayed continually, her bed was a little sack laid upon the ground, and her diet was continual fasting, she being entreated by another woman, to cure her child which was sick, took it, and laid it in her little poor bed, and prayed to God, that it might be cured which was done. Which then being known, the Queen herself being vexed with a sore disease, went to the same poor captive, and was cured by her in the same fashion, who in gratitude offered her great gifts, which she refused, saying, she had no need of none of them, but she would think herself highly recompensed, if she would understand the true piety, and withal as she could she instructed her in God's commandments, and exhorted her to build a Church to the honour of Christ her Saviour. Which the King not permitting for that time, was afterwards (by a new miracle done in his own person) moved to consent willingly unto it. The Temple being therefore finished, but Priests wanting, the same captive woman advised the King and Queen, to sand unto the Emperor Constantine, to sand them such, as might instruct them in true piety, and he sent them a virtuous, and learned Bishop with many gifts also. This is the sum of these Histories truly set down, wherein there is not any word of preaching, or making Christian assemblies, by any of those parties, (as Monsieur du Plessis falsely affirmeth) nor of reforming a Church already established, but of making known either by way of miracle, or bore narration, the same points of Christian religion, to such as never had heard thereof before, which is allowed to be done by the Roman Church, in the same sort, as it was practised by these parties, and therefore these examples make nothing against the Catholic doctrine, or practise, yea they evidently confute Monsieur du Plessis his doctrine. For seeing none of these though endued with the grace of miracles, did or durst in that great, ye extreme necessity, undertake the office and charge of Pastors without mission, or calling given by, consecration, and imposition of hands: How can Monsieur du Plessis without blushing bring them, for the justifying of this his no less seditious than new doctrine, that every Christian is sufficiently grounded upon a general calling, to advertise the Church of a necessary reformation; taking this advertisement in that sense and sort, that they would practise it: that is, to judge absolutely of the doctrine of the Church, rejecting that which they dislike, and establishing that which they approve.  
But to what purpose shall we think, bringeth he the example of this good woman? to prove that women may preach? Surely if it prove any thing for him, it proveth that: which notwithstanding S. Paul expressly condemneth, 
1. Cor. 14.34. 1. Tim. 2.12.  forbidding women to open their mouths in the Church. So that Monsieur du Plessis hath gained as much by this example, as those old, wicked, and corrupt caitiffs gained by accusing the chaste Susanna, that is, his own condemnation, bearing as evident witness against himself, as they did. For this holy woman so far as she did cooperat to the making known of Christianity to those pagan, which was not by preaching in public assemblies, and congregations, or by exercising any other Ecclesiastical function (as is manifest by the History) but by fasting, prayer, austere life, and evident miracle. Which sorts of proof, being justly exacted of our new Reformists, as well for their calling, as their doctrine (either being as truly new and uncouth in the Church of Christ, as Christianity was to those pagan) yet have they never showed half so much, in either kind of proof before mentioned, as this poor woman did: though she pretended not to be either Elder, superintendant, or Deacon in the church, as our new fellows proclaim themselves to be, and desire to be esteemed so of others. Rightly therefore doth M. du Ples●is bring this example, in condemnation of himself, as the wretched accusers of Susanna, did their testimonies against her.  

Plessis.  14 An● all this in a tim●, when the Christian church had all her forms and rites.  
Answer. What Sir, had the Christian church, all her forms and rites then in the Indies and amongst the Iberians, of whom only mention is here? what affected blindness is this, or malicious desire to deceive others?  

Plessis.  Now it could not be, but they preaching the true God, and salvation by jesus Christ, must needs abhor idols, and consequently incur peril of their lives, from which the exception of our adversaries would have quit them, they having no need to put themselves so far into danger, having no calling in the church.  
Answer. He often but falsely, and fraudulently inculcateth the preaching of those parties, whereas they preached no otherways, then by their life and example, and as occasion was offered, by testifying their own belief, and religion, not by authority as Pastors and Doctors, but by simple narration, which no man can doubt, but to be allowed and commended in the Catholic Romon church, as is before mentioned. And that they might, and did incur danger of their lives, by abstaining from idolatry, and professing against it no man doubteth, but what may be inferred thereby for his purpose I know not.  

Plessis.  But zeal and charity taught them, that they were bound to do it, and that this exception could not secure them from the account, which they were to make of their talon.  
Answer. Not only zeal and charity, but also duty and religion taught them that they were bound to abstain from idolatry, and thereby to profess Christian religion, not in respect of any talon, whereof they were to give an account (if he speak not unproperly a talon in proper speech being that which is superadded to the substance of our faith) but in respect of their faith itself, which they were bound not to deny, nor forsake. As it happeneth with all Catholics at this time in England, who are bound with hazard of their lives, not to deny the Catholic Roman faith, though they have neither power, nor obligation to preach.  
The same say we of the revealing of Antichrist. 
Plessis.  That questionless every Christian is bound to reveal him to the Church, when God hath made him known to him. That we must not stand upon these precise points of formality, and so much the less for that having gotten possession of the Church, it is to be presumed he hath inverted all order.  
Answer. When Monsi. du Plessis maketh answer to the Arians, Anabaptists, Libertines, and others, objecting the same, against their new reformed church, he will found this vain conclusion of all his seditious doctrine fully satisfied. Whereunto I will remit him, not doubting but his own conceit will best please him. Yet would I have the (careful Reader) to mark how he esteemeth the ordinance of the holy Ghost so expressly testified by S. Paul, 
Rom. 10.  that none can preach unless they be sent, to be but a precise point of formality. Are these they that make such show of the respect they bear to God's word?  
And here will I make an end with M. du Plessis, for as much as pertaineth to this point. He adeth indeed three, or four testimonies out of Gerson, Picus, & Aliacus, which make nothing to the purpose for this present question, and especially the two latter, and as for the other (though his testimonies were direct against us as they are not, being rightly cited and understood) yet because he is known to have said many things, which were neither approved them, nor since, his sole authority can in equity weigh little against us. And here once more (good Reader observe) that nothing hitherto hath been said, nor hereafter can be said, for the calling of these new Gospelers, which may not be said in the behalf of any heretics whatsoever, new or old: yea which they, whom M. du Plessis here impugneth, may not say against him, if they were of any moment. And therefore though we should grant him all his arguments, yet should he gain nothing thereby, they having as much force, being used by us against him, as he would they should have against us. And this thou shalt easily see, if thou wilt take the pains to apply them one by one, for the Catholic church against that of Geneva. But the truth is, they are of no force, neither for the one nor the other.  
16. Having thus far refuted the reasons of Monsi. du Plessis whereby he would prove, that every Christian hath sufficient calling, to advertise the church of necessary reformation not only by way of information (for that is not in controversy) but also by way of absolute judgement and condemnation, which is the plain drift of his discourse, and the practice of all the pretending Reformers it remaineth to prove the contrary, and withal to satisfy the question proposed in this Chapter.  

Conclusion.  It is no sufficient calling to the ministry of God's word and sacraments, that any man be judged either by himself, or others fit to exercise that charge: and that those who are in that office, are judged not to perform their duty therein. And therefore if any one upon these grounds take upon him that office, what disorder soever he shall suppose to be already in the Church, he committeth sacrilegious rebellion against Christ and his church. I will not stand long upon the proof hereof, because it is evident to all those that know and believe the scriptures. And were it not that Monsieur du Plessis in his doctrine already refuted, did not evidently insinuat the contrary, yea and expressly teach it in these words. 
Treatise of the Church. pag. 371.  Although some of our men in such a corrupt state of the Church, as we have seen in our time, without waiting for calling or allowance of them, who under the title of Pastors oppressed the Lords flock, did at first preach without this formal calling, and afterwards were chosen, and called to the holy ministry by the church, which they had taught, to the which they had vowed their service and ministry: yet this aught to seem no more strange, then if in a free Commonwealth, the people without waiting for the consent, or for the voices of those, that tyrannize over them; should according to the laws make choice of good, and wise magistrates. Were it not I say for this doctrine of Monsieur du Plessis, wherein as we see, he expressly approveth, the preaching of some of their men (he might have said all, or at lest all their first runners) without formal calling, only upon the opinion, that those who were in the Pastor's places, did not rightly discharge their duties, I should have supposed this conclusion (which is so clearly expressed in holy Scripture) to have been so evident, that it needed not any proof. But seeing we must prove a thing so evident: 
Heb. 5.4.5.6.  First S. Paul saith, that no man taketh upon himself this honour (of Priesthood) but he that is called of God as Aaron. And farther he addeth, that Christ did not glorify himself, that he might be made highpriest: but he that said unto him. My son art thou, I this day have begotten thee. As also in another place he saith. Tho● art Priest for ever, 
Io. 5.42. c. 7.28. c. 8.28.38. Io. c. 14 31.  according to the order of Melchisedech. And our Saviour doth often testify, that he came not of himself, or in his own name, but being sent by his heavenly Father. That he speak not of himself, but th●● which he learned of his Father: and that as his Father commanded him, so he did. Now if the son of God came not, without being sent, nor preached not but that, which he heard, nor did not but that which he was commanded, (and that in a time, when there was greatest necessity of reformation) who is he that can lawfully do any of these things of himself, though he pretend never so great disorder in the Church, or necessity of Reformation?  
17. Secondly S. Paul saith How can they preach, unless they be sent? 
Rom. 10.  the heretical evasion and declining of which words is before urged against Monsieur du Plessis, terming it a formality of order, not necessary to be observed, in a general disorder: such is the perversity of these new masters, who pretending to reform the Church by the word are not ashamed, nor afraid, to contradict the plain words, and sense of the holy Ghost, having no other means to maintain there falcities by.  
Thirdly, the same Apostle in another place, setting down the order established by our Saviour in his Church saith: 
1. Cor. 12.28.  Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Doctors? showing manifestly, that none are such, but those that our Saviour ordained, or constituted such, having immediately before said. Some God hath set in his Church first Apostles, secondly, Prophets, thirdly Doctors, etc. But Monsieur du Plessi● more liberal in gifts, than God himself, will have all Christians, Doctors, to teach the Church, and advertise it of necessary reformation, and that (as I have noted before) not by way of information, but by absolute judgement, and sentence. This is one of the great masters of reformation, that breatheth nothing forsooth but the word, which notwithstanding the devil himself could not without blushing, or trembling abuse so evidently as he doth. Pardon me Reader, if thou think me to exceed, for I cannot support these hypocritical pests of men's souls, that pretending the purity of the word, do thrust upon the simpler sort, their own fantastical inventions, instead of God's word and truth.  
18. Fourthly, our Saviour himself giveth us this rule, to discern true Pastors, from usurpers, and intruders, saying. Amen, 
joh. 10.1.2  Amen, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbeth up another way, he is a thief and a robber: but he that entereth by the door, is the Pastor of the sheep. Now who can more manifestly climb up another way into the sheepfold, than they that come of themselves, to preach, and minister the sacraments, being sent by none? especially seeing so many heretics are confessed to have come, under the same fair pretence of reforming the church and purging it from the corruption of false doctrine, that our new Reformers also use as a sheep's skin, to cover their wolvish hearts. 
Mason p. 9  Beza cited by M. Mason saith, it is an order appointed in the Church by the Son of God, and observed in all the Prophets and Apostles, that no man may teach unless he be called.  
19 The second part of the foresaid conclusion, to wit, that if any one upon the afore mentioned grounds shall take upon him, without being sent, the ministering of God's word and sacraments (what disorder soever he shall suppose to be already in the church) shall commit sacrilegious rebellion against Christ, and his church, and all those that wittingly favour, follow, or adhere unto them, are also guilty of the same crime in their degree; is proved by divers dreadful examples of God's wrath, and indignation, showed against such, as have presumptuously thrust themselves into Ecclesiastical functions, without calling or commission. Which, if our new masters in reformation, were as sincere searchers, and followers of Scriptures, as they pretend to be, would make them to be well assured of their calling, and commission, before they took upon them that charge, which they so boldly challenge to themselves: 
Cap. 2. n. 2.  The only example of Core and his complices related before with that dreadful sentence of S. Jude: woe be to them that have perished in the contradiction of Core, as all they must needs follow his example, in usurping the offices of the church without calling. Surely if there were no other example in the whole Scripture this alone would abundantly testify this truth. Notwithstanding I will add here some others of the like nature.  

1. Reg. c. 13.1.3.14.  Saul was rejected by God, and his posterity excluded, from being Kings over the Isralites, for once offering sacrifice, and that in a time when he thought himself pressed thereunto by necessity. In which case M. du Plessis likely would have justified his fact, saying that in such cases formality of order is not to be observed.  

2. Reg. c, 6.7  Oza was stricken dead by God, for only putting his hand to hold up the Ark, (which he thought was in danger to fall) In which case by all likelihood Monsi. du Plessis would have dispensed with him, seeing he alloweth their men in such a corrupt time as we have seen in the Church, to preach at first without calling.  
King Ozias was stricken with a leprosy, 
2. Paralipo. 26.18.19.  and continued leper all his life time, for attempting to offer incense, and not desisting from his attempt at the admonition of the high Priest Azarias, who told him, that that office pertained not to him, but only to the sons of Aaron, whom God had consecrated to that ministry. Here indeed was no necessity pressing to do this, whereby Mnosieur du Plessis is wont to cover, and excuse the sacrilegious intrusion of his reforming ministers. But neither doth the high Priest allege that as a reason, why he should desist from his attempt, but directly telleth him that it is not his office, but the office of such only, as God hath appointed for that ministry.  
Hereunto also may be added the indignation of God, against the false Priests of jeroboam, who that wicked King by his power, 
3. Reg. c. 12. & 13.  and not by God's ordinance raised, to serve an Altar erected by himself, against that which God had commanded, and to withdraw the people from frequenting the true church, and his true worship in Jerusalem. To whose most wicked and sacrilegious fact (to note this by the way) the new fashion of ordaining Priests and Bishops invented in King Edward's time, and continued ever since, is most like: 
Ann. 1. Ed 6. was an act made that Bishops should be made by the King's letters patents and not by election of Dean and Chapter as saith Rastal in his abridgement. And therefore in the beginning of Q. Elizab. Bishops writ thus. n. virtute literar● patentium Domine Rogina.  as well for the manner of their ordering, to wit, only by the King's institution, without example or warrant either in Scripture or antiquity, as also for the end of their ordering, which was to withdraw the people from the frequenting the true Catholic Roman church, and Gods true worship, and religion observed therein.  
20 To those authorities of holy scripture, I will add only one clear, and manifest reason, for the confirmation of the whole conclusion before set down.  
Nothing can be more evident in civil government, then that he, that being subject, or vassal to any Sovereign, taketh upon himself any office, charge, or ministry over his subjects without his warrant or commission, doth thereby usurp his Sovereign's authority, and consequently committeth manifest rebellion: if his usurpation be in matters pertaining to command or govenment, as it is in our case. For no act of rebellion can be more manifest, than that whereby the subject equalleth himself with his Sovereign (thereby impeching his sovereignty, & withdrawing from him his due subjection) which was the crime of Lucifer, the first, & father of all rebels, 
Isa. 14. v. 14.  saying. I will ascend above the top of the clouds, I will be like the highest. But by no other means, can any subject more equalise himself with his Sovereign, then by taking upon him that power and authority, which is proper to his sovereign: one great part whereof consisteth in ordaining magistrates, and officers in his dominions, who, every one in their degree represent himself, exercising their offices not in their own names, or by their own power, but in his. He therefore that without his sovereigns' appointment, or order, maketh himself officer in any charge over his subjects, doth manifestly usurp his authority, and therein doth equallise himself with him, and withdraweth from him his service and subjection, which is a direct act of rebellion.  
Farther it is also evident, that not only he, that doth this, is guilty of rebellion, but all those that consent and concur with him in the same act: in which manner transgressed all the other apostate Angels, that fell from heaven with Lucifer. As also the complices of Core, as is mentioned before. And of this S. Paul giveth a general rule, 
Rom. 1.12.  saying. Not only those that do wickedly are worthy of punishment, but also those that consent unto them.  
This being manifest on the one side, and it being also clearly proved on the other, that such as have no other calling, to the ministry of God's word and Sacraments, but an opinion that they are fit for that office, and that such as are already employed therein, do not rightly perform their duty in discharge thereof, have no sufficient calling, or warrant from Christ, (he never, either by himself, his Apostles, or his Church, warranting any such usurpation, yea expressly condemneth the same, as appeareth by the testimonies before alleged) it must needs follow, that such, as upon the now mentioned grounds, take upon them the charge of Pastors of Christ's flock, are rebels against him, as being sovereign over his Church, 
Math. 28.  and to whom all power in heaven, and in earth is given. And not only they that do this, are rebels against Christ, and his Church, but also all that favour, follow, and adhere unto them in the same fact. Whether our new Gospelers, and their adherents be of this number, or not, will appear hereafter. For if they be proved to have, no other true calling, but that which is here mentioned, and already disproved, they are evidently convinced, of the hateful crime of rebellion against Christ, and his church.   

The fifth Chapter. That the truth of doctrine is not a sufficient proof of true and lawful calling, to the ministry of God's word, and sacraments. Nor is it any assured means for a Preacher and Pastor, to prove himself authentically called to that charge, for him to allege that the doctrine which he teacheth is good and true.  
1. HAVING proved in the precedent chapter, that the sole opinion of the fitness of any person, to exercise the ministry of God's word, and sacraments, joined also with an opinion, that such as are in that charge, do not rightly discharge it, is no sufficient warrant for any man, to take upon himself that office, it followeth, that we examine whether every one, that pretendeth, to teach true doctrine, hath true and lawful calling, to the ministry of God's word. And the sense of the question is: whether they, that should have no other proof of their calling, to the ministry of God's word and sacraments in his church, then that which is drawn from the nature, and quality of their doctrine, and manner of ministering the sacraments, in this sort: The doctrine which we preach and manner of ministering the sacraments, which we use, is true and conformable to Gods written word: therefore our calling to preach and minister the sacraments, is lawfully, and sufficiently warranted. The question here (I say) is, whether this be a sufficient proof of calling, to the lawful ministry of God's word and sacraments.  
2. For the clearing whereof it is to be observed, that two conditions are necessarily required in that whereby another thing is to be proved. The first is, that it be better known or more evident, then that which is to be proved by it. For it is an evident absurdity to prove one thing unknown, by another thing, that is as little, or less known. As for example, if one should prove the stars in the firmament, to be even or of equal number, because they are not odd; or if one should prove himself no bastard, because he is borne in lawful wedlock, the latter being no better known then the former, which should be proved by it? or (which is more to our purpose) if one should prove himself to be a lawful judge or justice, because he judgeth all causes according to equity and justice; I say, that these, and all other such like proofs whereby we would prove the matter, which is in doubt and in question being as little or less certain than that, which we would prove by them, are evidently absurd, and of no force. For in this case, that which should be proved, is made no better known, nor no more certain, than it was before.  
The second condition required in that thing, which is to be the proof of another, is, that it be always certainly, and infallibly joined with that, which is to be proved, (if we speak of certain, and infallible proofs, as here we do): for though one thing should be more evident, and better known then another, yet unless it be found always joined with the other, it cannot make any certain, and infallible proof of it. For example, it is more evident to him, that seethe a tree blossomed, that it is blossomed, then that it will bear fruit: and that a man, whom we see move, doth verily move, then that he doth ride on horseback, and yet neither is that an infallible and certain proof, that the tree blossomed, will bring fruit: nor this, that the man which moveth, doth ride on horseback, because neither the one, nor the other, is always certainly joined with that, which should be proved. This being observed.  

Conclusion.  3. It is evident, that it cannot be any convenient, or sufficient proof of lawful calling, to the ministry of God's word, and sacraments, to allege or affirm, that the parties, whose calling is in dispute, as doubtful and uncertain, do teach true doctrine, and minister rightly the sacraments. And the reason is easy; because in this proof, is neither of the conditions, whic● are required in a sufficient proof, much less are they bo●h, and therefore is it not only insufficient but very idle and absurd. But let us see, how neither of those conditions is found in this proof.  
First it is no less uncertain and unknown, that the doctrine preached by any new master is true, and conformable to the holy Scriptures, then that his calling, who preacheth it, is good and lawful: yea unless it be the same doctrine, with that of the whole Catholic Church, (as if it be new, it cannot be) it must needs be far more uncertain, and more difficult to know, then is his calling, and therefore can be no sufficient proof thereof. For whether the proof of doctrine consist in the conformity, with the true sense and meaning of the written word only, as the Protestants teach, or of the unwritten, and written word together, as the Catholics believe, evident it is, that the proofs of doctrine, drawn from thence must needs be far more difficult, then are those of calling because the difficulty, in finding out the true sense of holy scripture, is far greater, then that, which is in trying out the true calling of any Pastor; as evidently appeareth, aswell by the confession, and example of the greatest wits, that ever have been in the Christian world; some willingly confessing great difficulty, in finding out the true sense, and meaning of the holy Scripture: S. Augustine the Eagle of the Latin Church, with admiration confessing the profoundness of God's word, breaketh forth into these words. O wonderful profoundness of thy words: wonderful profoundness (my God) wonderful profoundness, 
Confess. l. 12. c. 14.  it maketh a man quake to look on it: to quake for reverence, and to tremble for the love thereof. And in another place, the same holy Doctor saith: that for no other cause, 
De Gen. ad lit. c. 9 l. 2.  are heresies made but because men not rightly understanding the scriptures, do obstinately affirm their own opinions, against the truth of them: others of as great understanding peradventure as he, but less humility, have evidently erred from the true sense, and meaning of the Scriptures, as witness the laps and errors of Tertullian, Origen, Lucifer, with many others: as also by the evident testimony of the scripture itself. How can I understand the things, which I read, 
Act. 8.31. 2. Pet. 3.16.  (saith the religious Eunuch) unless some man show me? S. Peter also saith: that in the Epistles of S. Paul are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable deprave, as also the rest of the scriptures, to their own perdition. Which difficulty our Saviour Christ well knew, and therefore for remedy thereof, he opened the understanding of his Apostles, 
Luc. 24.25.  that they might understand the scriptures.  
4. Neither doth the answer, which the Protestants use to make to this, any way satisfy, saying; that though there be many hard passages in holy scripture, yet are they either explained in other places more easy, or else they do not contain any other points of doctrine necessary to be known, than those that are contained in the more easy places: This answer (I say) doth no way satisfy. For besides that every place of scripture containeth doctrine profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct in justice, 
2. ad Timo. 3.16.  as S. Paul teacheth, (and therefore not only the easy, but the hard places also): the many expositions given by the Protestants, contrary to the understanding not only of the Catholics, but also of other Protestants, upon divers places of scripture, containing chief points of faith, as for example of these words: This is my body: 
Math. 26.  to omit the misunderstanding of holy Scriptures, by all former heretics: (the true cause of all heresies, as S. Augustine saith) do evidently show the great difficulty, in finding out the true sense, and meaning of Scriptures, even in places containing points of doctrine necessary to be known and believed, and therefore this their answer is both false and frivolous. 
De doctrina Christiana li. 2. c. 6.  And though S. Augustine saith, that nothing almost is drawn out of those obscurities, which may not be found in other places uttered plainly: yet is neither his saying universal, as is evident by that word (almost) neither is his meaning such, as that without the interpretation of the Church, all the plainer places of scripture may be easily understood: As the variety of interpretations opposite to the true meaning of the Scripture, and therefore causing heresies as the same S. Augustine saith, doth evidently convince. And thus much of the difficulty of finding out the true sense of God's words, from whence the proof of doctrine is to be had. It remaineth, that we now see, what difficulty there is in finding out the proof of true and lawful calling, that afterwards it may appear, whether the truth of doctrine, may be a convenient proof of calling, or no.  
5. In the proof of calling there is neither other difficulty nor mystery, then that he, that pretendeth to be lawful Pastor, Preacher, or minister of God's word, and sacraments, do produce some authentical instrument, or testimony witnessing, that he is put in that charge by him, that is confessed to have authority to give it, That this is the only known, and common way of making proof, of the ordinary calling to the ministry, there is none of the Protestants, that deny it. I say of t●e ordinary calling, for of that only I speak here, leaving the extraordinary to another place. This being so, no man of any judgement will say, that it is a more plain, and easy thing to know, what doctrine is conformable to the true sense and meaning of the Scripture; then to know, who hath lawful calling of the ministry of God's word and sacraments: but the quite contrary: and therefore that the allegation of the truth of Doctrine, or the conformity thereof with the word of God, cannot be any competent or convenient proof of lawful calling, according to the grounds proposed, in the beginning of the Chapter.  
6. And this is manifest by this clear example. Not civil magistrate, and in particular, no judge or justice, was yet ever found so extravagant, as to prove himself true and lawful judge, by the right, and just deciding of causes: But before any man can or dare to take upon him to sit in judgement, as a public justice, upon any matter, be it civil or criminal, he produceth his patent, or warrant, whereby it authentically appeareth, that he is established in that charge, by the sovereign authority of the Prince: without which neither the alleging nor the manifest proof, both of his skill, and equity in deciding of causes, would avail him for the proof of his calling to that charge. Yea though he were furnished with both kind of proofs, to wit, as well with that of skill, and equity in judgements, as with that of the King's patent, yet who seethe not, that the latter is not only a more certain and authentical, but also a more easy, and plain proof of his establishing in that office. For to discern this, the only view of the King's authentical patent or other writ, accustomed in those affairs, with a small knowledge is sufficient; whereas to discern the other, the skill as well in the nature of causes, as also in the tenor of the Law, (which is found in few) is required. And therefore he that should prove his Commission, and power in this case, by his good behaviour in his office, should prove that, which is more clear and easy to be known, by that which is far more obscure, and more difficult, which to the sight of all men, is ridiculus and absurd. And this is true, though we should suppose, that the proof of his knowledge, and sincerity in exercising that office, should be sufficient proof of his lawful calling, and establishing therein: which notwithstanding is far otherways, as will evidently appear by that which followeth. The like absurdity they commit, that labour to prove their lawful calling to the ministry, by the truth of their doctrine, and manner of ministering the Sacraments, though there doctrine were known, to be most conformable to holy scripture, and their manner of ministering the sacraments likewise approved.  
7. But our new Reformists do commit a far more gross and foul absurdity. For the truth of their doctrine, and their manner of ministering sacraments, being as much in doubt and dispute, as their calling, is it not more then absurd to produce the truth of their doctrine, for proof of their lawful calling? And is not this proof altogether like unto that, whereby the stars in the firmament, should be proved to be even in number, because they be not odd, this being as uncertain as the other? And yet there is this difference, betwixt these two proofs, that he that should indeed prove the stars not to be odd, should sufficiently prove them to be even: Whereas he that should prove the Protestants doctrine to be true, should not for all that prove their calling to be good, as shall be showed by and by.  
Hitherto it hath been showed, that the proof of calling to the ministry, by the truth of doctrine, is inconvenient and absurd, though the doctrine should be admitted for true. But in the case of our adversaries, where the truth of doctrine is also in controversy, it is most ridiculous and impertinent. But now let us consider the second condition necessarily required in a lawful proof.  
8. Where there is true doctrine, there is not always lawful calling, to the ministry of God's word and sacraments: and therefore the proof of calling by the truth of doctrine, faileth in the second condition necessarily required in a lawful proof: and is like to this. Peter is learned in the Law, and an honest man, therefore a lawful judge: or john is a valiant captain, and faithful subject, therefore the King's Lieutenant general. For the truth of doctrine doth no more infer the lawfulness of calling, to minister God's word, and sacraments, than the knowledge of the Law, or skill in martial affairs, joined with honesty, and fidelity, do infer the office of judge or Lieutenant.  
It is evident by many instances out of holy scripture, that the the truth of doctrine is not always with lawful calling to ministry of God's word and sacraments. For S. Mathias before he was chosen to be an Apostle, had doubtless the same doctrine, that the other Apostles had, and yet had he not any lawful Apostle-ship. And S. joseph surnamed the just, who was chosen to stand with S. Mathias for the Apostle-ship, 
Act. c. 1.  from which judas fell, had no doubt the same truth of doctrine, that S. Mathias had, and the rest, yet was he not an Apostle.  
The like may be said of the rest of our saviours Disciples, and of those of the Apostles, who though they had the truth of doctrine, yet were they not for all that all owed for lawful Pastors, and Preachers, until they were ordained thereunto by the Apostles, or those that had that power from them. For why did S. Paul leave Titus in Crete, 
Tit. c. 1.5.  to ordain Priests in all the Cities, as he had appointed: but because more is required to the lawful power of Priesthood, than truth of doctrine? whence it is manifest that wheresoever is true doctrine, there is not always lawful calling, to the ministery of God's word and sacraments. Which is yet more evident by the example of Core and his complices, who differed not from Moses and Aaron in any point of doctrine, or manner of Sacraments, sacrifice or ceremonies, but only in the usurpation of that function, whereunto they were not called, for the which they were so severely punished, as is before mentioned. Who notwithstanding might with much more reason, have used this argument against Moses and Aaron, than our adversaries can use it against us, and might have said, we have true doctrine, and the lawful manner of ministering the sacraments, aswell as you, therefore have we the lawful Priesthood aswell as you. Which very example S. Cyprian useth against some heretics in his time saying; It cannot help them any thing, 
Epist. 76. ad Magnum.  that they are said to know the same God the father with us, and his son jesus Christ, and the same holy Ghost. For Core, Dathan, and Abiron, did know the same God, with the Priests Aaron and Moses, living in the same law, and religion, invocating the only true God, yet because ecxeeding the degree of their ministry, did usurp unto themselves the licence of sacrificing against Aaron who by God's ordinance had the lawful Priesthood, therefore were they stricken from heaven, and received presently conding punishment, for their presumptuous attempt. Thus far S. Cyprian, who had he either lived in these days, or had our adversaries lived in his, he would have said unto them the same, their case being like to theirs, to whom he saith this.  

Homil. 11. in epist. ad Ephesios' in the moral. part.  And S. chrysostom confirmeth the same in these words. Do ye think it is sufficient to say they are true believers, and that it importeth not, though the election of Prelates perish? For what doth it avail, if this be not exact and perfect? for we aught to contend for this as for the faith itself.  
9 By these irreprovable testimonies both of holy Scriptures, and the ancient Fathers, it is evident, that the truth of doctrine, cannot be any sufficient proof of lawful calling to the ministry of God's word, and Sacraments. And the reason is, because the truth of doctrine, and lawful calling proceed from principles, that are different in themselves, and not so dependant one of the other, but that the one may be well without the other. For the truth of doctrine is taken from the conformity it hath with Gods revealed word: but the calling of Pastors, or commission to minister lawfully God's word, and sacraments, is received from the person of our Saviour Christ (to whom all power is given in heaven, and in earth) by such means as he hath ordained, and instituted for that purpose, whereof there is frequent mention in holy Scriptures, as we shall see more at large hereafter. Which being so, no marvel it is, that the one may be without the other, and consequently that the one cannot be any certain, or sure proof of the other. And this diversity of principles or beginnings▪ whence the truth of doctrine, & lawfulness of calling do proceed, is made more manifest by the example before mentioned of a civil magistrate. For the equity and justness of every sentence, or judgement in cases of the law, is taken from the conformity it hath, with the law itself, and with the nature of the case decided; And the authority of the judge is received from the Sovereign, by such public instruments a●● means, as in every commonwealth are ordained for that p●●pose. Which two things who doth not see to be so different, and so independent one of the other, that the one may easily be without the other? as it is also in the thing we speak off. For though the lawful calling to preach, and minister God's sacraments, doth presuppose truth of doctrine, with other qualities requisite, or at lest aught to do, yet doth not truth of doctrine necessarily infer lawful power to preach, as is manifest by that which is already said.  
10. But here may be made a cavil in this manner. This question, What is calling? necessarily goeth before this other; 
A cavil prevented.  where is lawful calling, or who hath lawful calling? For it is in vain to ask where it is; unless it be first known what it is; But this question, what is calling? is a point of doctrine, and not of calling, or authority, and therefore questions of doctrine must, or aught to go before those of calling, and consequently truth of doctrine may be proof of calling. And because questions of doctrine are to be decided by scripture, therefore is this question also to be tried by Scripture. For the satisfying of this cavil, it is to be observed. First, that though this question: What is calling? be a question of doctrine, and necessarily goeth before this other, where is calling or who hath it? yet doth it not therefore follow that all questions of doctrine, aught to go before all those of calling. As in the like case, though this question, what is lawful juridical power? be a question, of law, not of power, or authority, and necessarily goeth before this other, who is a lawful judge, or who hath lawful juridical power? yet doth it not therefore follow, that all questions of law are, or aught to be decided before this question of power or office, to wit, who is a lawful judge or who hath the lawful power to judge? But when this is in doubt, it must necssarily be decided before all others, excepting that one, what is a lawful judge? because without the decision of this question, who is lawful judge? no other questions in law can be rightly, & juridically decided: and the same happeneth in our question of Ecclesiastical calling.  
Secondly, it is to be observed, that the difference or dispute, between us, and our adversaries is not about this question: What is lawful calling? For in this we all agreed, to wit, that it is the lawful power to minister the word of God, & sacraments, in the church of Christ, therefore is not necessary to be disputed, it being supposed by either party. But the difference between us is, where this lawful power is, or who hath it. To wit, whether the Protestants have it, or no: Which is the first question of controversy, that by all right, and lawful proceeding, aught to be decided betwixt us.  
Thirdly, it is to be observed that though the Scripture doth sufficiently express both what this calling is, and by what means it is given, and derived to those, that are made Pastors, as also the temporal law doth the office of a civil magistrate: yet doth it not nor can it express, who or what particular person hath this calling. For this necessarily includeth a matter of fact, which is as often repeated, as there is any new Pastor created, and therefore cannot be expressed in holy scriptures: as neither can the temporal law declare, what person in particular is true & lawful judge, or justice. So that we may truly say, that the scripture doth declare what is calling, but it doth not, nor cannot declare where it is, or who hath it. And again, that it doth indeed declare it, but it doth not give it, as neither doth the temporal law give the civil magistrate his office. Therefore though it be true, that this question where is this calling? be to be decided by scripture; yet this other question: where is this calling? or who hath it? which is only in controversy here, cannot be decided by Scripture, because this includeth, or supposeth a matter of fact, which the Scripture cannot express. But now I will go forward with my purpose, whence I may seem to have somewhat digressed, by reason of the objection made and answered.  
11. This kind of proof of calling, by the truth of doctrine being so evidently impertinent and defective, as is already showed, some that are not so thoroughly acquainted, with the absurd shifts of our new Reformists, may peradventure think that they use it not at all, but that they are wronged by this imputation: therefore it will not be amiss to set down their own words, that they may be heard speak in their own cause.  

Answer to a demand of their vocation.  First certain Ministers of the pretended Reformation in France say thus. If there were no other reason, to prove our vocation to be good, this would suffice, to wit, that we have the true, and pure doctrine wholly, whereupon the true calling doth depend. This therefore we say, that where is true doctrine, there also may be true calling, which is an order in the church prescribed by the doctrine. But we have the true doctrine, as we will ●●●r maintain; and therefore do we conclude, that we may have the true calling, though we have it not from others. These are the self words of these new Pastors, and Monsieur du Plessis saith the same in effect, when he saith, that to those, that ask them for their calling, they may answer in one word after our Saviour, the words which we preach, bear witness of us: which is a text of Scripture of his own coining, as is before noted. All which sufficiently showeth, that they would prove their calling, by the truth of their doctrine.  
But how ridiculous this argument of theirs is, every child may see. We have (say they) the true doctrine. (well for disputations sake, we will suppose it so, though in itself it be most false) therefore (say they) may we have true calling. Be it so what then? doth it follow hereupon, that they have true calling? As well surely as if one should say, I am a true merchant, and may have a thousand pounds in my purse, therefore I have so much in my purse. Who would not laugh at the vanity of this fellow? And whereas they seem to brag, that they have other proof of their vocation besides the truth of their doctrine, when they say: if there were no other proof of our vocation, than the truth of our doctrine: it is but a vain brag of theirs, for they have none at all, as is invincibly proved against them, by their own public confession, proposed to the world for a declaration of their faith in these words. we believe that no man aught to intrude himself into the church government, 
Confession of Geneva arti. 31.  but that this be done by election (so far as is possible, and as God doth permit) which exception we wittingly add, because it hath been needful sometimes, and namely in these our days, when the state of the Church was interrupted, that God should raise men by an extraordinary means to redress his church, which was in ruin, and desolation. This is the public confession of their faith, whereby they openly profess themselves, to have no other vocation, but extraordinary. Now I conjure them, for the maintenance of this their extraordinary vocation, to bring some other proof of it, than the pretended truth of their doctrine: which they can never do, seeing thy have not, and therefore do not allow of, any miracles.  
12. I know well that Monsieur du Plessis in France, and D. Field in England do say, that the new ministry hath the same ordinary vocation, that is confessed by themselves to be in the Catholic Roman Church. The truth of which affirmation shall be examined in due place. In the mean while the judicious Reader may observe, that these Doctors in affirming this, do directly contradict the confession of their chiefest reformed Church of Geneva, whose Pastors, as we have seen above, do profess to have no other than an extraordinary vocation. And so doubtful even among themselves is this matter, which aught to be most clear, as being the ground of all their preaching and belief, that they cannot tell whether they should call their vocation ordinary, or extraordinary. Some saying it is ordinary, as 
(a) Plessis treatise of the Church c. 11. sect. If therefore.  Monsi. du Plessis and 
(b) Field 3. book of the church c. 39  D. Field: some extraordinary, as the confession of 
(c) Confession of Geneva artic. 31.  Geneva; some both ordinary, and extraordinary, as the 
(d) Ministers of France answer sect. For as much as pertaineth to the first.  Ministers of France, in the treatise before mentioned: all speaking of the same churches, without involving that of England, which hath special privilege, as we shall see afterwards. All which being well weighed, it cannot be much marveled that the Reformists would make some show of proof of their vocation, by the truth of their doctrine. For being on the one side destitute of all other probable proof, and on the other side knowing right well, that if they should once confess themselves to have no calling at all (as indeed they have not, but come of themselves, being sent by none) they should quickly be descried to be false prophets, and such, as in the holy scripture are called wolves, thieves and robbers, they are necessarily constrained, to use this absurd shift of proving their calling, 
Io. 10.1.2.  by the pretended truth of their doctrine. The absurdity whereof, though evident to every one, that with any small attention weigheth it, yet is it not so apparent, but to such, as either are prevented with a prejudicate opinion, of the corruption of the Roman Church, which they impugn, or to such, as through carelessness of their own eternal good (of which sort the world is full) will not stand to weigh the vanity, and levity thereof, it may seem sufficient. This apparent shift therefore they willingly, and craftily use, that under the colour thereof (if it be possible) they may pass this point of their vocation, which is such a strait, as being kept with any indifferent ward, they know they can never pass: and therefore is by our Saviour Christ called the door of the sheepfold, 
Io. 10.1.2.  which being by any slight once passed, they are strait in the main dispute of doctrine. Wherein though they have no more ground of truth, than they have true calling, yet are they not so easily, and evidently convinced of falsehood and error (to the capacity of every one) as they are of the nullity of their vocation. For as it is far more easy to keep the door, that the thief enter not into the sheepfold, then to thrust him out again, being once entered, so is it far more easy to convince all heretics, of their intrusion, and want of calling (which is, as it were, to keep them out of doors: then to convince them of false doctrine, and error in faith, which is, to trust them out again, after they be once entered. And the reason hereof, (for so much as concerneth our controversy with the pretended Reformers) is evident. For they not admitting any other trial of doctrine, the then words of the scripture, and those interpreted and understood, as they themselves will, it is no marvel though they cannot easily be convinced, of error in doctrine, (I say) convinced so, as they have no evasion: which is not peculiar to the heresy of these days, but common to all heresies, that ever have been. For never were there any heretics, that did not allege scripture for themselves, which if we should suppose to be understood in no other sense, and meaning, but as they did understand it; no marvel would it be, though they could not easily be convinced of error and falsity. And for a pregnant proof hereof, may serve the example of that silly Arian Legate, not long since burned in Smithfield, whom all the Doctors and Bishops in England, could not convince of heresy by only scripture, at lest as he though. Whereas in the point of calling, there is no such means, either by obstinate wrangling or false pretence of scripture, to cast dust into men's eyes, and to make their case if not probable, at lest doubtful. For unless they bring forth the sensible testimony of their calling, by the known Pastors of the church, they are immediately without farther proof, or trial, known to be intruders, and ravening wolves. And this is the very true reason, why our new masters would so gladly skip over the point of vocation, (wherein they know they cannot hide their wolvish fangues) and at the first leap, jump into the dispute of doctrine, where they know that only obstinacy, and wilfulness, and a resolution to stand to no judgement, but their own, will furnish them of sufficient means, to wrangle till the world's end. And this is evident not only by the disputes, they maintanie against the Catholic doctrine, but by the endless jars, they have among themselves.   

The sixth Chapter. That the sole election of the people is not a sufficient warrant, and calling, to the lawful ministery of God's word & Sacraments.  
1. THat is that lay persons, be they Princes, or subjects, Magistrates, or common people, few, or many have no power to ordain Pastors, and to give them authority, whereby they may lawfully preach, and minister Sacraments, or (which is the same thing) that no person elected by them, may lawfully without any further calling or commission, take upon him the ministery of God's word, and Sacraments with them, who have so elected him.  
Monsieur du Plessis, finding belike, that without this help, it is not possible to maintanie the calling of their reformed brethren in general, but that some of them at lest must needs be found, to have intruded themselves into the ministery without any calling, delivereth this doctrine, which though it suit well with their religion, yet is it not only most false and absurd in itself, but also contrary to their chiefest masters of reformation, as we shall see by and by; his words are these.  

Plessis of the church cap. 11. sect. and though etc. He seeketh all corners to maintain their calling but in vain.  Although some of our men in such a corrupt state of the church, as we have seen in our time, without waiting for calling, or allowance of them, who under the title of Pastors, oppressed the Lords flock, did at first preach without this formal calling, and afterwards were chosen, and called to the ministery, by the churces, which they had taught, to the which they had vowed their service, and ministery: yet this aught to seem no more strange, then if in a free commonwealth, the people without waiting either for the consent, or for the voices of those, that tirannise over them, should (according to the laws) make choice of good and wise Magistrates, and such (happily) as God would serve his turn of for their delivery, and for the public restitution. Thus Monsieur du Plessis. Where it is evident, that in his doctrine, the election of the people is a sufficient calling to the holy ministery, at lest in such, as have laboured amongst them in the want of others, and have vowed their service, and ministery unto them. And this do all his arguments prove, if they did prove any thing, as we shall see by and by.  
2. This doctrine is evidently confuted by Caluin himself in these words: 
He condemneth himself for he was never so ordored. Institut. l. d. c. 3. sect. 16.  Although there appeareth no other certain precept of imposition of hands, notwithstanding because we see it to have been ever used by the Apostles: their diligent use thereof aught to be to us instead of a commandment. And to exclude Monsieur du Plessis customary shift of pretended necessity, it is to be noted that Caluin speaketh of a time, wherein there was greater necessity of Pastors, than was or could be ever since, to wit, of that time, when the harvest was great, and harvest men but few, as our Saviour himself saith: 
Math. 6.37.  And Luther the father of all the reformers. Inquire diligently, if they can prove their vocation: 
In locis communibus. pag. 38.  For God never sent any, but either called by man, or declared by miracles, not not his own son. But let us see how this doctrine of Monsieur du Plessis agreeth with the holy scripture.  
First, it supposeth for a ground, without which it cannot stand, that the church of Christ may be so oppressed, and overrun with Antichrist, that there remain in it no true and lawful Pastors: For so long as there remanie any such, others may be ordained by them, and so it shall not be needful, to recurre to any extraordinary manner of ordination by the election of the people, as Monsieur du Plessis here mentioneth. But this supposition is not only without all warrant of holy scripture, (which sole reason according to their own doctrine, is sufficient to convince it of falsity) but is also manifestly, against the express testimony of the same, and therefore is evidently heretical. 
Cap. 62.6.  Upon th● walls Jerusalem (saith almighty God by the Prophet Esay) have I set watchmen: day nor night shall they be silent for ever. If these watch men, who are manifestly the Pastors of God's church, shall not be silent for ever; how can it be true, that the church shallbe at any time so devoid of lawful Pastors, that there shall none remanie to ordanie others?  
And our Saviour Christ giveth us most infallible assurance of this never failing order of Pastors in his church, for being, to leave the world by his corporal and visible presence, and to go to his father, giving that power and commission to his Apostles, by virtue whereof, they were to plant his church in the whole world, he saith. All power 〈◊〉 given me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, 
Math. 28.20.  and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world. Now if Christ be with the Pastors of the church all days until the world's end; how hath his church been so without true Pastors, from the time, wherein she first failed (as our adversaries pretend, until Luther's apostasy, which hath been for many hundreds of years) that there were none to give lawful calling unto others, but they were forced to come, not being called, and run, not being sent? Let Monsieur du Plessis, and all his crew either deny this to be holy scripture, or say that our Saviour hath failed of his promise, or that the church never wanted true Pastors. I leave them to make choice of one of these three things: for one of them must necessarily be true; And because the two first are blasphemous heresies, they are forced to accept of the third, which being no less true, than the other two are false, doth convince Monsieur du Plessis his doctrine to be heretical: and farther, that all those, that take upon them the ministery of God's word and sacraments, without the lawful ordination by true Pastors, under pretence, that all such as are, or were, failed in God's church, are thieves and robbers, as not entering by the door, but climbing up another way.  

Io. 10.1.  3. S. Paul also, after our Saviour Christ, testifieth the same perpetual continuation of true Pastors in God's church, in most express words saying. He that descended, the same is also he that is ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things: And he gave some Apostles, some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors. 
Ad Ephes. 4.  To the consummation of the saints, unto the work of the ministery, unto the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet into the unity of faith, and knowledge of the son of God. Is it not evident here, that our Saviour hath ordained Pastors, and Doctors to continued in his church, till we all meet in unity of faith (that is) till the end of the world? Let the prudent reader judge what pastors they are like to be, that can pretend no other right, or title to that charge, but the surmised fail of all true Pastors. Surely if S. Paul's doctrine be true, such fellows must necessarily be thieves, that come to rob and raven, and not shepherds, that should keep, and govern the flock of Christ) as our Saviour himself doth style them. 
Io. 10.1.2.  And these so express testimonies of holy scriptures, do manifestly convince, the supposition of the fail of Pastors in the church, to be most false, and heretical: And consequently it doth also convince, the calling, or ministery of those pretending reformers, that is built thereupon, 
Confess. act. 31.  (as the falsely reformed church of France confesseth theirs to be) not only to be no lawful ministery, but also to be a manifested sacrilegious rebellion, and usurpation.  
Farther the Apostle teaching expressly; that no man taketh upon him the honour (of priesthood) but he that is called of God as Aaron: And again; that no man can preach, unless he be sent. It is manifest, that those whom Monsieur du Plessis confesseth to have preached first without this formal calling, have transgressed the express prescript of the holy Ghost. And though the choice, and election of the churches taught by them, (whereof Monsieur du Plessis speaketh) should be granted a sufficient warrant, for their preaching afterwards (which no man will ever grant) yet himself cannot deny, but their first preaching was without commission, or warrant, and therefore usurped. Neither is it less manifest, that the churches, which these men taught, could have no power to call them, and make them lawful Pastors. For neither had they this power of themselves, as shall appear by the answer to his first argument: neither had they it from God by any grant, for no such thing appeareth, either in holy scripture, Ecclesiastical tradition, Counsels, or Fathers, but manifestly the contrary (I speak of such election as giveth power to preach, and not of such, as goeth before ordination) neither could they receive it from their new Pastors, who having it not themselves, could not give it to their hearers, or disciples: And therefore had they it not at all, how could they therefore give any lawful authority to their Pastors to preach, or minister sacraments? Certes they could not do it.  
This being most clear: whence will Monsieur du Plessis say, that their new ministers (descending from these first convinced usurpers) have their calling? doubtless from no other, them him, who taught Core to take upon him, the office of sacrificing for the usurpation whereof, he was destroyed with fire from heaven. Are they not therefore subject to that heavy sentence, 
Numbers. 16.  thundered out by the holy Ghost in these words; woe to them, that have perished in the contradiction of Core.  

Jude 11.  4. Now for the preventing of certain frivolous cavils, which in the behalf of our adversaries may here be made, it is to be observed, that the question is not betwixt them and us, whether all the Pastors of God's church, either were, when Luther first began to preach his heresy, or now are, without all fault or note of blame, for their lives and manners; but whether there were not then, and are now in the Catholic Roman church, Pastors furnished with true, and lawful calling; and at lest such, as our Saviour speaketh of, 
Math. 23.2.3.  when he saith: upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees, all things therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, do ye, but according to their works do ye not, for they say, and do not. Where our Saviour doth evidently distinguish between the office or function of Pastors, or Prelates, and their life and manners, and will have them to be obeyed, in that they command and teach as his officers, but will not that they should be always imitated in their life and works: to wit, when their deeds be contrary to their words, as sometimes they happen to be. This observation frustrateth all the cavils, which the adversaries draw either by calumny, or otherwise from the lives, and manners of the clergy, and Prelates of the Catholic Roman church. 
See an excellent saying of S. Aug. cap. 8 before the end some what.  For though they were all granted as true (as they are not) yet do they prove nothing against their function, and calling, as appeareth evidently by our saviours own words even now elleaged. Neither can the wickedness of the Pastors of the church, (were it as great, as the adversaries do falsely pretend) any more justify their schismatical revolt, and rebellion against the same, then can the corruption, or wickedness of the King's officers, (supposing they were most Wicked) justify the revolt, and rebellion of his subjects against him, though raised, and begun under the fair show, of reforming abuses in his officers. For if they had sincerely intended, any true reformation in the church, and not the ruin thereof, they would most carefully have kept whole, and entire the unity of the same, and laboured by such means, as the holy Ghost hath ordained for that purpose, to amend, and correct that which was amiss: and not by running out into open schism, to have broken the unity of faith, and communion with the church; and thereby to make the evil altogether incurable, and irremediable. For until their Apostasy, the unity of the church, and communion of all the members thereof remained whole, not withstanding whatsoever corruption of life, and manners, whether truly being, or falsely surmised to be, in particular persons, were they private, or public.  
5. If they reply hereunto and say, that this course had been good, and necessarily to have been observed, had the unity of the church, or the church itself, continued, but the true church being long since utterly perished, and abolished, and nothing thereof remaining but a Synagogue of Antichrist, under the shadow and colour, of a Christian church, or congregation, this course could have no place, no take any effect. To this reply (because it is a matter that cannot here be fully handled) I will say no more, then that no man that believeth either the old, or new testament, can think, that the church ever hath, or ever shall (until the world's end) fail or perish in such sort, as here is supposed; and therefore to say, or think this, is, but to maintain one error, and heresy by another, which cannot be any fit mean, to justify their running out into rebellion, and schism. And albeit my present purpose will not permit me, to prosecute at large the proof of this proposition, (that the church neither hath, nor shall fail) yet jest any should think, that I have exceeded therein, and said more than can be justified, I have here pointed to some few places, as well of the one, as tother Testament, that make clear proof thereof, which I leave to be farther viewed, and considered by thee (careful Reader) at thy best liking and leisure. 
Esay. 59.21.  My spirit that is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed (saith our Lord) from henceforth, and for ever.  
In the days of those kingdoms, the God of heaven shall raise a kingdom, 
Daniel. 2.44.  that shall not be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be given to another people, but it shall break in pieces all those kingdoms, 
See also Dan. cap. 7.14.27.  and it shall stand for ever.  
And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. 
Math. 28.20.  Upon which words M. Fulke disclaiming from the doctrine, that supposeth the failing of the church saith. We neither say, 
Annotations upon the testament.  nor think that the church hath failed: but do constantly believe, that it hath always continued, and always shall continued to the end of the world.  

Luke 1.33.  And he shall reign in the house of jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shallbe no end.  

Math. 16.18.  Upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  

Ephes. 4.11.12.13.  And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors, and Doctors, to the consummation of the saints, until we meet in the unity of faith, and knowledge of the Son of God.  

Cap. 8. n. 4. and after.  The arguments, which our adversaries use to bring, for the proof of the churches failing, are hereafter satisfied upon an other occasion. And now I proceed in my purpose.  
6. Having thus refuted this absurd point of Doctrine, of Monsieur du Plessis, by authentical proof of the contrary, it remaineth to show the impertinency of his arguments, which he bringeth for confirmation of the same. His first argument is this in effect: It is no more strange for a Pastor, to be called to the holy ministery, by the people in time of necessity, than it is for a civil Magistrate, to be chosen by them in the like necessity. But this is nothing strange; neither therefore is the other. Whereunto I answer, that it is a most gross absurdity, and ignorance to compare the Ecclesiastical ministery, or magistracy, with the temporal, or civil in this point: th'one being a mere spiritual power, to minister, and dispense spiritual things, having their effect in men's souls, which as they can only be instituted of God, so also can they only be lawfully dispensed by him, who is ordained by God, and therefore the Apostle saith: Let men so esteem of us, as ministers of Christ, 
1. Cor. 4.1.  and dispensers of the mysteries of God. Tother is a mere temporal power, over men's bodies and goods, which no doubt may be given by men, as we see in the first institution of kingdoms, or common wealths. As therefore it is unpossible for any one, to give that unto another, which he hath neither of himself, nor by commission from any other, so is it unpossible for the people, to give to others the authority, to minister God's word and sacraments, which they have neither of themselves, nor by any commission from God: or if they have, let it be showed, where this power and commission was given them. For as none doth take unto himself the honour of Priesthood, 
Hebr. 5.  but he that is called of God, as Aaron (as the Apostle saith.) So doubtless much less doth any man take upon him to give this authority, but he which receiveth it from God, who is the sole author thereof.  
His second argument is this: Philip who was but a Deacon, preacheth in Samaria without the calling of the Apostles, 
Act. 8.  yea and without their privity, who notwithstanding gave their allowance to the work. In these three lines are two notable falsities, not in the circumstance, but in the substance of the argument. The first, that Philip preached without the calling of the Apostles. 
Act. 6.5.  For he was Deacon by imposition of the Apostles hands, whereby he had authority to preach, and baptize, which was all he did. The second, that he did this without the Apostles privity, which is not said in the scripture, but added to it by Monsieur du Plessis, who would gladly have S. Philip like unto their Ministers to have run not being sent, S. Cyprian (if his authority be of any weight with him) saith expressly, that he was sent in these words. 
Epist. ad jubaianum.  They that believed in Samaria, believed in true faith: and were baptised by Philip Deacon, whom the Apostles sent,  
His third argument is the example of Frumentius before alleged, and retorted upon himself, as an evident argument against his doctrine both there and here.  
His fourth argument is drawn out of these words of Origen. 
Hom. 11. in 18. numeri.  Et consideremus ne fortè sicut in aliqua (verbi gratia) civitate, ubi nondum Christiani nati sunt, si accedat aliquis, & docere incipiat, & laboret, instruat, adducat ad fidem, & ipse postmodum ijs, quos docuit, Princeps & Episcopus fiat: ita etiam sancti angeli eorum, quos è diversis gentibus congregaverint, & labour suo, ac ministerio proficere fecerint, ipsi eorum etiam in futuro principes fiant. That is: And let us consider whether peradventure, as in a city where Christians are not yet borne, if one come thither, and begin to teach, and labour, instruct, bring them to the faith, and afterward is made their Prince and Bishop, whom he hath taught: so also the holy Angels may be Princes of those, whom by their labour they have gathered together of divers Nations, and whom they have made to profit by their ministry. Now what argument Monsieur du Plessis can draw out of these words to serve his purpose, I see not. For Origen saith nothing, but that he, that hath converted any city to the faith, may become their Bishop, which no man denieth. For S. Peter did so in Rome, S. Denis in Paris, S. Augustine in Canterbury, and others in other places. How doth this prove, that the people may make their own Bishops or Pastors? But Monsieur du Plessis helpeth himself with his accustomed manner of corrupting his Authors, which is so ordinary with him, that many authorities shalt thou not find (good Reader) either of Scripture, or Fathers sincerely used by him. And therefore, no marvel, that for such falsity, he received that shame, and confusion, in the presence of Henry the 4. King of France, and all his court, at Fountain Belleau, 
Conference of Fountain Belleau.  the year 1600. by that learned Prelate the Bishop of Euereux, now the most illustrious Cardinal of Perron, which sticketh in his forehead till this day, to the confusion of himself, and all his adherents, nor ever will be blotted out, but by the humble recognizing thereof by them all. With this art he helpeth himself here and saith We have example of the people, calling their Pastors in those of whom Origen speaketh, that shall come by chance into a City, where never any Christian was borne, shall there begin to teach, to labour, to instruct the people in the faith, whom the people shall afterwards make their Pastors and Bishops. Mark I pray thee (judicious Reader) where thou findest in Origen these words: (shall come by chan e) and these more important (whom the people shall afterwards make their Pastors and Bishops) and learn to know Monsieur du Plessis his fidelity, in this point of citing Authors.  
7. To these frivolous proofs of his foul, and absurd doctrine, he addeth like impertinencies in these words. In all the Scriptures, there is not one place, that bindeth the Ministry of the Gospel, to a certain succession: But contrariwise the scripture showeth, that God would sand two special witnesses, to prophesy against Antichrist, against the beast, (a calling merely extraordinary) now against this beast, properly and indeed, do our Martyrs, and our witnesses cry out. This shoe is so well shaped, that it will fit any foot, aswell the Arians and Anabaptists, against the Caluinists, as the Caluinists against the Roman Catholics: therefore the same answer, that they would make unto it, being urged against them by the Anabaptists, or Arians shall serve them for this time. 
Cap. 8. n. 19 and after.  What there is in holy Scripture, for the succession of Pastors in the Church, shall appear in due place. In the mean while the Reader is to note, that Monsieur du Pless●● doth always keep a door open, that when he hath no other shift he may recurre to the extraordinary vocation, which is the drift of this parenthesis (a calling merely extraordinary.) And in very deed much need hath he of it, whiles he is driven, to take it from the Lay-people: which no man will deny, but to be very extraordinary indeed. But of this sufficient.   

The seventh Chapter. Not all ordination, consecration, or imposition of hands is a sufficient calling to the administration of God's word and Sacraments.  
HAVING in the three immediately precedent chapters refuted, three several sorts of calling, approved by some of our adversaries, and necessarily maintained by them, because they find themselves to have no better; it followeth, that here we examine the fourth, which as it hath some more appearance of probability, so hath it more maintainers. And the question is only, 
State of the question.  whether the ordination, or imposition of hands, by a simple Priest, or Priests, being no Bishop, or Bishops, is sufficient to lawful calling. For the imposition of hands by such of our Adversaries, as are, or pretend to be Bishops, shall be examined hereafter at large.  
All the pretended reformed Churches descending from Luther excepting that in England) are constrained to maintain, this sort of ordination by Priests only, to be a sufficient, and authentical calling. For well perceiving on the one side the pretence, of internal and extraordinary calling, avouched by the Caluinists to be so strongly impugned, that they despair to make it good, as in the next chapter shall be proved: And on the other side being manifestly destitute, of all other ordination, or imposition of hands, then by Priests only: they stand hard upon the defence of this sort of ordination, hoping or at lest attempting by this means, so to colour and mask their intrusion, that they may make it appear a lawful vocation or mission.  

Where before pag. 369. or 376 for the cipher is false.  2. Monsieur du Plessis having therefore made a long discourse little to the purpose, of their Ministers that were sent by their first men, and are come even unto them now living (for of these only the present difficulty is, whose dessent is not so great, but may easily be reckoned, being yet not one hundred years since it began) he cometh at last a little nearer to the matter and maketh this objection against himself, in the behalf of the Catholics, and saith. Against all this they can allege nothing but that these first Reformers of the church, john Hus, Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Bucer, and others from whom ours are descended, were not Bishops, but only Priests, or Doctors. Whereunto we have answered in one word: that a Priest, and a Bishop in the Primitive Church were all one, and if they differ now in titles and mitres, in the essential dignity, the differ nothing at all.  
But it is false, that nothing can be alleged against their Ministers, except their ordination by simple Priests: which though it be abundantly sufficient, to prove the nullity of their Ministry, as shall appear by and by, yet is it not the sole thing they want. For though their maintainers had been true Bishops, yet their ordination had been none at all, wanting the true matter, and form of holy order. 
The defect which cometh of heresy is spoken of at large hereafter.  Which they must necessarily confess to have been wanting, either in the ministers, that we now speak of, or in those that ordained them, which is all one for the proof of the nullity of their order. For the true form of holy order being only one in substance, and these having been ordered by a form quite distinct from that, wherewith their maintainers were ordered (as is evident) it cannot be, but the one of the two wanted the true form of holy order. Which if they will say to have been in the first, they must necessarily likewise say, that they were not true Priests, and consequently that they could not make others such, and therefore that these new Ministers of theirs, that pretend to have been ordered by them, to be no lawful Ministers at all. But let us see, how  this answer is, to wit, that Priests and Bishops were all one in the Primitive Church.  
3. Doctor Field our Countryman, laboureth to justify, 
3. book of the Church cap. 39 The French ministry was instituted by Caluin who was not so much as Priest.  the ministry of these reformed Churches, and namely of that of France, by the same doctrine, which must necessarily be the doctrine of all those, that will maintain any show of ordinary calling, in all these pretended Churches. For evident it is, that they have no ministry ordained by Bishops. So that it resteth to be examined, whether such as have the sole order of Priesthood, and are not Bishops, have power to ordain Priests: or whether Priests,, and Bishops are of equal power and authority: Which question may have two senses. 
Two divers meanings of the question.  The first, whether these functions be equal in any respect, the second, whether they be equal in all respects. As concerning the first sense, all Catholics do teach that Priests, and Bishops are equal in that, which is the prime and principal power of Priesthood, consisting in the consecrating of the true body and blood of Christ, in a true and proper sacrifice of the new law. Which power our Saviour gave to his Apostles, (and in them to all Priests lawfully descended from them by true ordination) in his last supper when he said: Hoc facite, 
Luc. 22.  do ye this. For this reason these two appellations of Bishops and Priests, are often taken the one for the other in this sort, that as well in holy Scripture, as in the ancient Father's Bishops are called Priests, and that truly, for they are so indeed: as judges may truly be called counsellors: or a man may as truly be called a living thing, the greater or more perfection containing the less. And contrariwise Priests are sometimes called Bishops, which doth not argue, that they were equal in all respects, but in some one, which is true, as is already noted. Now how far or in what other respects, this equality is to be acknowledged, between Bishops and Priest pertaineth not to this place to examine. For supposing they be unequal, in this one point of power to ordain Priests and Pastors; though they should be equal in all other respects whatsoever, it will be sufficient to determine this question, in our favour, and against our adversaries.  
4. For as much therefore as concerneth the second sense and meaning of this question, it is the uniform doctrine, and belief of all Catholic men in all ages, that Bishops have this power above Priests, that they can consecrated or ordain Priests, and Pastors, which Priests cannot do. This being proved true, it will manifestly appear, that none of the ministers of all the pretended Churches reform, which are known, and confessed to have received their ordination, and calling from Priests only, (as they all do, excepting those in England and in France, the latter coming from Caluin who was not so much as Priest, not nor Deacon) are lawful Ministers, but mere Lay-men, and manifest intruders, and usurpers.  
For proof therefore of this verity, I will begin with Saint Hierome, who of all the orthodox Father's equalleth most Priests with Bishops, and of whose testimony, our adversaries bear themselves most confident. This holy Father handling a question, which gave him occasion to extol all that he could, the pre-eminence, and dignity of Priesthood, and where indeed he saith as much, as can be said in that point; yet doth he even there expressly teach, that the power of ordaining Priests, is peculiar to Bishops in these few, but not avoidable words. 
Epist. ad Euagrium. Hom. 11. in 1. ad Timot. initio.  What doth a Bishop except ordination, that a Priest doth not. Saint chrysostom hath the same in these words. Betwixt a Bishop, and a Priest there is almost no difference: for the cure of the Church is permitted also to Priests, and that whi●h he (S. Paul) said of Bishops, agreeth also with Priests. For Bishops exceed them only in ordination, and seem to have this only more than they. But to convince this from more ancient authority S. Athanasius saith thus of one, that was brought in by the Arrians his Adversaries, as one of his accusers. 
Apolog. 2. epist. presbit. Mareoti ad Flavi.  They suborned one Ischyras, whom they brought with them: one that was in no sort Priest, albeit he boasted himself to be one. For being ordained by one Coluthus, not a true, but an imaginary Bishop, who was commanded by Hosius with the rest of the Bishop's present in the general council, to carry himself as a mere Priest, as he was before, and that all those, that had been ordained by him, should return to their former degree. And the Council of Alexandria speaking of the same Ischiras saith. 
In the same Apology after the midst of the council.  How can it be that he is a Priest? or by whom is he ordered? was this done by Coluthus? surely nothing else can be answered: but that Coluthus died in the simple degree of Priest, and that all the imposition of hands exercised by him were annulled, and that all those, who were ordered by him, were reduced to the rank of Lay-people, and under the name, and title of Lay persons were admitted to the holy communion, it is a thing so evident to all the world, that no man doth think it to be doubted of.  
What those holy Fathers, and most renowned Pastors through the whole Christian world (I mean those of the first Council of Nice, for by them was Coluthus, and his censured) would have said, or done to our new Ministers, who do not so much as pretend to be ordered by Bishops, but do confess themselves to receive their Ministry, from such, as were Priests only, (so shamefully absurd are they) what I say they would have concluded against them, if either they had lived now, or that these Ministers had lived then in their days, I leave even to the partiallest Reader to judge.  
5. But yet more evidently is this doctrine of the equality of Priests and Bishops convinced of absurdity. For the Catholic Church above 1200. years ago hath branded the author thereof, who was called Aerius, with the note of heresy even for this point. Of whom S. Epiphanius saith thus. 
Heres. 75.  His words were more furious, then human, saying: what difference is there betwixt a Priest, and a Bishop? the one differeth nothing from the other: it is one and the self-same order, one and the same honour, one and the same dignity. The Bishop doth impose hands, and so doth the Priest, the Bishop baptizeth, and so doth the Priest, the Bishop doth consecrated the Mysteries of divine worship, and so doth the Priest, the Bishop sitteth in the throne, so doth the Priest. And with these words he seduced many, who esteemed him as their guide. And a little after. But all this is foolish, as is manifest to any of understanding. For how is it possible to say, that the Bishop and Priest are equal? because the Episcopal order is the begetter of Fathers, for as much as it begeteth fathers to the Church: whereas the order of Priesthood having not power to beget fathers: by the laver of regeneration doth beget children to the church, but not Fathers, and Doctors. Thus far S. Epiphanius.  
And Saint Augustin: 
Heres. 53.  Aerians (saith he) are named of a certain Aerius, (to wit as Caluinists of Caluin, and Lutherans of Luther, an ancient mark of Heretics) who being Priest, and grieving (as some say) that he could not be made Bishop: falling into the heresy of Aerius, added thereunto diverse doctrines of his own, saying, that the Priest and Bishop, are by no difference distinguished the one from the other. Hereby it is evident, that if these new Reforming Ministers had lived 1200. years ago, they would have been condemned with Aerius, and put in the rank of Heretics with him, for teaching that Priests may ordain Priests, as he did. Their calling therefore that is grounded upon this doctrine, is evidently none.  
Now in lieu of these convincing testimonies, I may justly exact of our Adversaries, for maintenance of their doctrine in this point, and of their calling grounded thereupon, so much proof at lest, as either one instance of a Priest ordained by a simple Priest, esteemed and received of the Church for a lawful Priest, or some decree, or declaration either of the Apostles, or the ancient Church, or at lest of the Church, for the whole space of fifteen hundred years after Christ, that Priests have power to ordain Priests: or if they cannot bring any one of these proofs, (as I am assured they cannot) let them cease for shame to maintain it any farther, and withal acknowledged their Ministers so ordained, to be no more but mere Lay-men.  
6. M. Doctor Field laboureth much, in the defence of this doctrine, of the equality of Priests, and Bishops, forsaking therein the ancient Orthodox Fathers, even those of the Council of Nice, and adhering unto the condemned heretic Aerius. But before I enter into any farther contestation with him, I will advertise the Reader of a jolly slight, which he useth, to keep himself free from the note of Arianism, though he maintain the same doctrine with Aerius. 
D. Feild.  In the nine and twenty chapter of his third book, being to justify himself and his Protestant brethren, of that point of Aerius his heresy, wherein he taught that Bishops, and Priests are equal, or else to acknowledge it for true, he slightly putteth it of to another place. 
D. Feild doth not only make this word (Presbyter) to be English, of purpose to avoid the true English word Priest which is a sacrificer but most rediculously or maliciously turneth this word sacerdos, a priest into minister turning these words of S. Hierome, Ecclesia non est, quae non habet sacerdotem: in this sort: It can be no church, that both no ministry. pag. 154. Lib. 3. cap. 39 sect these being etc. What impertinency can be greater than to allege the probable doctrine of some devins for a certain ground of a matter in controversy. Supplement. quest. 40. art. 5.  Saying of the difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter (mark how fearful he is to use the true English word, Priest, lest the very sound thereof should give evidence against their heresy) I shall have fit occasion to speak in examining the note of succession, and the exception of the Romanists against us touching the same. Who would not think, but that he intended to purge himself of this heresy? or if he did not, why doth he not here acknowledge it for good doctrine? yet when he cometh to the place appointed, doth he not speak one word, for their justification in this point, but directly maintaining the equality of Priests and Bishops, doth (at lest indirectly) acknowledge, that they are in the same error with Aerius, which in the 29. chapter before mentioned (where he should have answered directly to the question) he rather made show to deny, then to grant. But let us see, what he bringeth for the justification of this so long since condemned heresy.  
His first argument is this. The best learned amongst the Romanists confess that, that wherein a Bishops excelleth a presbyter, is not a distinct and higher order, or power of order, but a kind of dignity, or office, and employment only which they prove: because that a Bishop ordained per saltum, or that never had the ordination of a Presbyter, can neither consecrated, nor ordain, though a Priest, that never was Deacon, may lawfully exercise the office of a Deacon, because the higher order includeth the lower. Hence (saith he) it followeth that that, wherein a Bishop excelleth a Priest, is not a distinct power of order, but an eminency yielded to one above the rest of the same rank for order's sake, and to preserve the unity of the church.  
He either doth not or will not understand, the doctrine of these schoolmen, to whose judgement if he would stand, he could not defend Aerius his error. For though these whom he citeth, with divers others teach, that, that wherein a Bishop doth excel a Priest, is not a distinct order, or sacrament from priesthood; yet none of them all deny, but that it is either a distinct power of order, from that which is in a Priest, which power S. Thomas in the place by him cited saith, is a power in certain hierarchical actions (meaning the power to ordain Priests and other church officers) in respect of the mystical body of Christ, above that which is in a Priest? or at lest the same power of order extendded, not by external deputation, but by sacramental consecration: not by the church's ordinance but by Christ's own institution: as S. Bonaventure and Sotus. And if he cannot conceive, how it may be a distinct power of order, and yet not a distinct order, let him understand that one, and the same order, may have divers powers; As for example, the order of Priesthood hath power, to consecrated the true natural body of our Saviour Christ, and also to absolve men, who are the members of his mystical body (the church) from sin, so likewise the same order of priesthood may be extended by Episcopal consecration, to have power in sundry hierarchical actions (as S. Thomas speaketh) without addition of any new order unto it, whereunto the simple order of priesthood cannot reach. And this is the clear meaning of those divines, that hold the order of a Bishop, not to be a distinct order, from that of a Priest, which opinion is probable, but not certain, (for many most grave and learned authors teach the contrary) and therefore no sufficient ground, to build so important a point of Christian religion upon, as is the true calling of God's ministers. Yea were it certain, yet doth it nothing help his purpose. Because a simple Priest hath not the power of order, with the same extension or ampliation which a Bishop hath in those schoolmen's opinions. And hence it is manifest against D. Fields illation, that in the doctrine of these divines, that, wherein a Bishop doth exceed a Priest, is not only an eminency given to one above others of the same rank for order's sake, but a true power of order given or at lest extended by consecration, whereby the order of priesthood is extended to those actions (to wit of ordering Priests, and other Ecclesiastical officers, where unto without consecration it cannot reach. And this also in their opinion is the reason, why a Bishop that is not a Priest (if such an one could be) can neither consecrated the natural body of Christ in the holy Eucharist, nor yet ordain Ecclesiastical ministers; though a Priest, that never was Deacon, may do the functions of a Deacon. For all holy order being measuted by the power it hath in, or about the natural body of Christ in the holy Eucharist, which power is perfected in priesthood: where that wanteth, there can be no higher order, because this doth essentially presuppose the other, and where that is, there are also all inferior orders, because these are referred, and ordained to the other, and are essentially included in it.  
7. Hence likewise is solved that unscholerlike question, which he maketh a few lines after, saying. Who knoweth not, that all presbyters in cases of necessity, may absolve, and reconcile penitents: a thing in ordinary course appropriated to Bishops (which is false, unless he speak of public penitents) and why not by the same reason ordain presbyters in cases of like necessity? For as much as pertaineth to the circumstance of necessity, he shallbe satisfied by and by. And for the solution of his question here proposed I will ask him another, to as good purpose, as his is: why a child of three years old can speak and ea●e, but cannot beget another child, which a man of 20. o● 30. years old can? The solution of this question will solve also his: For as a child: at 3. years hath power to eat and speak, but not to beget a child: which power not withstanding will come unto him without addition of any distinct nature, by the only extending of his own, by growth and strength; so likewise a Priest hath power by his simple priest hood to absolve from all sins by these words: take thou the holy Ghost, whose sins thou forgivest, are for given: but he hath not power to make Priests without an Episcopal consecration, whereby his order of priesthood is extended to that power, without adding any new or distinct order, speaking according to the opinion of the divines before mentioned.  
His second argument may be thus framed, in case of necessity every simple presbyter may baptize, confirm, absolve, and reconcile penitents, and do all those other acts, which regularly are appropriated to the Bishop alone: therefore in case of necessity, namely all Bishops being dead, or become heretics, they may in like manner ordain presbyters. I grant that in time of necessity, a simple Priest may do all that, which is reserved to the Bishop by Ecclesiastical, or positive laws. But deny that the ordaining of Priests (or yet the ministering of the sacrament of confirmation) is such: for that is a power of order, which is as necessarily required to this action, as the power of priesthood is to tother, and therefore in no case of necessity can this action of ordaining Priests without this power be performed. And if M. D. Field ask of me, what is to be done then for conservation of the church, in case that all Bishops should be taken away by death, or become heretics. I answer him, that the same thing is to be done in that case, that were to be done in case, that all Priests were dead or become heretics, or that were to be done for the conservation of mankind, in case that all men were dead, which cases are as possible, or probable, as is his case.  
But he objecteth farther and saith, 
lib. 11. go Armenors. cap. 7. Hales part. 4. g. 9 memb. 5. art. 1.  that the best learned in the church of Rome, in former times durst not pronounce all ordinations of this nature (to wit done by simple Priests in the former case of necessity) to be voided. For Armachanus saith, It seemeth that if all Bishops were dead, inferior Priests might ordain Bishops. And Alexander of Hales saith, that some are of opinion, that by delegation of the Pope, one that hath holy orders, may give the same to others.  
8. A weak and feeble ground to build the foundation of Christian religion upon. 
Cap. 39 initio.  I say the foundation of Christian religion; the question in hand importing no less. For where there are no true Pastors, there can be no true church, as M. Field confesseth with SS. Hierome and Cyprian, and cannot be denied by any: But where there is no true church, there can be no true faith or religion, as all men confess, therefore where there are no true Pastors, there can be no true religion. To ground therefore this main point of Christian religion (who are true Pastors) upon the doubtful speculative opinion of two schoolmen, is either to want all judgement, or to want all other better grounds for the same; verily I am ashamed in M. Field● behalf, to see his little judgement, or sincerity in this point: but much more do I grieve to see the world so palpably blind, as upon the vain pretence of reformation, to leave the ancient and trodden way of salvation, and to follow by paths of men's yesterdays invention. Especially saying the masters of this reformation, rejecting as insufficient all other proof of Catholic doctrine, but the pure, and express written word, not withstanding when they come to make proof of their own doctrine, or grounds of their faith, are forced to use the doubtful speculation, of one or two schoolmen. Whereas the certain, and constant opinion of all the schoolmen togiather, maketh but a theological, and not a certain probation of any verity: I say doubtful, for that the one speaketh doubtfully, saying only (it seemeth) tother less to the purpose, speaking only of other men's opinions, of whom he maketh so little account, that he vouch safeth not to name them, but under the uncertain term of (quidam, certain) and they speaking also with that condition, which maketh more against our adversaries, to wit, upon condition of the Pope's delegation. But let us now say a word of the necessity, which M. Field pretendeth to have enforced them to seek their new ministery, where there was never any found before.  
9 He saith, that this necessity is only in two cases, to wit all Bishops being dead, or else fallen into heresy, now he must suppose this second to be their case: wherein (for the strengthening of his purpose) I will suppose with him (against the truth) that all those, that opposed themselves against their pretended reformation, were heretics; and yet for all that, shall he not be able to maintain their ministery to be lawfully ordered. For whereas one only Bishop had been sufficient to have peopled a greater part of the world, with lawful ministers (supposing fit men were found) then yet hath of their gospel, it is known that there were divers Bishops (I speak it with grief) in divers provinces, that apostating from the Catholic Roman faith, joined themselves with the pretended reformers, whereof Monsieur du Pl●ssis doth brag, saying. Our furst ministers had the same calling, 
Treatise of the church: cap. 11. sect. It therefore. No word here of Caluin the fownder of y French and Gonenean churches who was not so much as Priest.  and succession, which they (Catholics) do so much brag of. For Wickliff, Husse (mark how he gins their pedigree with heretics that did differ from them in most points) Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Capito, Martyr, were Priests, Curates, Doctors of divinity: I omit Archbishops, Cardinals in Germany, England, France, and Italy, in whose calling there wanted as little, as in that our adversaries do approve, and magnify in theirs. Seeing therefore there were Archbishops, and Bishops in these province one only whereof might have sufficed, w●at necessity can they pretend, that their second ministers should be ordained by simple Priests only? Here hath not M. Field, nor Monsieur du Plessis (who maintain the same doctrine) any starting hole, but they must needs confess, if not an absolute nullity in their ministery, (which to all men of indifferent judgement is clear) yet at jest must they acknowledge even in their own doctrine, a culpable presumption, and over great boldness, as M. Field saith pag. 159. in perverting the ancient, and ever observed order, established from the beginning in the church: which note cannot stand with the true spirit of reformation, (which is the spirit of peace and order) but is an evident mark of his spirit, that confoundeth all order. And thus much for D. Fields case of pretended necessity, but he addeth.  
Neither should it seem strange to our adversaries, that presbyters should sometimes ordain, seeing their Chorepiscopi, suffragans, and titular Bishops, that according to the old course of discipline are no Bishops, do daily in the Roman church give orders. I cannot think his ignorance to be so great, as to make this objection: whence then it proceedeth, let others judge: for he cannot be ignorant, that none may give the order of priesthood in the Roman church, but he that hath the consecration, and character of a Bishop: or if he think the contrary, let him bring but one instance in the whole space of 150. years, 
This distinction of suffragans he may learn of M. Mason. pa. 128.  and he shall gain his cause. Neither do I think that he is so ignorant, as not to know, that the Corepiscopi, of which the ancient canons speak, which he citeth, were not indeed consecrated Bishops (as the suffragans in these days are) but were only simple Priests, assisting the Bishop in diverse things pertaining to his charge, as now vicar's general do, and therefore no marvel, though they could give no holy orders: and so hath he made an argument evidently against himself. But after all this, he cometh to make a show, as if he would answer that, which is objected by the Catholics against this doctrine, and saith.  
10. All that may be alleged out of the Fathers, for proof of the contrary, may be reduced to two heads. For first whereas they make all such ordinations void, as are made by presbyters, it is to be understood, according to the strictness of the canons in use in those days, and not absolutely in the nature of the thing. 
Synod. Calced. can. 6. Con Laodiceum. can. 12. Con. Antiochenum. can. 13.  Which appeareth in that they make all ordinations sine titulo void, all ordinations of Bishops by fewer than three Bishops with the Metropolitan; all ordinations by Bishops out of their own churches without special leave. Whereas I am well assured, the Romanists will not say any of these to be voided. Secondly, their sayings are to be understood regularly, not without exception of some special cases that may fall out.  
M. D. Field is either foully overseen in this answer, or else would wittingly deceive his reader therewith. For the Fathers do not make void the ordinations of Priests made by Priests, by any positive canon, as they do the ordinations he mentioneth, but do declare them none, absolutely, and in the nature of the thing itself (to use his own manner of speaking). And this is clear, first by the Fathers own words: S. Epiphanius saith expressly, that Priests have not power to beget Fathers to the church, but children only, where it is manifest, that he speaketh of the nature of the thing, for such Priests as are subject to the canons by M. Field cited have not power, (that is, have not lawful use of the power) to beget children to the church by Baptism. Farther the council of Alexandria before cited, urging how Ischyras (ordained by Coluthus a true Priest, but a counterfeit Bishop) could be Priest, and by whom he was ordered? must needs understand, that he wanted not only lawful ordination, but true and sufficient ordination. For if he had had true ordination, and only a canonical impediment suspending the use thereof, the Arians enemies unto S. Athanasius, would quickly have absolved him from that impediment. Again S. Hierome and S. Chrisostome expressly denying only the power of ordaining to Priests, cannot be understood otherwise, then of the nature of the thing, and not by the rigour of any canon, for in that sort, they must have denied many other things unto them, which (by M. Fields own confession) are at lest for order's sake reserved to Bishops. Moreover how could S. Epiphanius, and S. Augustin esteem Aerius an heretic, for teaching that Priests might ordain Priests, if this were forbidden them by the rigour of positive canon only, and not of the nature of the thing? These Fathers were neither so ignorant, nor so light of judgement to condemn one of heresy, for contradicting a positive canon, or at jest would they not have omitted to specify the canon.  
11. Secondly the Father's declaring void the ordinations made by only Priests (as M. Field confesseth) and that not by the force of any canon, for there was no such canon, (at jest before the council of Nice, where as we see by S. Athanasius all the ordinations made by the counterfeit Bishop Coluthus though a true Priest, were declared to be none) this judgement (which by the confession of our adversaries is of most weighty authority) must needs be grounded in the nature of the ordination, as not proceeding from sufficient power, and not from any canon or constitution, no such canon being then made. For I suppose no man willbe so absurdly impertinent, as to say that a precedent action available of itself may be annulled and made void (for the time when it was done) by a following or latter constitution, though there were any such, which I know not, whether there be or no. And hence it is manifest, that M. D. Field his answer to the Father's authorities, is but a mere evasion, or colour of an answer. But that all may understand the great difference between the Father's declaration, of the nullity of the ordinations made by Priests only: and the intent of the canons by M. Field alleged, which make void future ordinations without title, and the rest specified by him.  
It is to be observed, that the fathers alleged for the former case, do not make any canon, or constitution for future actions, but give their definitive sentence and judgement of an action past, declaring it to be of no value, whereas the canons alleged for the second case, are constitutions made for future facts, prohibiting the whole use of the orders so given, and punishing as well the giver, as the receiver, but not anullating the order itself, (for that is not in the power of the church, as all Catholic men do believe) and in this respect these constitutions are like unto those civil laws, that make wards or pupils, for these laws do not take away from him, that is ward or pupil the dominion, which he hath in his inheritance, but only suspend the use thereof, during his minority, and therefore maketh void all contracts, which he shall make, during that estate of wardship. And as he at the time prefixed by the law, certain circumstances observed, cometh to the full and perfect use of his lands, without any new purchase or gift, so in like manner those, that having been debarred, or suspended from the use of their orders received against the ordinance of the canons, having given just satisfaction to the church for their fault committed, are admitted to the free, and lawful use of their orders, without any new ordination, as is manifest by the continual practice of the church. So that the difference betwixt the declaring an ordination to be none, and the suspending the use thereof, is very great, as every one may see.  
M. Field his second answer, as it is but his own assertion withot any ground either of reason, authority, or instance in practice, as hath been hitherto showed, is as easily by us denied, and with better reason, then by him affirmed.  
He concludeth his discourse with this vain brag. Thus than we see that objection which our adversaries took to be unanswerable, i● abundantly answered out of their own schoolmen, the opinion of many singularly well learned amongst them, and their own daily practice in that, Chorepiscopi and Suffragans (being no Bishops but only Presbyters forbidden by old canons to meddle with ordination) do with good allowance daily ordain Presbyters.  
What want of modesty, honesty, or judgement these words show, I had rather the reader should see, than I should tell him. First hath he brought nothing out of the schoolmen in favour of his Aerian heresy, as I think will appear by that, which hath been said in that point. Secondly it is as evidently false, as it is true that the sun is up at noontide that any meddle with giving orders of Priesthood, in the Roman church, but such as are truly consecrated Bishops. And what these Chorepiscopi were w●ich were forbidden in the ancient church to meddle with ordinations, is showed before, and M. Field cannot be ignorant of the difference betwixt them, but he would deceive his Reader, by the bore sound of the word Chorepiscopi, who are forbidden in ancient canons to ordain, because they were not consecrated Bishops, as is noted before.  
12. Monsieur du Plessis (to end this Chapter with him) having objected to himself in the behalf of the Catholic doctrine, 
Pag. 379.  the authorities of S. Epiphanius, S. Hierome, and S. chrysostom, all expressly teaching, that Bishops have the power of ordination above Priests, as we have seen before, formeth thereunto no other answer then this: 
In epist. ad Titum cap. 1.  But let them (Catholics) not conceal then that which S. Hierome saith: that it is by the custom of the Church, and not by the truth of divine ordinance, fraudulently applying these words of S. Hierome to the question now in hand, of the power of ordering Priests, (against S. Hieromes express words, and meaning, in his 85. Epistle to Euagrius) he speaking in the place here cited by Monsieur du Plessis, manifestly of the power of jurisdiction or argument, wherein also he saith, that the pre-eminence of Bishops above Priests, is as ancient as that (ego Pauli, ego Apollo.) Whereby it is evident even by S. Hieromes testimony, that not only in order, but also in jurisdiction Bishops excel Priests from the Apostles times, ●hich is also clear by his words when he saith. 
Epi. ad Euagrium in fine.  That we may know the apostolic traditions to be taken from the old Testament; what Aaron, and his Sons, and the Levites were in the Temple, the same do Bishops, Priests, and Deacons challenge to themselves in the church. But Aaron, his Sons, and the Levites were one above another, both in order, power, and dignity; by Gods own appointment therefore also are in like manner Bishops, Priests, and Deacons even from the Apostles time in S. Hieromes opinion.  
13. Observe good Reader, that I have treated here only of that defect of calling, which proceedeth from the want of order, or power in the party that ordaineth. Whereas there are diverse other nullities, or defects, making voided the new ministry of the pretended reformed Churches, which hereafter we shall have fit occasion to speak of.   

The eight Chapter. The defects found in the callings to the Ministry hitherto refuted cannot be supplied by any extraordinary calling, nor is there now in the Church of Christ, any extraordinary calling to the ministry of God's word and Sacraments.  
1. THIS is the last question, that I have to dispute with the Protestants in general; which though it might easily be decided by that, which hath hitherto been said, yet I thought it not amiss to make it a distinct question, and to handle it a part; aswell for that some may imagine, that though in all the sundry sorts of calling hitherto refuted, there are capital defects, and such as evidently make them none, yet peradventure they may be supplied by some extraordinary manner of calling: as also for that a great and principal part of the pretended churches, namely that of France, and all those that argree with it, do not acknowledge any other calling of their first Pastors, but merely extraordinary. For disdaining, and abhorring to receive their calling from the Catholic Roman Pastors, as from Idolaters, and ministers of Antichrist, and having no other way to receive any ordinary calling, they are driven, to bethink themselves, of an extraordinary means. 
Illirie. Catalogue. testium pag. 370. 371. Osiand. epit. Hist. count. 9 10. 11. See Fox pag. 29. 209. Hierom. con. Lucifer.  Being in this point as absurd as Waldo, who of a merchant of Lions, made himself, a Preacher of a new Gospel, and framing his doctrine to his calling (as these men also do) taught that lay persons, might consecrated, and preach, more absurd than he, that S. Hierome speaketh of; (that being but a Deacon, and teacher of a new heresy, could leave no pedigree after him) saying: The sect died together with the man, because he being but Deacon could leave no clerk behind him; but that is no church, that hath no Priest. For in those days extraordinary callings were not heard of, the world being yet not come to so great want of sense, as to think of such absurdities.  
Because this question is like to be somewhat long, 
Order of this Chapter.  and therefore requireth to be handled with some order: I will first show, that the French Churches, and others that accord with them, do teach, this extraordinary vocation, lest any one seeing the absurdity thereof may think I impose it wrongfully upon them. Secondly, I will set down their grounds and proofs for the same, and withal refute them; and if in the third place I bring any proofs of the contrary, that is of supererogation. For the proofs in this question belong to our adversaries, and not to us; they maintaining the affirmative, and we the negative.  
2. The French Churches therefore falsely pretending reformation, do not only teach the extraordinary calling of their first Ministers, or Pastors, but do publish it to the world as an article of their belief, professing thus in their confession. 
Confession of faith of the French church article 31.  We believe that no man aught to intrude himself, into the government of the Church: but that this aught to be done by election, as much as is possible, and God permitteth. Which exception we purposely add for that it hath been necessary sometimes, and specially in these our days (when the state of the Church was interrupted) that God should raise men by an extraordinary fashion, to rectify, or repair his church anew, which was in ruin, and desolation.  
Secondly, this is also manifest by their practice. For albeit they had some Bishop's Apostates from the Catholic faith, as we have seen before out of Monsieur du Plessis, and is yet fresh in memory, yet were they not used for the consecrating or ordering their ministers, as is manifest.  
Thirdly, they farther use this practice, that if any one, 
Card. du Peron in his reply sect. speak freely fo. 92. impression 1605.  having been ordered in the Catholic church, revolt unto them, they do not permit him to exercise the ministry, unless he be first ordained again after their new form: testifying thereby to the world, that they acknowledge no other vocation, then extraordinary. For albeit they pretend that such, as are now called to the ministry have an ordinary calling, yet do they willingly confess, that their first Reformers, who are not yet on hundred years old, have no other than an extraordinary calling. And de facto, Caluin who was the founder of their new Church was never Priest, nor ever had other calling then that he took to himself.  
Fourthly, this doctrine of extraordinary vocation, is ordinary even in England, at lest amongst the refined and purer spirits. For M. Fulke one of the lights of Cambrige, is so earnest in this point, that he rejecteth with much vehemency all order, or calling taken from the Catholics, without which, they must of necessity recurre to their extraordinary calling. His words are these: 
Answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 50. Retentive pag. 67. Con. Duraeun l. 9 p. 821.  you are highly deceived if you think, we esteem your offices of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons any better than Lay-men, and you presume to much to think, that we receive your ordering to be lawful. And in another place. With all our hearts we defy, abhor, detest, and spit at your stinking, greasy, Antichristian orders. And M Whitaker another light of the Gospel hath the like, and if it were needful, many more both testimonies, and arguments might be brought for proof hereof, but in a matter so plain, we have been too long already.  
3. Of this so extraordinary doctrine, and practise, we may by very good right exact of them at lest ordinary proof; Aswell because the matter itself is of principal moment, touching the very foundation, 
Cap. 7. n. 8.  and ground of Christian doctrine, as is plainly deducted before; as also for that they are so rigorous in exacting proofs of every point of our doctrine, that they will admit none, 
Cap. 5. from the n. 2. forward.  but plain words of Scripture. All this notwithstanding I dare affirm, that they are not able to make any better proof of this their extraordinary vocation, than the vilest, vainest, and most detestable heretics, that either are, or ever were, may make, or might have made for there vocation, to preach their heresies. I will neither except Martion, Valentinian, Manes, or Manichoeus, Aerius, Nestorius, Pelagius, nor our new Anabaptists, Familians, or Libertines. If this be true, as in the process of this question, it will appear m●st true, who is it, that can say, that they have any proof at all of their vocation? They will say that they have the truth of doctrine, which none of the above named heretics had, and therefore have they better proof of their calling then the other had? This single-soled shift is effectually refuted above, by authority of holy Scripture Fathers, and evident reason: And for the present I say, that they stick ever in the same mire. For what other proofs do they bring, for the truth of their doctrine, which all the aforenamed heretics did not bring. They bring Scriptures: and did not the other so also? yea and in as great abundance, and with as great brags as these do. But they are condemned by lawful judgement to be heretics, and their doctrine heresy: true, and the very same judge hath condemned them of the same crime. What difference is there then betwixt them? Surely, none at all But let us see, what proofs they bring for their new kind of calling. And as they are proposed, good Reader, I beseech thee take notice of every one in particular, and thou shalt find, they will serve as well, to prove the calling of all the aforenamed heretics to be good, as of these in whose behalf they are brought, which one observation doth answer them all, before they be proposed.  
And that thou mayest know, that they are their own; and the best they have, I will tell thee here, before thou go any farther, where I find them, that thou mayest see, that I play above board.  
4. About the year 1596. a Gentleman of base Normandy, called Monsieur du S. Vast, with a friend of his (both of the new religion) having great doubts, of the lawfulness of the vocation of their Pastors, and Ministers, and consequently of the truth of their religion, proposed them unto the said ministers by writing, desiring resolution. The ministers (knowing the axe to be laid to the main post of their new building) with as much industry, as they could, framed answer, but with so little satisfaction of the parties, that they both quit their sect, and rendered themselves obedient children of the Catholic Roman church. Out of the writing of these ministers, which is extant in the Bishop of Euereux his reply to the same, and never since answered nor ever will: do I bring their arguments, for their extraordinary vocation, without leaving out any word of theirs, pertaining to the matter in hand.  
The first is: Ministers. Where there is true doctrine, there may be true vocation, which is an order prescribed by the same doctrine. But we have the true doctrine as we will ever maintain, and hitherto have we not been convinced of the contrary. Therefore may we also have the lawful calling, though we receive it not from others. Answer. The absurdity, and childishness of his argument is showed before upon another occasion. The reader that by himself seethe not the impertinence thereof may look back to that place: thou shalt find it in the fifth chap. n. 11.  
Ministers. Secondly, We call that properly true, and lawful calling which is conformable to the rules given us in the scripture, and which hath been kept from the Apostles times, until this present in all true churches: which we have at this day amongst us, and therefore we call it truly ordinary, and received by succession from the Apostles; acknowledging no other, that may deserve thi● name, though it have continued for some time.  
Answer. If they can prove, that they have such a vocation, as they describe here, they must needs gain their cause. But hearken, I pray thee, good Reader, how they go about to prove it.  
Minister. But forasmuch as they (Catholics) understand by this word ordinary vocation, a perpetual, and not interrupted succession from the Apostles times, we answer them upon this point, that this is not the definition of true vocation.  
Answer. These are their words immediately following upon the other which I could not omit to advertise thee of, good Reader, that thou mayst note the inconstant, doubtful, and wavering doctrine of these new ministers, that with one breath power out contrarieties without blushing. In the lines immediately going before, that was true vocation with them, that was received by succession from the Apostles, and retained till this day, and that none other deserved that name: and now with the same breath, they deny succession to pertain, to the definition of true calling. Let us see farther, peradventure they will make these two ends meet together: they add;  
Minister. There cannot any thing be gathered to this purpose (to wit, that succession pertaineth to lawful calling) out of any passage of Scripture, not not there, where there is express mention made of this charge: and in brief there is not any promise of this in the whole Scripture.  
Answer: If this be true, then is that false, which they said before in these words: that we properly call true, and lawful calling, which is conformable to the Scripture: and which hath been kept from the Apostles times, in all true Churches till this time. But it booteth little, to stand upon the contradictions of men, that maintain an ill cause: for they will say, and unsay upon every occasion. But let us see, whether they will remember themselves, and accord their own sayings.  
Minister. 5. If they allege unto us these promises of Christ: that he will be with his Disciples till the consummation of the world: and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church: we deny that this pertaineth to any succession of persons, which is to be in such sort perpetual, that it is never to be interrupted, until the second coming of Christ.  
Answer, So far are they from proving that they have that vocation which themselves say, is properly and only the true and lawful vocation, that they now labour to show, that there is none such in the church: nor that ever any such was promised by our Saviour. Are not these men so turn-sicke, that they know not whether they go? what more evident proof can there be, that they have not that vocation, which they in formal words say, is properly the true vocation, then to see them so directly to impugn it; as to contend that there is no mention of it in the whole scripture? well we will take that, which they willingly yield; to wit, that they have not that vocation, which importeth a perpetual, and not interrupted succession from the Apostles till this day. And now I will prove against them, that this vocation is taught in express words, in the holy Scripture. Behold (saith our Saviour Christ to his Apostles, 
Maih. 28.20  and in them to all, that shall succeed them, in the charge, or government of his church) I am with you all days to the consummation of the world. Which promise they most impudently deny, to appertain to a succession of persons, not to be interrupted until the second coming of Christ. For our Saviour speaking there to his Apostles as Preachers, and Pastors of his church, as is evident by the words immediately going before. All power is given me in heaven, and in earth: Going therefore teach ye all Nations, baptizing them etc. and testifying, that he will be with them all days to the end of the world. How can any man, not wholly voided of common sense deny, that here is express mention of a personal succession of Pastors, to continued without interruption, until the second coming of Christ? S. Paul testifieth the same in these express words. And he gave other some Pastors, and Doctors, 
Ephgs. 4.12.  to the consummation of the Saints, to the work of the Ministry, until we all meet in the unity of faith. So that those that will believe the holy scripture cannot doubt of the continual succession, of Pastors in the Church so clearly set down in the same.  
Ministers But we say with S. Augustine, that this is to be understood, of the church of the elect.  
Answer. It is most false, that Saint Augustine did ever dream, of the separation of the church of the elected, from that of the called (for as much as appertaineth to the profession of faith, participation of the sacraments, and subjection to their Pastors) and therefore what he saith of the church of the elect, which he termeth to be not only in the house, 
Lib 7. de baptismo con. Donatistas'.  but of the house, doth nothing help them. Note that they cite not S. Augustine's words, nor the place, for so they should have more evidently been taken with the lie,  
Ministers. Which God himself can conserve, without ordinary means, yea without Pastors for a time.  
Answer. If we speak of his absolute power, there is no doubt of this: nor likewise that he could have saved the world, 
The French Reformers in their catechism teach expressly that Pastors are necessary for the conservation of God's Church. Sunday 45.  without the incarnation, and passion of his only son. But if we speak of his power, ruled and determined by the decree, and ordinance of his will, he that saith, that God will conserve his church without Pastors doth evidently contradict S. Paul saying, that he hath ordained Pastors, for the consummation of the Saints, and that we be not like children, carried away with every wind of doctrine. Is not the conclusion drawn from these principles like to be solid? and the calling of Pastors that is forced to seek such proofs to be very sound?  
Minister. 
Ephes. 4.12.  As it hath happened divers times, in the church of the jews, and specially during the captivity of Babylon, for the space of seventy years.  
Answer. If the Priesthood of the jews, and consequently their charge did fail, during the time of their captivity: whence came all those Priests, and levites, with other church officers, which are mentioned in the books of Esdras, to have returned from the captivity? Surely they were not then immediately borne. Read these books they self (good Reader) and learn to detest, the heretical spirit of these new masters, that dare for the maintaining of their own imaginations, so evidently contradict the holy Scriptures, and yet by crying the word, the word, would make the world believe, they speak nothing but the Gospel itself.  
Minister. And before that in the time of Elias as he complaineth thereof to God.  
Answer. This is another fiction of their own, contrary to the sacred story of the books of Kings, and chronicles, which bear record, that during the persecution of God's servants, raised by Achab King of Israel, and his most wicked wife jesabel, of which time these men speak, the Church of God did greatly flourish in juda, 
3. Reg. 22. 2. Paralip. 17.  and Jerusalem (the metropolitan city of that people) under the religious, and good king josophat. So that the church of the jews failed no more, neither in succession of Pastors, nor exercise of the true religion at that time (though the king and kingdom of Israel did persecute it) than the church of Rome did fail in the world, in Q. Elizabeth's time, though she did persecute the same in her kingdom of England, and did her endeavour to extinquish it there.  
Minist. And after wards under many kings of Israel and juda, as Azarias the Priest testified unto king Aza: saying, that many days had passed in Isra●ll, without the true God, without Priest, without Doctor, and without law.  
Answer. It is not easy for any man, to put so many falsities, and contradictions in so few words as are in these. First Achab, of whose persecution ●lias complained, 
3. Reg. 16. 2. Paralipom. 15.  began his reign over Israel the 38. year of Asa king of juda. And Azarias spoke these words (whereof these men make mention) the 15. year of the reign of Asa. How then could this saying of Azarias, follow that complaint of Elias, being many years before it? And yet to make the contradiction mare apparent, they put in the lives of many kings, which also should go betwixt these two. Secondly, how can it be that this default of the church should have been under many kings of juda, and Israel, as they say, in the time of Asa? saying he was only the third king of juda, after the separation of the ten tribes: during the reign of which kings, the sacred story of the kings, and chronicles make it planie, that there was no such fail of Pastors, and Doctors, as Azarias mentioneth. Thirdly, they make Azarias to speak of a thing past, 
2. Paralip. 13.10.11.  not only contrary to the verity of the vulgar translation, which saith not: many days have passed: but that: many days shall pass: but also contrary to the planie, 
2. Paralip. 15.3.5.8.  and necessary meaning of the holy-Ghost, who bringeth in Azarias there, speaking as a Prophet of things to come, and not as one rehearsing things past, as is evident, as well by the words of the text itself, as by the circumstances of the thing foretold. Fourthly, they manifestly corrupt the text, to make it seem more to favour their purpose. For Azarias saith only, that many days shall pass in Israel without Priest, and Doctor: foretelling the apostasy of the kingdom of Israel under Achab, from the true religion, and worship of God; and they impudently, and without all conscience, thrust in also (jude.) Fiftly they going about to prove by this authority, that the church may be without Priests, and Pastors, may prove by the same, that it may be also without the true God, and without law. For Azarias foretelleth these things, as well as tother: yet do I not think they dare say, that the true church may be without the true God, and without law. Let them therefore consider, how little this scripture helpeth them; and judge thou also good Reader, whether these men do handle the holy scripture either sincerely, or learnedly, that in so few words, do multiply so many gross absurdities, and falsities?  
Minist. We say the same of the Christian church, in the which are noted many confusions, and interruptions, and notoriously under the Arians, a little after Constantine the great; and in the time of his sons Constans, Constantius, and Constantinus: all the Bishops being revolted, excepting two Liberius, and Athanasius.  
Answer. They have hitherto showed their malice, and ignorance, in abusing the holy scriptures: now they begin to show the same, in the abuse of the Ecclesiastical histories. In the time of Constans, Constantius, and Constantinus (say they) all Bishops revolted, excepting two. Fie upon such shameless impudency, saying the falsity is so apparent, that it cannot be excused by ignorance. In whose time (I would ask of these men) was kept the council of Sardis, where there were Some hundreds of Catholic Prelates? was it not in Constans, and Constantius time? 
Ruffin. lib. 1. c. 28.  That of Alexandria under Athanasius, the first year of julian the Apostata, was it not immediately after the death of Constantius, which though it was no general council, yet was it of great renown, for the merit of the Prelates there met together? To say nothing of those great lights of God's church, S. Hillary in France, S. Dennis of Milane, S. Eusebius of Vercels, with many more of less note, whereof the Ecclesiastical histories of those times make mention: but these men care not, what they affirm, so they may delude their readers.  
Minist. Of whom it is not read, that others came to take their vocation, for the re-establishing of the church: but that God raised from the Arians themselves, men to restore the true doctrine.  
Answ. The further they go, the more absurd they are. See (good Reader) for thy fuller satisfaction, in this point of repairing the church, 
lib. 1 c. 27. 28 29.  in these troubled times Roffinus his history; where he saith, that by the council holden at Alexandria before mentioned, it was decreed, that such (the heads excepted) as had any way consented to the Arians (abjuring their error) should be received to the unity of the church. And they having had their calling from the catholic church, did not, nor could not receive any new calling, but only a reconciliation to the same, from which they had fallen, either of error, or infirmity. In like manner as the Bishops in England, that had lived either in schism, or heresy, in king Henry's or K. Edward's time, were reconciled to the church again in Queen Mary's days. So that no default of the succession of Pastors, doth any way appear to have been in those times.  
Minist. So many schisms, as have been in the church of Rome, do show, that they cannot brag of this perpetual succession.  
Answ. No schism, that ever was in the church of Rome, did or could hinder, the perpetual succession of holy order, and lawful calling of Pastors. For all the schisms, that ever were in the church, were only about the person of him, that should sit in S. Peter's chair, and not about the power, or jurisdiction of the sea apostolic. So that those, that did adheere to either party, in good conscience, did not make any schism with the sea apostolic, from whence all jurisdiction is derived, but only erred (as th'one party must necessarily do) about the person, who had the true right to the sea of S. Peter. Which error could not hinder, or take away the true succession, of holy order in the church, neither in respect of the sacrament itself, (as all Catholics must say, who say that holy order is a sacrament, not depending in essence, and nature of the jurisdiction in him that ordereth, but of his power of order, and character) nor in respect of jurisdiction, which is required to the lawful use, of the power of order, or sacramental character. For both parties did suppose, and in their conscience believe, that they did receive this power from the sea apostolic, though one of them did necessarily err in the person, by means of whom he did receive it. Which error was excused through invincible ignorance, and afterwards was wholly remedied, by actual reuniting themselves, to the true successor of S. Peter, when he was known. So that this argument of our ministers, proceedeth a non causa, pro causa, as the sophisters term such fashion of arguing.  
Minist. Above all in the time of the counsels of Constance, and Basil, which deposing the Antipopes long after their establishment chose others: which showed that the deposed had no lawful calling, nor therefore could they give any, to the Bishops, and other Ecclesiastical persons created by them, and afterwards remaining in their church, of whom are also many others descended, who remain till this day.  
Answ. This is the same argument with that, which went immediately before, only the schism is particularised, which changeth not the argument, and therefore it is already solved. Where they say, that the council of Constance deposed the Antipopes, meaning those three, whereof every one at that time was esteemed by some to be true Pope, they say falsely as they do often. For every one of them remitted, or resigned his right into the hands of the council, which afterwards chose another, and so the schism ended. The council of Basill so long as it was a lawful council, deposed none, what it did afterwards, it importeth little, or nothing at all.  
Ministers. Above all in the time of Philip the fair, and when the church of France was separated from that of Rome: where was then this personal, and local succession? And notwithstanding they will not say, that in those days our forefathers were pagans, and heretics.  
Answ. Most ridiculously, and absurdly argued. Would they, that the succession of the whole church should cease for the separation of one nation, and that only upon a censure? If the church of Geneva should excommunicate one parish church subject there unto, would they say therefore, that their whole church failed? Intolerable ignorance. And yet this is one of their arguments above all the rest. So may they still argue to their own confusion, and detestation of their new fangled heresies. Neither is that, which they add by manner of triumph, less ridiculous; saying, that in the opinion of Catholics, their forefathers were neither pagan, nor heretics in those days. For be it so, what followeth there upon, to prove the succession of Ecclesiastical order, and calling to have been interrupted in that time? yea doth not the contrary rather evidently follow? For if their forefathers were not then heretics, notwithstanding their separation from the church by excommunication: doth it not well follow, that the succession of the church was not t●en interrupted? Malice hath so blinded these ministers, that they know not, when they speak for, or against themselves. But if they would know, in what state their forefathers were at that time, I say, they were members cut of, from the mystical body of Christ (supposing the sentence to have been just, which belongeth not to this place to examine) but were quickly reconciled, and reunited to the head again, without any prejudice to the succession of holy order, and calling of Pastors, even in the church of France itself. For though by excommunication the lawful use of holy orders was suspended, yet was not the order itself taken away; and therefore the sentence of excommunication being removed, the power of holy order was restored to the lawful use, without any new ordering, as I suppose these ministers do know, though they show themselves to be most ignorant otherways.  
Minister. And which is more, it is impiety to prescribe unto God, the mean to execute his promises without his word: and to say that he cannot accomplish them, if the state of the church be not always flourishing, from Father to son, or from Bishop to Bishop without interruption: and it is no less unlawful, when it falleth out otherwise, to say (a thing altogether execrable) that he is a liar, and unfaithful in his promises.  
Answer. Do not these men manifestly condemn themselves of impiety, prescribing unto God a new mean (to wit by extraordinary calling) to accomplish his promises of conserving his church, without which either he could not, or at lest hath not accomplished them; and this not only without any warrant of his word, but directly contrary to his express word? 
Ephes. 4.12.  Farther do they not in like manner condemn themselves of execrable blasphemy, saying that God hath falsified his word, and promise, in not keeping watchmen, and Pastors in his church, unto the end of the world, which he hath so expressly promised in his holy word: but hath permitted them so to fail, 
Esay. 62.2. Math. 28.20  that it is necessary to found out a new origine, and beginning of preachers, and Pastors? Surely one of these two things must necessarily be true, either that God hath falsified his word, and promise' to his church, specified in the places cited in the margin, or that the doctrine of these men, teaching that lawful Pastors, have failed in the church, is false. But saying the first is execrable blasphemy, the second must needs be the self verity.  
Ministers. 10. saying therefore it appeareth not by the word of God, that these promises aforesaid appertain to a perpetual, local, and visible succession. And that experience teacheth the contrary we conclude, that this is not necessary to true vocation; and consequently, that the defect thereof doth not hinder that ours, that are called to that charge, according to the word of God, and apostolic traditions, are not the true successors of the Apostles, saying they also use their vocation to the true end, which is, to teach purely the word of God, and to minister the sacraments.  
Answer. Here they wind up the fair thread, they have spun hitherto to their own confusion; and impudently say, that the perpetual visible succession of Pastors is not promised in the scriptures, and that experience teacheth the contrary. How evidently false these things are, I leave it to thee, good Readers, to judge, by that which hath been replied to every particular instance of theirs. And farther I leave thee to consider, how clearly, and manifestly their pretended extraordinary calling, (grounded wholly upon this false, and heretical presumption, of the fail of ordinary Pastors in the church) is convinced to be thievish intrusion, and sacrilegious rebellion against Christ, and his church. Neither can the false vizard of teaching purely the word, and ministering the sacraments (a clothing wherewith all heretics cover their wolvish hearts) blear their eyes, that are not already blind. For the question here, is not of the true use of the calling, but of the calling itself, whether it be lawful or not, which if it be not, the good use thereof cannot excuse the usurpation, as is evident by the example of the civil Magistrate, who is not excused from rebellion, by the good use of that office, which he usurpeth contrary to the ordinance of his sovereign.  
11. For our first Pastors, of whom those that are now, 
Minister.  have their vocation successively from hand to hand truly ordinary, and restored to the former purity, we say that their vocation was partly ordinary, partly extraordinary: If for all that it may be said, that they had it of them, who had it not themselves, at lest pure, and by lawful means.  
Answer. Having laid a most false, and hollow ground, as we have seen already, now they begin to build there upon a light, vain, and imaginary edifice, but fitting the foundation; saying, that the calling of their first Pastors was partly ordinary, partly extraordinary, which is as much as to say, merely imaginary, and chimerical. Moses and Aaron in the old law, and the Apostles in the new law, had the extraordinary: the successors as well of the one, as of tother had the ordinary: Elias and S. Paul had both perfectly together, but that there were ever any, that had half the one, and half the other, was never yet heard of, and certain it is, that God is not the author of such mingled, and party coloured calling. For all his works are perfect (as the scripture saith.) 
Deuteron. 32.4.  Whence therefore they have fetched this new commission, and ministery of theirs, the Reader may easily judge.  
Minister. First of all that there have been men in the church, that have had extraordinary calling, and namely under the law of Moses cannot be denied.  
Answer: In the law of Moses, there were two kinds of extraordinary vocation, the one fundamental, as was that of Aaron, whereof the Apostle saith: the priesthood being translated, 
Hebr. 7.12.  the law must also necessarily be translated. So that though this vocation was extraordinary in Aaron, yet was it the root, origine, or beginning of that ordinary calling of priesthood, which was never to cease, nor to be interrupted, till the law itself did cease, as S. Paul witnesseth: tother may be called collateral, because it did not impugn, nor take away the ordinary priesthood, but uphold and strengthen it, admonishing the parties then in charge, of their negligence, and carelessness in their function, reprehending their vices, as also those of the people. Of this sort was that of the Prophets sent extraordinarily by God to cooperate with the Priests, who had the ordinary calling, in the due government of God's people. Neither of these sorts of extraordinary calling can agreed with those, of whom our ministers here speak, to wit their first Pastors. For the fundamental calling they cannot challenge unto themselves, without a new lawgiver, as Moses was, and our Saviour Ch●ist also. Nor yet do they content themselves with the collateral calling. For they do not only reprehend the ordinary Pastors of those faults, which they think are in them, as the Prophets did, but they challenge unto themselves, to ●e the only true Pastors, and to begin a new line, and succession of ordinary Pastors. Which without a new religion, and a new founder of the same, cannot be imagined in the judgement of any sensible, and understanding Christian. And therefore the extraordinary callings of the old law, are so far from farthering the cause of our new Gospelers, that it is clearly condemned by them.  
Minister. We demand therefore of our adversaries, by what place of scripture they can prove, that this may not happen in the church of Christ. saying the same reasons, that moved those of the jews church, to put themselves forward, driven there unto only by the interior calling of God's spirit, are found also in the Christian church, to wit the negligence, malice, and revolt of the ordinary Pastors, and the corruption of the Ecclesiastical estate.  
Answer. In steed of proving, that there is the like extraordinary calling in the Christian church, that there was in the church of the jews, they bid us prove, that such a calling cannot be: As if it pertained to us, who are defendants only in this point, to prove the negative, and they holding the affirmative, and being actors might be excused from proof of the same. What impertinency is this? Yet that they may know there is a great difference betwixt the church of Christ, and that of the jews even in this respect, we tell them out of S Paul, 
Hebr 8 6. Math. 28.20.  that the church of Christ is established with better promises, than the other, and that with the Pastors thereof, Christ hath promised to be all days, to the end of the world, and hath said it not only to his Apostles, but also to all Prelates, that shall succeed them by substitutive ordination, 
Epist. ad Florent.  (as S. Cyprian witnesseth) He that heareth you, heareth me. Again when they shall have proved the like extraordinary calling in the Christian church, which is acknowledged to have been in the jewish church, (which they can never do) what will it avail them seeing that calling is nothing like unto theirs, as is already showed Farther the Prophets of the old law, did not put forth themselves, moved only by an internal calling, or instinct of their conscience, which these men use to call the moving of the spirit, unless we should speak of those ●rophe●s, of whom God complaineth by the Prophet Hieremie saying; I sent them not, nor spoke unto them, and yet they ran, 
Hier. 23.21.32.  and prophetized. But the Prophets sent by God, besides the clear revelation either by vision, or other equivalent means of that, which they were sent about, and also the evidence, that it was of God h●d always the testimony either of miracles, or miraculous predictions presently after to be fulfilled, whereby they proved their mission to be from God. Neither of which conditions, we find in our new Ministers first Fathers; 
De missa Angulari.  Luth●r indeed recordeth himself a dialogue, which he had with the devil, for the abrogating of private Mass, but of any conference he had with God, it appeareth not in all his great volumes.  
Hence it is manifest, that the extraordinary calling, which the Prophets had in the old law, was a far different thing from that our new Reformers challenge to themselves. That which they say of the revolt of the ordinary Pastors, and corruption of the ecclesiastical estate as also of their desire and endeavour to reform it is no more than a sheeps skin clapped upon a wolves back, fitting as well the Arians, and all other heretics, as our Caluinists. Our Saviour Christ his promises before mentioned, do warrant his Church, from all such revolt, and universal corruption, as they maliciously feign to be in it, and consequently do premonish us, not to hearken to their false alarms, but to esteem them as false Prophets, and Wolves in sheeps clothing.  
Minist. We say farther, that the beginnings of the Christian church having been wholly extraordinary, the same may happen unto it, in the midst, or towards the end thereof.  
Answ. Deeply argued I wise, and like as if one should say: the beginning of mankind was extraordinary, therefore the middle, or end may also be so. Yea this argument, if it conclude any thing, doth qute overthrow their extraordinary calling For if it be extraordinaty, it is not the same with that, which went before, if not the same, than another distinct, if another distinct, then from another course, beginning, or origin then from the Apostles, or our Saviour Christ, from whom the other was derived. As it happeneth in the race, or pedigree of any family, the successive line whereof being once interrupted, it is no more esteemed to be the same race or family, with that which went before, but another distinct, and descending from another stock, or root. Whence it remaineth clear, that the extraordinary calling of these new Reformers must necessarily come from some other origine or beginning, than our Saviour Christ or his Apostles.  
Minist. Thus far we conclude at lest the possibility, and contingency of extraordinary vocation, until the contrary be showed us by the express word of God.  
Answer. If these men had brought any express scripture, for proof of the possibility of the extraordinary calling, they might with more rerson have exacted the like proof of the contrary: but seeing they bring nothing but their own fancies, and imaginations, with what reason can they exact express scripture for the confutation thereof?  
But I say further, that though we should grant, that they have proved not only the possibility, but also the true being, of an extraordinary vocation in the church of Christ, (as they neither have done, nor ever shall do) yet should they have done nothing, for the justification of their extraordinary calling, which is already proved to be such, as never was either in the law of Moses, or of our Saviour Christ.  
Minist. 13. But yet we go farther, and prove by the text of Scripture, extraordinary vocation, in the new testament. S. Paul hath left us a most clear prophecy of a general revolt under Antichrist, 
2. Thes. c 2.  who shall sit in the temple of God, 
Compare this doctrine with M. Masons succession, and see how thou destroyeth tother.  that is, he shall rule in the midst of the church. But our Saviour shall destroy him with the breath of his mouth, that is, by the preaching of his word: And if there be Preachers against Antichrist, it followeth, that they shall have their calling from some other, then from him, or his train, who notwithstanding shall have all authority then upon earth: or if at other times they have had some calling from them, they shall execute it extraordinarily: and instead of maintaining the abuse, and tyranny of Antichrist, they shall restore the kingdom of Christ.  
Answ. This proof containeth so many, and so difficult questions, that no man of common sense, would bring it to prove a thing that aught to be so clear and easy, as should be the calling of God's ministers. But this is done of purpose to make those believe, that some thing is said to the point, that do not understand, what is said. I will disperse a little this mist, that the weaker eyes may see the sun, and discern how little it maketh for our Minister's purpose.  
First it is doubtful, whether this revolt spoken of by the Apostles shall go before Antichrist, or shall follow him as caused by him: secondly, whether it shall be a temporal revolt, or a revolt in religion: Thirdly, if it be a revolt in religion whether it be a revolt only of Heretics, and the Apostles meaning be, that till all the heretics, that are to revolt, be revolted, the day of our Lord shall not come; or if it be an Apostasy of some part of the church, which shall renounce the name of Christ, and adore Antichrist. Fourthly, whether the temple here mentioned by the Apostle, be the temple of Jerusalem, as the conference of the 9 chapter of Daniel, the 24. chapter of S. Matthew, the 5. chapter of S. john, and the 11. of the apocalypse doth show it to be: or the society either whole or half that sometimes bore the name of the Church, in which signification, the word temple without addition was never used before. Fiftly, whether the spirit of our saviours mouth, wherewith Antichrist is to be destroyed, by the preaching of his word by the Pastors of the church, whereby he shall be descried, and lose all credit and estimation: or the majesty, and glory of the second coming of our Saviour, and the sentence which he shall pronounce against Antichrist, that is, whether it be the word of doctrine, or of power and virtue, which shall destroy Antichrist. All which questions if they be resolved according to the doctrine of the ancient church, are so far from affording to our new Ministers, any proof of their extraordinary calling, to preach against Antichrist, that they will prove them to be his manifest forerunners, and potent agents to prepare his way. But being resolved howsoever this authority of the Apostle, cannot furnish them with any argument, to prove their extraordinary vocation. For if they will say that Antichrist is to occupy the whole church, it will evidently follow in their doctrine, that the Pope is not Antichrist, as they surmise: because there are divers Churches, which they esteem true churches and to have the succession of ordinary calling, which notwithstanding are separated in communion from the church of Rome, as the Ethiopians, Grecians, Armenians, Syrians, Russians, and other. So that following this doctrine, they are convinced, that the Pope is not Antichrist, and consequently that they are heretics for teaching him so to be. If they say that Antichrist is to rule but over one part of the church only, the other being free from his subjection, what necessity can there be to feign an extraordinary calling of Pastors to preach against him, seeing that part of the true church, which shall be free from his tyranny, hath means to furnish Pastors by the ordinary course and calling? and so are these men evidently caught in the snare they set for others.  
Minist. 14. The same may be gathered, from those excellent Prophecies of the apocalypse, where there is speech of two special, and particular witnesses sent by God to prophesy against the beast; 
Confer this paragraph and that which goeth before, with the fifth following, and see how they agreed together.  which clearly signifieth an extraordinary vocation, which shall not receive testimony from upon the earth, which is declared to follow wholly the beast. And it is not to be thought, that Antichrist and those that are under him, will authorize these witnesses in this work, and put into their hands a sword, to cut their own throats with, no more than we are to expect, that the church of Rome should reform herself.  
Answer. S. Paul saith: How shall they preach, unless they be sent? showing thereby that the mission, and commission of Preachers aught to be most manifest and plain: and these men contrariwise, having no other means to prove their mission, allege the testimony of that book, 
Rom. 10.  which is most obscure, being full of figures and allegories, which as themselves teach do not prove. And which is more, they allege it for the proof of Luther's mission, who denieth the book to be canonical, and therefore doth not afford sufficient proof of any point of controversy. But letting all this pass; for of bad debtors cracked coin is not to be refused. I would know of these men, whether they understand this place of the two witnesses literally or allegorically: 
Apoc, 11.  if literally, how will they make it serve to prove their extraordinary calling? seeing the Fathers for the most part understood these witnesses to be Enoch, and Elias. If they say, that their meaning is only to prove by this authority, an exttaordinary vocation, and afterwards to accommodate it to then first Pastors, they shall egregiously prevaricate. For fi●st the Script●●● restraineth us precisely to two, and therefore leaveth no means to extend it to any more: and as well may they ground their extraordinary calling of that of the Apostles, as upon this. Secondly, they cannot accommodate this extraordinary calling to their first Pastors, unless the conditions, and circumstances mentioned by the Scripture do also agreed with them, which they no way do. For these two witnesses shall work sundry great miracles as appeareth in the text, which can no way be accommodated to our new Ministers.  
But if they interpret this place of Scripture allegorically and understand by these witnesses, the Preachers of God's truth, contained in the new, and old testament, whereby Antichrist shall be convinced, they shall as little help themselves. For besides that it is their own doctrine, that nothing can be proved by allegory, they are by this means to seek a new proof, that these Preachers shall be destitute of ordinary calling. which proof they can never find, holding these two points of their doctrine; to wit, that the Pope is Antichrist, and that there are divers true Churches separated from him, that have continued the personal succession of ordinary calling till this day. And howsoever they teach in these points, no sufficient proof doth appear, that the witnesses here spoken of (be they literally understood of Enoch and Elias, as the Catholic opinion is: or allegorically of all Preachers of truth, as others will) are not also to have ordinary calling, and to join with the ordinary Pastors of those times, 
Gal. 2.9.  as Saint Paul did with the rest of the Apostles, which he found in the Church before him. Yea Master Fulke understandeth, by these witnesses ordinary Preachers, saying Christ shall have his two witnesses always, 
Apocal. 7. sect. 4.  in the hottest persecution of Antichrist, and therefore is there no need of Enoch and Elias. This Scripture therefore doth no way prove an extraordinary calling to be in the church.  
Minist. Thus far we have showed in general, that there may be an extraordinary calling. Now we say that if there be any men to whom this calling belongeth, it is they that in the latter times by the sword of God's word, 
Mark this parenthesis against M. Mason's succession.  which is the spirit of his mouth have not only revealed, but also so impugned Antichrist (which we maintain is the Pope of Rome and his followers) that we hope he shall quickly be quite overthrown, such men will we maintain our first Reformers to have been.  
Answer. These men will maintain the Pope to be Antichrist: and that their first Reformers were extraordinarily called. ●●t how? by their heretical, and impudent asseveration, as the Anabaptists, and libertines, and all other heretics use to do their heresies. Hitherto have they not proved any extraordinary calling in the Church of Christ, but only said, it may be: much less will they be able to apply the same to their men, which notwithstanding they must do, or else all their labour is lost. And yet when they shall have done that, it will serve them to no other purpose, then to prove that they have such a calling, as never was either practised, or mentioned in the Church old or new. For they will not content themselves, with a collateral extraordinary calling, which only was reiterable in the old law, but they must have an extraordinary fundamental calling, which is never reiterated, or renewed, but by a new lawgiver, and founder of a new religion, such as Moses was, and our Saviour Christ.  
Answer. 15. And if they demand miracles, for the confirmation of this extraordinary calling, we answer first: that might be justly done, if they had published any new doctrine, but seeing they brought no other doctrine then that, which is recorded in the old and new Testament, other miracles were not necessary than those, which were done from the beginning by the Prophets, and Apostles, for the establishing of the same.  

Ministers.  These men being asked of cheese, answer of chalk. They are demanded for miracles to prove their extraordinary mission or calling, and they answer the doctrine is the same with that of the Prophets, and Apostles. If that were true, and out of all controversy (as it is not) what were it to the purpose? The Prophets of the old law had the same doctrine with Moses yet did they never allege his miracles, for the confirmation of their extraordinary calling, but proved it by miracles done by themselves, which was necessary for the stopping the way to others, that pretending the same doctrine, which Moses taught, might intrude themselves into that function without any calling, as many did in those days, as well as now they do. The two witnesses mentioned in the apocalypse, 
Cap. 11.  and alleged by these Ministers, in proof of their extraordinary calling, shall doubtless teach the same doctrine with the Prophets, our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles, and yet nevertheless for proof that they are sent by God, do they work great miracles, (as the scripture there recordeth) as to shut Heaven that it rain not, to turn waters into blood, and to strike the earth with plagues as often as they william. Wherefore that these Ministers may prove the extraordinary calling of their first runners to be from God, they must neither prove it to be the same with that of the Apostles, confirmed in them by miracles, which without lineal succession they can never do, or else they must prove it by new miracles, which hitherto they have not done, nor hereafter can do. And therefore it is evident, that they are of the number of those, that run not being sent, of whom God complaineth by the Prophet, 
Hiere. 23.  as is said before.  
Again, Minister. all extraordinary vocation hath not been confirmed by miracles as appeareth by that of many Prophets.  
Answer. It is false, that ever any Prophet was received as a Prophet, and sent extraordinarily by God, without extraordinary proof of his calling. For though the particularity, whereby every Prophet made proof of his extraordinary calling, be not registered in the holy Scripture, as it is not necessary they should, yet are those of the most and chiefest, which aught to be a rule of the rest. Moreover, this is evidently proved by the rule, which God himself giveth for the trial of a Prophet in these words. I will raise them a Prophet, 
Deut. 18.18. & infrà.  from the midst of their brethren like unto thee: and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all things, that I shall command him. But he that will not hear the words, that he shall speak in my name, I will revenge it upon him. And the Prophet that being depraved with arrogancy, will speak in my name the things, 
If this rule were now observed there would not be so many false Prophets and Preachers as there are.  that I did not command him to say, or in the name of strange Gods, shall be slain: and if in thy secret cogitation thou answer, how shall I understand the word that our Lord spoke not? This sign thou shalt have: that which the same Prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and cometh not to pass; that our Lord hath not spoken, but by the arrogancy of his mind, the Prophet hath forged it: and thereof thou shalt not fear him. Hence it is clear, that before any man was bound to believe, that any Prophet spoke in the name of God, or was truly sent by him, he aught to see some evident proof thereof, such as God here speaketh of. For seeing on the one side God threateneth to punish those that do not obey the Prophet speaking in his name, and on the other commandeth him to be slain, that shall prophesy not being sent, it was necessary, he should give them some means certain to know, who spoke in his name, and who did not. Which could not be without miracle. And this verity is farther confirmed by our saviour Christ, when he saith of himself (being notwithstanding the son of God, and teaching also doctrine most conformable to the holy scriptures) The works, which the Father hath given me to perfect them: 
joh. 5.36.  the very works themselves which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me. Note that he maketh proof of his mission, 
joh. 15.24.  and not of his doctrine. And yet more plainly he testifieth the same, saying. If I had not done among them works that no o●her man hath done, they should not have sinned. If the jews should not have sinned, in not receiving our Saviour Christ, unless he had by doing such works, as no man ever did, proved his Mission from his Father, though his doctrine was most conformable to the holy Scripture, yea and he foretold in the same holy Scripture; who can say that any other Prophet sent extraordinarily may and aught to be received, believed, and obeyed without any other proof of his Mission, than the pretence of the conformity of his doctrine with the holy Scriptures? especially the conformity of the doctrine with the Scripture being no less in controversy then the Mission itself, as it happeneth in the case of our adversaries.  
16. And of S. john Baptist who wrought no miracle, as testifieth the Gospel of S. john, 
Minist.  and S. john chrysostom hath well observed.  
Answer. If those Ministers could bring the like miracles, to prove the calling of Luther, which the scripture mentioneth to have been done for S. john Baptist, they shall gain their cause: But seeing they cannot; doth not this instance of S. john convince them of rebellion and intrusion? Besides the prophecies of Esay, and Malachi applied by the holy Ghost to Saint john in the first of Saint Luke, 
Esay 40.3. Mal. 4.6. Luc. 1.  and first of Saint Mark; besides his miraculous conception, and enuntiation by the Angel, the imposition of his name, the binding and losing his Father's speech, the gift of prophesy given to his Father and mother, in his nativity, his salutation of our Saviour, both of them being yet in their mother's wombs, and such other miraculous signs, that made all the mountain country of juda to wonder, and to ask what a one he should be? besides I say all this, his life, and example was such, 
Mark. 6.20.  that not only the jews held him as Prophet, but Herode also had him in special honour. All which testimonies are very far from suiting with the brutish lust, and dissolute life of Martin Luther.  
And here I will advertise thee (good reader) that though these ministers have been beholding to Monsieur du Plessis, 
Treatise of the church cap. 11. towards the end.  for a great part of their discourse, yet are they ashamed of his miracles, which he bringeth for proof of their calling, and therefore had they rather stand to the trial of their extraordinary calling without miracles, then to use the ridiculous miracles which he allegeth, which are all like unto a shipman's hose, and fit aswell the Anabaptists, and what other heretics soever as either Lutherans, or Caluinists. For he saith the greatest miracle of all (or rather the miracle of miracles) is, that so great a miracle is wrought without miracles, to wit the perverting of so many men, as we see follow their new doctrine (we must take all their sects together to make number, for else this great miracle would not be very illustrious:) but saying Martin Luther and his issue preach the broad way to liberty, teaching that no sinner though never so enormous can be damned, if he will believe, and thereby take away all necessity of good works to salvation, and openeth the gape to all dissolution, and liberty, besides divers other points of his doctrine tending to the same, it is in any reasonable man's judgement, a greater miracle, and argument of God's special providence over men's souls, that he hath no more followers in this large and easy way, then that he hath so many. For as one saith very well, it is as great a miracle, that many men follow this libertine doctrine, as it is for a stone to fall down from high, where it was stayed before. And therefore Monsieur du Plessis not satisfying himself with this miracle of miracles, and seeing withal the necessity they have of some show of miracles, to prove their extraordinary vocation, bringeth another able, as he thinketh, to have satisfied the very Pharisees themselves; who demanded signs from heaven, and saith that during the massacres through all France, 
Ibidem.  that new star appeared in heaven, of which the like hath not been seen, but when our Saviour was borne, which cannot portend, or signify any other thing, than the bearing again of our Saviour upon earth, by the preaching of his word. Hereby we may see how beggarly they are, that having greatest need of some miracle, cannot afford one. If they had but the lest of all those, that have been done even in our own days, at our ladies of Sichem, and elsewhere, in confirmation of the catholic religion, and confutation of their heresy, what triumph would they make? But that the apparition of this star is most idly, and impertinently alleged, as a miracle proving either their religion, or their extraordinary calling, it is evident by these considerations.  
First it is so far from being certain, that it was a miraculous star; that is, a star produced by supernatural virtue and operation, that it is scarce probable. secondly, supposing it was a miracle, there appeareth no probable reason, that it had any respect, or relation to the pretended religion, whereby it may be thought to be an approbation thereof. For neither was it foretold, or foreseen by any of their religion: neither was it obtained by any of their prayers: neither was it accommodated, or applied to that end by any external effect. How can it therefore be said to have appertained to that purpose? Again it came too late to portend, or foreshow the bearing of Christ again, through the preaching of his word by their first reformers. For Luther began his Apostasy, which was the beginning of their Gospel, the year 1517. and this star appeared the year 1572. that is 55 years after, whereas signs, which foreshow any thing to come, must needs go before that, which they do forshew. And that which Monsieur du Plessis allegeth, that this star did then appear, when the massacres were in France, is so far from helping his cause, that it doth quite overthrow it. For supposing h●t this star was a miracle, and had any respect to the massacre, no man of judgement but will say, that it did rather show the approbation, than the improbation thereof. Because that God doth not use to show his displeasance in any action, by making new stars, but by thunder, tempests, earthquakes, fire, and the like. Again new stars are no signs of God's wrath, or anger, but of his good liking, and pleasance, as appeareth by the star, which revealed out Saviour Christ to the three kings. So that Monsieur du Plessis hath brought a miracle (if it were a miracle) not to prove, but to disprove his religion, and his preachers exttaordinarie calling. And here I will put the indifferent Reader in mind of certain wonders whereof Osiander a Protestant-writer maketh mention most probably pertaining to this purpose, though in a contrary sense to that which Monsieur du Plessis desireth. Towards the end of the year 1523. (saith he) at Tribruge in Mi●nia was brought forth a calf in form of a hooded monk: 
Osiand. in epit. cent. centuria 16.  and at Hall in Saxony a sow pigged a pig with the head of a Priest. Which monsters seem evidently to have portended the brutish Apostasy of Martin Luther, who being a religious man and a Priest: the year after these hideous monsters appeared, 
Osiander ibidem.  to wit the year 1524. cast of his religious habit, and shortly after married Katherine Bore and whereas he had lived chaste before (as he saith) he fell into such exorbitant lust that he himself testifieth, that it was no more in his power to be no man then to want the company of a woman, 
Sermo: de matrimonio to. 5.  with many such like speeches, whereby it appeareth that of a chaste religious Priest he was become a most lascivious beast. For if beasts could speak and utter their sensual conceits they could not possible utter them in more evident sort. Therefore whether those prodigious monsters mentioned by Osiander (the circumstances of the time and place considered) did not portend Luther's Apostasy and consequently condemn both his doctrine and calling to the preaching thereof, let the indifferent Reader judge. But let us now go forward with our ministers.  
17. Minist. For as much as appertaineth to the ordinary calling of our first Pastors, we say that if there were any at that time in the Papacy, it was on their side, because they used it rightly, whereas others did abuse it. And if it be replied, that they fell from their vocation, which they received of their Bishops, because they taught other doctrine: the question than must be of doctrine, and not of calling.  
Answer. What miserable blindness, and perversity is this? Even now these men would maintanie the Pope to be Antichrist, and all that live under his obedience to be his train: 
See their fifth paragraph before this.  and now are they glad to challenge from him, their ordinary calling, and power, to preach and minister sacraments. As though Antichrist did furnish Christians, with any necessary power, for edification, and conservation of Christ his church, and family. But let us (contrary to all right) allow these miserable men, to take their power of ministery from him, whose power they most bitterly blaspheme, and let us see, how they can save themselves from evident sacrilege, and rebellion. They must of necessity allow the Pope and church of Rome, to have a lawful or at lest a sufficient calling: (For otherwise it is unpossible, so much as to imagine, that they could receive any such from it.) saying therefore in their doctrine, holy order is neither a sacrament, not leaveth in him that is ordained, any indelible mark, character, or spiritual power, by virtue whereof, all such actions which he doth pertaining to that order, are real and truly sacramental, and therefore not to be reiterated (as the catholic doctrine teacheth) but is only a mere moral deputation, of such a person to the function, of ministering the word and sacraments, which being lost, taken away, or suspended, all power to exercise any such actions, as pertanie to that function is also lost, and taken away; and consequently, if such an one shall attempt to exercise any such actions, he shall do nothing, but commit sacrilege in attempting to do a holy action, which is not in his power to perform. This doctrine of theirs admitted, how can they pretend, to receive any calling from the Pope or Church of Rome, which (as they say) long since lost all power, either to minister the sacraments themselves, or to ordain others to that calling? Surely if their doctrine of the sacrament of orders, and of the church of Rome her revolt from Christ, should be true, it is as unpossible for them to have any true calling to the ministery, as it is for him to be knight or judge, that hath his order or office from him, that being declared rebel to his sovereign, hath lost all power of ordaining such persons, though he had it before. And therefore as he, that being made judge by such a one, should in virtue of that ordination exercise that office, should be no less rebel to his sovereign, than he that made him. So in like manner, our ne● reforming ministers taking their calling from them, whom they esteem rebels to Christ, and exercising it in virtue of that ordination, can be no less rebels to Christ, than those, from w●om they receive their calling. Neither will it avail them any thing to say, that they use it well, which thothers did not. For the question is not herere of the use of their calling, but of their calling itself, which is proved by their own doctrine, to be none at all, and therefore cannot have any good use, but a mere sacrilegious attempt, to do that where unto they have no power.  
If they say, that in the Catholic doctrine, which teacheth, that in holy orders is imprinted an indelible character, or mark in the soul of him, which is ordained, (by virtue whereof, all such actions as pertanie to that order, are made of force) they may have the same true calling, that the Catholics believe to be in the church of Rome. I answer first, that there is no reason, that they should receive any benefit, from the truth of the catholic doctrine, which they impugn, and which they esteem to be false. Secondly, how can they think their calling to be good, saying they cannot maintane it without such grounds of doctrine, as they hold to be untrue? But let us grant them once more to shroud themselves under the truth of Catholic doctrine, so much impugned by them; What will they gain thereby? No other thing then that, which o●r Saviour saith, an old garment getteth by a new patch set upon it, that is, to make the rent greater. For either they must say, that in the Roman church (from whence they now of necssitie are driven to take their calling) when Luther was ordered Priest, remained the true, and lawful calling in Christ's church, not only for as much as pertaineth to the sacramental power, or character; but also for the lawful use thereof, and then must they necessarily confess themselves to be heretics, and schismatics, for having left the unity of that church, where there is the lawful use of calling, and consequently, the lawful administration of God's word and sacraments, which they acknowledge for the only true marks, of God's true church: or they must say, that albeit the sacramental power, or character always remained in the church of Rome, yet had it not the lawful use thereof, being revolted from the service of Christ. And in saying this, they do no less condemn themselves. For if those that ordained Luther had not the lawful use of the sacramental calling, where, of whom, or from whence could Luther have it? Surely he could not otherways have it, but by sacrilegious usurpation. For to say, that he had it extraordinarily, and immediately from God, is both impertinent, because here we speak of ordinary calling, and is a desperate shift already refuted by the authority of our Saviour himself, testifying that if he had not done those thing in proof of his mission, that never any other did, the jews had had no sin for not receiving him.  Luther therefore never did any extraordinary work, for proof of his extraordinary mission, he is not to be received, especially the son of God not challenging that privilege. Again it is evident by the practice of the ancient church, ●n the counsels of Nice and Sardis, that such as are ordained by heretics, have no lawful use of the sacramental calling, which they receive, 
Cap. 11 n 4.  as we shall see more at large here after. The Protestants therefore esteeming the Roman church heretical, yea more than heretical, and notwithstanding receiving their calling from it, cannot have any more lawful use thereof, than the counsels of Nice and Sardis, did judge those to have, that were ordained by Miletius, and the Arrian Bishops, which was none at all. So that these men are like unto a bird in a net, that the more she striveth to get out, the more she entangleth herself, and the faster she is holden. Neither doth the idle pretence of necessity of reformation excuse them from their sacrilegious usurpation, and rebellion. For besides that there were divers true Churches (as they say) separated from that of Rome, when Luther ran out, from whence he might have had his calling, and therefore cannot with any colour pretend necessity to run without mission. Besides this (I say) our Saviour himself, might have pretended truer, and greater necessity, to preach reformation, than Luther and his; and yet was he so far from it, that he proved his mission by such means, as never any did, and witnesseth that without such proof he had not been receivable. Shall we therefore be so devoid of all sense, as to think Luther, and his crew to be receavable for true reformers, without all proof of his calling, and commission, upon a bore pretence of a feigned necessity? Neither is the example that Monsieur du Plessis bringeth in their defence to any purpose. He saith thus. 
Fol. 375.  A Magistrate called to the government of the common wealth, finding the laws corrupted by his predecessors, the place of justice full of injustice, offices subject to sale and the like, taketh in hand to reform all, and to reduce it to the censure of the laws. Now would he not be worthy to be laughed at, that should ask him by what right or title he doth this? This example he thinketh to agreed with their first Pastors, who having been ordered Priests in the Roman Church, used their calling, as he pretended, to the reformation of corruptions and abuses crept into the Church, by the negligence and malice of their predecessors, and therefore cannot be rightly demanded, by what authority they do it. Let us admit this example for good, and then ask of Monsieur du Plessis, what answer he would give unto the Arians, and Anabaptists, making this argument against the reformed Churches of Germany and France. I suppose he would say, that their pretence of reformation is but a vizard, and cloak, to enter into the Church, and afterwards to disturb the peace thereof, and to draw men into error. And that if every one pretending reformation were to be harkened unto, either in the ecclesiastical, or civil estate, it would be unpossible to keep any peace, or order in either. This same answer will fit Monsieur du Plessis his example. Secondly this example maketh nothing to the purpose, unless these two things be proved. First, that the Church may be so corrupt in doctrine, and manners, as that no Pastors remain uncorrupt to reform it.  
Secondly, that it was in that state, when Luther ran out of the Church. For unless these be proved, what appearance of probability can there be in this example? But it is as possible to prove these things, as it is to prove the holy scripture to be false, or God to have failed in his promise, as hath been showed before.  
Thirdly, Luther and his followers do not pretend only to reform the corruptions which they falsely imagine to be in the Church, but they would thrust out of office the true and lawful Pastors, by whom they received their calling of priesthood, and make themselves the sole rulers and governors, not of God's Church, but of a congregation of their own gathering. Which absurd abuse if any seditious head should attempt in the temporal state, he would quickly be recompensed with the hire due unto such a one. This example therefore of Monsieur du Plessis being rightly applied doth manifestly comdemne Luther and all his Seditious brood.  
18. Minist. Or if it be said, that the greater part amongst them being only Priests could not give calling to others, we sand them to S. Hierome, who teacheth, that that power is common to Bishops and Priest, and S. Ambrose confirmeth the same. It appeareth therefore, that in what sort soever they take it, they are not without calling, and having it, they have power to give it to others, and these exercising it faithfully have the true title, and possession of it.  
Answer. How falsely they Father this doctrine upon S. Hierome is showed before, for he teacheth the quite contrary saying what other thing doth a Bishop, 
Epist. to Euagrius.  that a Priest doth not, except ordering or giving of orders? And as falsely they cite S. Ambrose. So that it manifestly appeareth by that, which hath hitherto been answered, to all their slender proofs, of their party coloured calling, half ordinary, half extraordinary, that they have none at all; and therefore are convinced to be thieves, 
john. 10.1.  and robbers, climbing up another way, and not entering by the door: and such as God complaineth of by the Prophet, that prophesy in his name without sending, 
jeremy. 23.  and run without bidding.  

The third part of this chapter.  19 And albeit it be abundantly sufficient, for the rejecting of this new pretended ministery, to have so evidently refuted the proofs thereof (our adversaries being appellants in this cause, and we only defendants) yet of supererogation, and abundant declaration of triumphing truth, I will here briefly show that there can be no true calling to the ministery of God's word, and sacraments in Christ his Church, but that which is given and received from one to another from our Saviour Christ, the true fountain, and source of all lawful power even till this day, whereby it will clearly appear, that the pretended Churches of reformation in France, and all those that agreed with them, have no true calling at all. For they willingly confess as we have seen before, that their calling is extraordinary, and therefore not received from their predecessors (I speak of their first Pastors as they term them) but immediately from God, as Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles did. And omitting those two evident testimonies of our Saviour Christ, 
Nath. 28.20 Eph. 4.12.  and S. Paul (before cited for the like purpose) proving a continual, and not interpreted succession of Pastors in the church, till the world's end. I will here only deduce the same tradition, or delivery of calling, from one to another, first out of holy Scripture, so far as the story thereof reacheth, and then out of the doctrine of the ancient church, which our adversaries dare not reject.  
The holy scripture to show the weight and moment of this calling, doth often, and in most clear terms declare, that our Saviour himself did not take upon him this dignity, but by mission from his father, S. Paul saying, 
Heb. 5.5.  that he glorified not himself that he might be made highpriest, but he that said unto him, thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee. And in another place: Thou art a Priest for ever. And again: This is my beloved son, hear ye him; 
Math. 7.5. 2. Pet. 1.  with many other like testimonies of his calling to the function of Priesthood, which he exercised according to his humanity. According to which having received from his Father, 
Math. 28.18 19  all power in heaven and in earth, he sent his Apostles to preach, and minister the sacraments saying. All power is given me in heaven, and in earth, going therefore teach ye all Nations, baptizing them. And in another place: As my Father sent me, so I sand you. 
john 20.21.  The Apostles thus sent, sent others their disciples S. Paul saying to Timothy. I admonish thee, that thou resuscitate the grace of God, Which is in thee, 
2. Tim. 1.6.  by the imposition of my hands. And those disciples sent others. For the same Apostle saith to Titus. For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest reform those things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain Priests by cities, as I also appointed thee. So that we have in the holy Scripture, the calling not only of the Apostles, and their disciples, but of their disciples disciples, one being called by another, as the son by the father, even until our saviour Christ, the head and fountain of all calling and mission. And that this self same line, and succession of calling hath ever since continued it is evident, both by the personal succession of Pastors in the sea apostolic, which is so evidently known, that M. Fulke saith, we can count it on our finger's ends, as also by the doctrinal testimonies of the most ancient fathers, 
Answer to a counterfeit Catho. p. 27.  whereof some I will here set down, I say doctrinal testimonies, because they are not only testimonies of the belief and practice of the church, in the time wherein they lived, but also are rules for all times concerning that matter. S. Ireneus Bishop of Lions, and martyr, disciple of the Apostles disciples saith thus. 
Lib. 4. c. 43.  We must obey those Priests, that are in the church, that have the succession from the Apostles (as we have showed) that together with the succession of Episcopal power, have according to the good pleasure of the Father received the certain gift of truth. But others that are not of the original succession, in what place soever they are assembled, to have suspected, either as heretics and of bad doctrine, or as schismatics and high-minded, or as hipochrites which do this for covetousness, either of gain, or vain glory.  

Lib. de prescriptionibus cap. 32.  Tertullian not much after S. Ireneus saith Let them (the Heretics) bring forth the origin or beginning of their churches, let them look thorough the order of their Bishops, so descending by succession from the beginning, that their first Bishop have for his ordainer and predecessor, some of the Apostles or Apostolical men, who yet have continued with the Apostles to the end. For in this manner do the Apostolical churches verify their pedigree, as the church of Smyrna produceth Policarpe, placed there by S. john, and that of Rome Clement ordained by S. Peter. 
Contr. Marcio: l. 4. c. 5.  And again: we have churches founded by john: For though Martion reject his apocalypse, yet the order of Bishops reckoned from the beginning will rest in john as the author, and so is the nobility of other churches known. And lower: He hath also churches, but his are as much latter, as they are adulterous, whose genenealogie if you seek, you shall rather find them Apostatique, than apostolic. Martion or some of his troup being the founder.  
S. Cyprian in the age following. These are they that of themselves without commission from God, 
De unitate ecclesiae.  do usurp Prelacy amongst certain auditors disorderly gathered together, that make themselves Pastors without any lawful ordination, that take upon them the title of Bishop, without that any man give them a Bishop's place or authority, at whom, the holy Ghost in the Psalms doth point as sitting in the chair of pestilence, being the plagues and ruins of true faith. And in another place. Christ said to his Apostles, and consequently to all Prelates, that by substitutive ordination do succeed the Apostles, he that heareth you heareth me. 
Epist. 69. to Florentius. Lib. 2. con. Parmenian.   
Optatus Milevitanus in the age after S. Cyprian, having reckoned up the Bishops of Rome from S. Peter (whom he calleth the head of all the Apostles) until Siri●ius than Bishop. Give us (saith he to Parmenian primate of the Donatists) the beginning or origen of your chair, you that challenge unto you the Church of God.  
S Hierome saith of a certain heretic one Hilarius: 
Dialog. con. Luciferianos  The sect perished together with the man, because he being but Deacon could not ordain any Clergy to remain after him: but where there is no Priest, there is no Church.  
S. Augustine saith to the Donatists. 
In the Psalm against the party of Donatus.  Number up the Priests from after S Peter, and see who in that line of Fathers succeeded others: that is the rock, which the proud gates of hell shall not overcome.  
Now dare I appeal to the judicious Reader, be he friend or foe, Catholic or Protestant, whether these Fathers delivering this doctrine, could so much as dream of any extraordinary calling in the church, immediately from God, such as our new Reformers, seeing themselves evidently without ordinary calling, are forced to recurre unto. Surely if they had not presupposed as a most sure, and infallible ground, that the calling, which our Saviour Christ instituted, and left in his Church, should ever continued, and descend from one to another by not interrupted succession, they could not but have seen, and known, that their arguments proposed, and urged against the heretics of their time, in such sort as is before related, could have no force at all: their adversaries having always most easy recourse, to their extraordinary and immediate calling from God, which would have deluded all their arguments. But this shift of maintaining heresy is so evidently absurd, that till our age it seemeth, the devil could find none so senseless or shameless that would put it in practice.  
Monsieur du Plessis after all shifts possible used, for the maintaining of their new Ministry, and seeing (as it is likely) that all he had, or could say was not sufficient to make it good cometh at last to say, that the question of calling is superfluous, and nothing at all pertaining to the proof of the true Church: which he goeth about to show out of the conference of Carthage, between the Catholics, and Donatists in this sort.  
The question was between the Catholics and Donatists, 
Plessis of the Church pag▪ 369.  where the true Church might be: And to clear the same the conference of Carthage was held by the authority of the Emperor Honorius, in the presence of the tribune Marcellinus: S. Augustine who spoke for the Catholics, would examine it by the Scriptures: Petilian who defended the cause of the Donati●●●, by the calling of the Bishops, thinking to bring him to this point, to name Cecilian Bishop of Africa for his ordinator, whom they pretended to have bur●● the holy books, and thereby made uncapable both of being Bishop, and ordaining others: who art thou? (saith Petilian to S. Augustine) and whence hast thou thy beginning? and who is thy father? (that is, who consecrated thee?) and where is thy head and thy fountain, and if thou have none, art thou not then an heretic? S. Austin who will always come to the ground, what answereth he? This question, saith he, is but a cavil, and an evasion belonging no whit to the cause of truth etc. I am (saith he) in that church which Cecilian was in: my communion began at these words. It behoved that Christ should suffer and rise again the third day, and that remission of sins should be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem, and from thence throughout all the world. Cecilian was my brother, and not my Father, nor he that consecrated me. In this case I acknowledge no 
(a) S. Augustine hath no such words.  father but God, no head but Christ: For although the Apostle say I have begotten you, yet that thou mayest know, that the base or foundation of that fatherhood is not human, he addeth (by the Gospel of Christ) In a word (saith he) to omit these superfluous demands, I am a Christian, a faithful man, a Catholic, I defend one church, the which, whatsoever I am, is a church: And to resolve thee Megalius hath ordained me Bishop let us come 
(b) Falsification: no such thing in S. Augustin.  to the matter, let us come to the scriptures.  
The same we say with S. Augustine to our adversaries, you ask what the calling was of the first Reformers? from whom our calling doth descend? it was the 
(c) If the same why do they abjure it, and not only refine it?  same that yours is, faulty and corrupt in her forms, but rectified by us, by calling it back to her first rules, and by bringing it back to her first usage. So then there is no more question of the calling: we are quit one with another for that point, let us come to the doctrine, and to the examining thereof by the Scriptures.  
This concleusion of Monsieur du Plessis doth show, how gladly he would be quit of this question of calling, knowing right well that they can never satisfy therein, nor prove themselves true Pastors, the want whereof doth necessarily infer the want of the true church, true faith, and true religion. But let us see how his authority alleged by him serveth his turn in any point.  
This conference was holden indeed, by the commandment of Honorius Emperor, but at the instance, and request of the Catholic Bishops, 
Collat. 1. Carthag. art. 4.  as appeareth by the Emperors own letters. For the desire of peace and love (saith the Emperor) we have willingly yielded to the request of the venerable Bishops; who have desired that the Donatist Bishops may be assembled, and that either part may make choice of certain Bishops, by whose conference, or disputation, error may be confuted.  
This reason of this request made to the Emperor, was the obstinacy, and perversity of the Donatists, who having been condemned before, both by ecclesiastical, 
Ibid art. 54. Epist Catholicor. ad initium.  and imperial judgement, did still persist in their error. Which obstinacy moved the Catholic Bishops, to seek the second time for the assistance of the secular power, whereby they might be constrained to put in execution, the sentence that should be given against them. This I thought good to note, lest the less skilful reader might think, that either Christian Emperors did take upon them, the judgement of Ecclesiastical causes, or that Catholic Bishops did seek unto them for the same any farther than for their assistance for the execution of Ecclesiastical judgement. And I could wish, good Reader, that for the better satisfaction, and fuller information, and knowledge of the nature of heretics and schismatics, thou wouldst take the pains, to read the whole conference itself, wherein thou shalt find very many things for the proof, and confirmation of the Catholic doctrine in the points controversed at this day, but no word against it, and see as it were in a glass, the perversity of the heretics of these our days set down, and recorded 1200 years agone, it is printed together with Optatus Milenitanus: Ex Bibliopolio Commeliniano anno 1599 my copy hath no other address. But to come to the objection itself, wherein Monsi. du Plessis useth his accustomed falsity, adding of his own, and inventing the sayings of his authors, as he thinketh most for his purpose.  
The true state of the matter, for so much as appertaineth to this objection is this.  
The Donatists seeing themselves not able to sustain, and make their party good against the manifest truth forcibly urged by the Catholics, sought all occasions possible, to turn the dispute from the point in controversy, and to spend the time in impertinent demands, that so they might (if it were possible) avoid the condemning sentence, which they saw would fall upon them.  
The main question in controversy was, whether the fault or crime of Cecilianus and his colleagues (supposing they were truly guilty of any crime) might or aught to be so imputed to that church, whereof they were members, and which communicated with them; that it was now no more the true Catholic church, but a false and corrupt congregation of bad men, and therefore might justly be so abandoned by the Donatists, that they might reject even the sacrament of Baptism given in it as unlawful.  
The second question was, whether Cecilianus and his colleagues were indeed truly guilty of any crime worthy of condemnation, or censure. That these were the main questions in controversy, is evident by the mandate of the Catholics, set down in the first days conference. The Catholics maintained and evidently proved the negative in both these questions, 
Art. 54 45.  as appeareth in the whole conference, and also by the sentence given accordingly in the end of all.  

Collat. 3. Act. 226.  In the third days conference S. Augustine having said thus: Cecilians cause having ever been accustomed, to be objected by the Donatists against the church, if they will now object it no more, what will they object against it? If they object nothing, why do they separate themselves from it? If they object any thing else, let them propose it, let them show it. 
Art. 227. Pet. Art. 228. Aug. Art. 229. Pet. Art. 230. Aug. Altars and memory of dead in S. Augustine ●is days. Mark here the universality of the church. Not man's faults aught to separate us from the unity of the church our mother.   
Hereunto Petilian saith: who art thou? art thou Cecilians son, or no? art thou guilty of his crime, or no?  
Mark good Reader how impertinently these questions are moved, in respect of the matter in hand, and thou shalt easily see, that the Catholic Bishops had reason to say, that they were superfluous, and pertained not to the cause, notwithstanding S. Augustin answereth. I am in the church, in which Cecilian was.  
From whence hast thou thy beginning? what father hast thou? if thou condemn thy father, dost thou not profess thyself an heretic who will neither have beginning, nor father?  
We are in the church, wherein Cecilianus did bear episcopal authority, and therein died. We recite his name at the Altar, we communicate with his memory, as with the memory of our brother, not of our Father or mother. Thou demandest of me, whence my communion hath beginning. Our Lord Christ testifieth the beginning of my communion. It was necessary, that Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day, and that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, through all Nation's beginning from Jerusalem. From him nor from the Church my mother, no man's crime, nor no calumny shall separate me. 
Art. 231. Pet. Art. 232. Aug. Art. 233. Pet. Art. 234. Aug.   
Cecilian is he thy father, or mother as thou sayest?  
Thou hast already heard that he was my brother.  
He is not a brother, that begetteth children.  
Cecilian is not my Father, if he be good, he is my good brother: If he be bad, he is my bad brother, yet because of the sacraments he is my brother whether good or bad.  
But if thou wouldst have my opinion of him, 
Art. 235.  I think him innocent and fafly accused. If thou object his crimes against the church, I defend as a brother, and show that they cannot belong to the Church, nor to the cause thereof, nor cannot hurt it. And so I show, that thou object nothing against the Church, although the crimes of Cecilian should be true, which thou canst no ways prove. Which if thou canst not in like manner prove, thou seest where thou art; and what thou oughtest to embrace truth, and charity with us, leaving thy obstinate error.  
Let them say plainly at last, whether they have Cecilian instead of their father, from whom this issue is descended. 
Art. 236. Pet.  For nothing can be borne without some that begetteth it, nor begin without a head, nor grow without a root. Behold they often profess to have no beginning. If therefore he have no beginning, is not he rather an heretic, who hath no father, or who condemneth the father he hath?  
I have a head, but it is Christ. 
Art. 237. Aug. Art. 238. Pet. Art. 342. A●g. Art. 243. Pet. Art. 244. Fortuna.   
Who made thee Bishop?  
I have a head but it is Christ, whose Apostle saith, all things are yours, but you are Christ's, and Christ is Gods. And he afterward showeth at large out of the scriptures, how we have but one father to salvation, or that saveth us, and yet how we have divers fathers for other respects.  
How is he called that ordained him? let him tell who gave him orders.  
We do not well conceive, what it importeth to the cause of truth (that now is in hand) who ordered every Bishop, it is showed by divine testimony, that God is our father. 
Art. 245. Pet. Art. 246. Alipuis: Art. 247. Adeodatus. Art. 248. Possidius. Art. 249. Aug.   
Let him declare who ordered him.  
Ordered whom? we are many present. Let the adverse part speak▪ whose ordination he asketh of, and why, that we may see, whether he be worthy of answer.  
Augustin spoke, let him tell who ordered him.  
We have not taken upon us to defend Augustins' cause whatsoever it be.  
I see superfluous things are demanded by our brethren of the contrary part, and yet I refuse not to answer to these superfluous demands, the church's cause whereunto nothing can be answered, being in safety. I whose ordination th●● requirest, am a Christian, a faithful believer (which I speak God being my witness) a Catholic. I defend that Church, which, whatsoever I am, ●s a church. I see whereat thou aimest; thou seekest to calumniate, those things which you use bragging to say, are not hidden to us. Megalius ordered me, the Primate of the Catholic church of Numidia, at that time when he had power to do it. Behold I have answered thee. Go forward, propose that which thou hast prepared, and thou shalt be found a calumniator. I have told thee my ordainer, now utter the calumniations.  
Thus far lasted this contestation, about S. Augustine's ordination and here it ended. I have set it down at large word for word for the better clearing of the objection made out of it, which in truth is as impertinently urged by Monsieur du Plessis, against the Catholics enquiring of the Protestants vocation, as it was used by the Donatists, against their Catholic adversaries. S. Augustine, and his Catholiqe partakers do rightly reject this demand of his ordination, as impertinent to the matter in hand. For had he been ordered by Cecilian (as doubtless divers Catholic Bishops were) yet before the Donatists could infer any thing thereupon for their purpose, they were first to prove, that Cecilians faults were to be imputed, to the church, which communicated with him, which was the chief question in controversy. Secondly, that Cecilian was truly guilty of the crimes objected against him, which they were so far from proving, that the contrary was manifestly proved by the Catholic party. Who doth not therefore see, that the question moved of S. Augustine's ordination, was altogether impertinent to the matter, and therefore worthily rejected by the Catholic Bishops as such.  
Now if Monsieur du Plessis can show us any such impertinency, in our demands of their ordination, or vocation, we will cease from molesting them any farther in that kind. But we are warranted therein, by the testimonies of holy scripture, and ancient Fathers, 
Above n. 20.  and namely S. Augustin himself, even against the Donatists, as is afore showed: therefore must they not think to fobbe us off with such fables, and make us give over our poursuit, till they either satisfy our demands, which they can never do: or yield to the evident truth, and return to the unity, and charity of God's holy Church, which I pray God they may soon do.   

The mith Chapter. Not all external ordination, or consecration by such as bear the name, and pretend to be Bishops is a sufficient and true calling to the ministery of God's word and sacraments.  
1. HAVING in the precedent chapters refuted divers sorts of callings, which either are maintained by some Protestants, or may any ways be imagined to be probable, it remaineth to clear the question here proposed, concerning the lawfulness of the calling of the protestant clergy of Ingland. Where first it is to be observed, that (by the confession of those adversaries, with whom we have here to dispute) the ordinations made by the Bishops of the Roman Church, are sufficient for the true constitution of ecclesiastical ministers. To which acknowledgement they are constrained by necessity, not having any other possible means, to maintain that ordinary calling, which they pretend to have. The question therefore is not here, whether the ordinations made by the Bishops of the Roman Church be sufficient or not, this being confessed, and without controversy. But whether the ordination● made by other Bishops, from the communion of the Roman Church, and namely by those of England, be such or no.  
Secondly it is to be observed, that though hitherto hath been sufficiently impugned the ministery of the pretended reformation of France, and such other falsely named Churches, as agreed with it in the extraordinary calling of their ministers, as that of Scotland, and Geneva, with whom agree our English puritanes yet because there are other Protestant Churches, which challenge to themselves another kind of calling, then that of France: therefore to impugn directly, and effectually the same, it is necessary, to enter into a particular dispute with them. And because the Protestants in England have most show of an ordinary calling, and bear themselves more boldly there upon (as M. Mason in his epistle declareth in these words.) Whereas other reformed churches were constrained by necessity, to admit extraordinary Fathers, that is to receive ordination from presbyters, which are but inferior ministers, rather than to suffer the fabric of our Lord Ies●● to be dissolved: the church of England had always Bishops to confer sacred orders, according to the ordinary, and most warrantable custom of the church of Christ. Therefore hereafter I will dispute with them. And if by force of argument it be made apparent, that they also want all lawful calling, there can no doubt remain of all the rest of the Protestants Churches, of what reformation soever they may brag. 
The meaning of the present question.  The meaning therefore of the question here proposed is, whether those that bear the names of Bishops in England, be true Bishops and have any true power to consecrated, or ordain the lawful ministers of God's church, or no. And to prove that they have, Monsieur Mason hath published a large volume, which I intent not to refute by way of answer, but by positive argument to impugn that which he would maintain. For thou art to observe (judicious reader) that M. Mason's grounds (for maintenante of their calling) are but answers, to such arguments and objections, as he himself frameth against it (as is already noted in the preface:) If therefore any one of all those arguments, be maintained good against him (as not only one, but many, God willing, shall be) he will found his daubing like unto that, whereof the Prophet speaketh; Dic illis, 
Ezech. 11.13.  qui liniut absque temperatura, quòd casurus sit. Tell them that daub without tempering, that it will fall. But to come to the matter itself.  

This deduction he maketh pa. 10. and is the sole ground of all his book.  2. All that Monsieur Mason saith in his great book in sum is this. The Bishops that new are in England were ordained, by other Bishops their predecessors, and those by others, until we come to Thomas Cranmer, who was ordained by Bishops of the Roman Church. Therefore the Bishops now in Englang are true Bishops, and consequently have true power, to ord●ine lawful ministers of God's word, and sacraments. If this were as surely and solidly proved, or maintained, as it is easily said, M. Mason would deserve immortal praise, with equal thanks, for having delivered his Father's Bishops, and brethren ministers, from that difficulty of the proof of their calling, wherein they are so far from satisfying their adversaries, that they themselves rest not satisfied therein. For it is not ten years since one of their Bishops, in private conference with others of his own rank, and confident friends is known to have confessed this. The french ministers have no means at all, to prove their calling, and we in England can hardly prove ours. Therefore if M. Mason perform this tascke that he hath undertaken, dexterously, he shall doubtless deserve well of them all. And because ordination, or conferring of holy orders, (whereby true, and lawful calling is given) may be defective three manner of ways, to wit, either of the part of him that doth ordain, or of him that is ordained, or of the ordination itself, it belongeth to M. Mason to prove, or at lest maintain that the ordinations of the Bishops in England, from Archbishop Cranmer, be not defective in any one of these respects, for if they fail in one of them, they cannot be true Bishops, and much less if they fail in them all, as I think they willbe found to do. But before we enter into the particular examination of M. Mason's doctrine in this point, I will wish thee, good Reader, to observe two or three things, supposing in the mean while these ordinations to be good, in all the three respects now mentioned.  
3. First, that if the ordinations of our supposed English Bishops be not otherwise canonical, but only by reason of the succession they pretend to have, 
Note.  from Archbishop Cranmer it must necessarily follow, that all other pretended Churches, as that of France, Germany, Geneva, Scotland, and the rest that have no such succession, have no lawful ministery. For if the ordination of our English Bishops be good, only because it is derived by succession from Cranmer who was a true Bishop, those Churches, that have no such succession, can have no such ordination, and consequently no lawful ministers or Pastors. Whence farther it also followeth, that they can have no lawful Church, which cannot be without lawful Pastors, as is confessed aswell by Protestants as Catholics. And yet farther that of all the reformed Churches, there is no one true, but only that of England, and therefore the Church of Christ, which should be Catholic or universal, as M. Mason himself proveth by this clear profecie: I will give the heathen for thin inheritance, and the utternost ports of the earth for thy possession must needs be drawn within the compass of England, which is more ridiculously absurd then the condemned doctrine of the Donatists, who afforded the church a for larger compass. Which absurdity willbe more apparent, if we consider the small number of the English themselves, that hold the calling of their ministers to be canonical. For separating first the Catholics, who esteem the Protestants ordinations, but an apish imitation of the Catholic consecrations, and then the Puritans, Brownists, and the rest that condemn the same as papistical, there will remain no great number, to make up the glorious kingdom of the son of God, who hath the whole world given him by his father for his inheritance. as M. Mason acknowledgeth.  

Psal. 2.8.  4. This evident deduction cannot be possibly avoided, but by one of these two ways: to wit, either that the ordinations of the other reformed Churches, are all one with them of the Church of England; or else that there are divers sorts of canonical ordinations of Pastors in the Church of Christ. And yet both these are evidently false. For to begin with the latter, where is it read in holy scripture, or other authentical record, that either our Saviour Christ ordained, or his Apostles practised divers sorts, or fashions of ordinations in his Church? Surely nowhere. And seeing this is a point of principal moment, as being the first thing required in the building of God's house, nothing aught to be affirmed therein without evident warrant, especially by our newly reformed masters, who pretend to reduce all things, to the square of the written word itself. But yet we will deal more liberally with them, then to tie them so strictly to the scriptures, and willbe content to take for good satisfaction, one only instance of practice, not with in the first five hundred years after Christ, as they exact of us in other points, but within the whole fifteen hundred years, one allowed and approved instance I say, of any other sort of ordination of Pastors in the Church, but by the visible and sensible imposition of hands by Bishops, Which notwithstanding they are not able to produce. False therefore and absurd it is to imagine, that there are divers sorts, of ordinary callings of Pastors (for of ordinary calling we speak here) having already sufficiently refuted all pretence of extraordinary.  
5. Neither is the first evasion (to wit that the ordinations of the church of England, and of France are all one) less false. For where there is not one and the same formal cause, there cannot be the same effect: but in the ordinations of Pastors in the English, and French Churches, there is not the same formal cause, for in the English it is the power of a Bishop (at lest as is pretended) which is not in the French church; therefore cannot the effect, or ordinance be all one. For to say that the power of Priests, and Bishops is all one in respect of ordination, is an heresy condemned 1200. years ago in Aerius, as is already showed. And though some of our new masters would infer, 
Doct Morton and D. Field.  that Priests have the same power to ordain, that Bishops have, upon the opinion of some schoolmen, teaching that the character of Priests, and Bishops are all one: yet are they evidently convinced, either not to understand the schoolmen, or guilfully to dissemble their doctrine. For those schoolmen that teach, that the character of priesthood, and Bishophood to be all one, do also teach, that the same character is extended in Bishops, by their consecrations to certain actions, and namely to the giving of priesthood, whereunto it is not extended in Priests, and this not by any positive decree, or ordinance of the church, but by Christ's own institution. Wherefore it is most manifest, that if the whole doctrine of these schoolmen be expressed, (as it must be, if any one will infer any thing of their opinion) it maketh directly against this heresy, of the equality of Priests and Bishops, in respect of ordination of Pastors: but of this matter is spoken largely above cap. 7. n. 6.  
6. Again though this equality of Priests and Bishops were (against the truth) granted, yet would it nothing help them in the question now in hand, to wit, whether the ordinations of the English, and French Churches be all one: it being clear, that the French Churches do not receive, or admit of the ordinations made by Priests; but if any Priests run out of the Catholic Church to them, they ordain them a new (if they think them worthy of their ministery) so far are they from receiving ordinations made by Priests. For which reason doubtless do our English Puritans esteem so vilely of ordinations made by Bishops, as we shall by and by hear out of M. Whitaker and M. Fulke. Yea Caluin the first founder of the French Churches, (and therefore are they not very ancient) was himself no Priest, yet did he ordain ministers, not in virtue of any priesthood (which he had not, and which his scholars blasphemously term the mark of the beast,) but as having power, not only to preach, but also to ordain ministers immediately from God, and not by any succession of ordination derived unto him, by the imposition of hands of priesthood.  
From all which I conclude thus. The Church of England hath a different ordination of Pastors, from the churches of France, and all other churches, that have not their ministers ordained by Bishops: therefore hath it also a different ministery: of a different ministery followeth necessarily a different Church (which is nothing but the people united with their Pastors, 
Epist. ad Florentium.  as S. Cyprian defineth it) but of two different Churches, the one at lest must needs be the Synagogue of Satan, (for Christ hath but one Church) I say at lest one; for they may well be both so: truth in every thing being but one, whereas falsity mey be infinite. Whence M. Mason may see how ill he deserveth his name: For labouring to make up the breach in their church, by proving the calling of their Bishops by succession from the church of Rome, he hath made it much greater, by separating their Church from all their hitherto pretended sister Churches, and thereby making it to stand alone, without communion with any other Church in the whole world (the evident brand of a schismatical conventicle.) For the communion, which is required to the unity of the church, is not the sole agreement in some points of Christian belief, for so all Christians, be they Anabaptists, Arrians, or other heretics whatsoever, should be all of one Church (which notwithstanding no man of common sense will say,) but the agreement must be in all points of faith, and principally in the lawful calling▪ and constitution of Pastors, which is as it were the root, and foundation of all communion, S. Paul saying. How can they preach, 
Rom. 10. See the doctrine of the French ministers of this matter cap. 8. n. 13. & 14.  unless they be sent? and therefore every difference or diversity therein, maketh a greater difference in the whole building.  
Secondly it is to be observed, that those that hold the Pope to be that special Antichrist foretold in the holy scriptures, and therefore believe the Bishops of the Roman Church, to be promoters for Antichrist, and not Pastors of Christ's flock, must necessarily also hold, that Cranmer ordained by them was no lawful Bishop. For that great Antichrist being by the uniform consent of all Christians, the most opposite enemy of Christ that can be imagined, 
Du Plessis and the French ministers mentioned above ground their extraordinary vocation here upon.  it cannot enter into any sensible man's understanding, that he can or will minister any power so necessary, and so directly serving for the glory of Christ, as the true ordination of Pastors doth. And much less can it be imagined, that our Saviour Christ, the wisdom of his Father, should leave the power of ordaining necessary Pastors of his flock (so dearly purchased by him) in the hands of his enemy in such sort, as the true ministers of his Gospel should be forced to go to him, or his proctor's, for their warrant and commission to preach his truth, and minister his sacraments to the people redeemed with his most precious blood. What calling therefore could Cranmer receive of the Bishops of the Roman Church, in the opinion of these men, who notwithstanding think themselves to have the spirit of God? Surely no true calling, or commission to preach the Gospel of Christ, and minister his sacraments, but rather the mark of the beast to destroy his Church and kingdom.  
And for this reason, do the Churches of the pretended reformation in France, and elsewhere, absolutely disclaim from all calling, received from the Bishops of the Roman Church: deriving their vocation from themselves, without all succession to any predecessors, conformable to the rest of their doctrine: The Caluinists in France in the profession of their faith, 
Confess. artic. ●. 1.  testifying their calling to be extraordinary, confirming the same by their practice, by ordaining anew such Priests, as revolt from the Catholic Church to their congregation, yea (and which is more) making them to abjure their orders received before, as the very mark of Antichrist. The Sacramentaries of Basil upon the same ground, styled their first perverter Oecolampadius, their first Bishop. And M. Whitaker to the same purpose saith. I would not have you think we make such reckoning of your orders, as to hold our own vocation unlawful without them, and therefore keep them to yourselves. 
Con Dureum pag. 821.  And M. Fulke more plainly: You are highly deceived, if you think we esteem your offices of Bishops, 
answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 50. Pag. 67. Cap. 11. pag. 365. 366.  Priests, and Deacons better than lay men. And in his retentive. With all our heart we defy, abhor, detest, and spit at your stinking, greasy, Antichristian orders. And if Monsieur du Plessis with M. Mason contrariwise derive their ministers, from the Roman Church, saying, that they have the same calling and succession, which they (Catholics) so much brag of and that their first Pastors were Priests, Curates, and Doctors of divinity. This contradiction amongst them yea of Monsieur du Plessis with himself is not so much to be marveled at, the difficulty of this matter whereof they can never found any sufficient solution, forcing them to turn, and wind up and down, now affirming, now denying one and the same thing, as the present occasion requireth, that they may by so many windings, if it be possible, lose their adversary, or at jest so dazzle the eyes of the unwary reader, that he shall not easily see the absurdities they are driven unto, in defending their heresies. 
This doaling is evidently seen in du Plessis and the French ministers before citet.  For being pressed from whence they come, and who sent them: lest they should be discovered to come without sending (the evident mark of thieves, and false Prophets) they answer, we come from the same stock and fountain, that the Bishops of the Roman Church do come, for our first Pastors were ordained Priests by them: And being urged with the impossibility, of receiving any lawful calling from the Pope, whom they believe to be Antichrist, or from the Bishops of the Roman Church, who they teach to be Antichrists proctor's: they answer, that they receive no calling from him or them, but extraordinarily and immediately from God, so that one while they will receive their calling from the Roman Church, and other while they will have none from thence, but detest, abhor, and spit at all their ordinations as Antichristian.  
Which second resolution if we follow, (as it is the doctrine of the far greater part of the Churches falsely called reform) every one seethe, how little it availeth to lawful calling, to have been ordered by the Bishops of the Roman Church, and to be descinded by succession from them. So that though M. Mason should prove, that their Bishops succeed ours, yet shall he be farther from the proof of their lawful calling (even by the judgement of his own reformed brethren) than he was before, and therefore whilst he laboureth to prone their descent from our Bishops, he laboureth quite against himself, unless he will leave, and disclaim from the society of his reformed brethren, who yet esteem themselves better Christians than he.  
8. And if M. Mason will say, that these men exceed in this point, and that therefore their doctrine in this particular is not receivable, I will admit it for an answer, not intending to make their Apology, though I know it will little content, and less satisfy them. But let them dispute thereupon one against another, till they either drive out all light of reason from both their understandings, and so become blind Atheists, towards which downfall they are far slidden already, or else till they have vomited out all their malice, against the Catholic Church, whereby they are become so blind, as they can neither see the clear burning lamp set upon the candlestick, nor the city mounted upon the height of hills. Let them I say dispute together upon this point of their calling, or manner of deriving it from the Apostles, to themselves, whilst I touch a little nearer M. Masons own doctrine: to which purpose.  
9 It is thirdly to be observed, that M. Mason holding the Pope to be Antichrist at lest in that general sense, 
If the Pope be not Antichrist, they are heretics that teach him so to be: therefore they that communicate with them as our English Protestant's do, are at lest fellows of heretics. Math. 5.14.15. Esay 2.2.  and understanding, that all heretics are Antichrists, and consequently, the Bishops of the Roman churches communicating with the Pope to be also heretics, cannot with any probability hold, that Cranmer receiving his calling and ordination from them, could by virtue thereof be a lawful Bishop. Which that it may appear evidently to every one: It is to be understood, that for the giving of lawful calling or ordination, two things are required in him that doth ordain (omitting for the present that, which is required in him that is ordained, and in the ordination itself) The one is the sacramental power of Episcopal order, which in the true and Catholic doctrine, is an indelible and incorruptible character, and mark imprinted in his soul, when he was ordained. by virtue of the like character in his soul, that did ordain him: The other is the lawful authority, to use and exercise the same power of orders. So that without these two things, no man can give to another lawful calling or ordination. Yet is there a great difference betwe●ne them. For the first is so absolutely necessary, that unless the maintainer have it, he giveth nothing at all to him, whom he should ordain, who therefore remaineth still a mere Lay-man, as he was before: both of them committing sacrilege, by their presumptuous attempt in that behalf. The second is not necessary, that the ordained may receive the character, or sacramental, power of order, but only that he may together with the order, receive the lawful use and exercise thereof, so that he that should be ordained by one that wanteth the first, must be ordained again, ere he can be Priest or Bishop, whereas being ordained by one wanting only the second, is not to be reordayned, but only to receive that he wanteth, which is the lawful exercise of the order received.  
10. Let not (judicious Reader) these words character or Sacramental power breed any scruple in thee, as though the doctrine here delivered were so builded thereupon, as without them it could not stand. For though it be true, that holy order is a sacrament, and that also it leaveth in the soul of the ordained an indelible character, yet doth not this otherwise import to the question here in hand, then only to show, that a certain power is required in him, that ordaineth another in the degree of Priest or Bishop, without which the ordained should receive nothing (which power whether it be a sacrament, or leave in the ordained any character, or not, importeth nothing to this present question.) And this doctrine is necessarily received of all parts. For it is unpossible, that one should receive any thing of another, unless the other have power to give it. Yea the Catholic doctrine teaching an indelible character, given in Holy Orders, doth much more advantage my adversary, in the question now in hand, then doth the contrary, as will appear by and by.  
For if we should suppose with the Protestants, that holy order leaveth no permanent power in him that is ordained, by virtue whereof, the actions which he doth in his function, are made of more force and valour, than the same actions done by one, that never was ordered, it is unposible to conceive, how an heretical Bishop should give lawful calling because according to this doctrine, he himself can have no more authority to ordain another, than he that never was ordained at all. But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter. In the mean while for the more advantage of mine adversary, I will suppose the Catholic doctrine in this point. And say notwithstanding that M. Mason holding the Pope, and all the Bishops of the Roman Church to be heretics, cannot with any probability hold the ordination, and calling of Cranmer received from them, to be good or canonical.  
11. For though he received of them the episcopal character necessarily required to lawful calling, yet if his maintainers were heretics (as in Master Masons opinion they were) he could not receive of them, the lawful use of the same character, and Episcopal power (they themselves not having it) which notwithstanding is also necessary to lawful calling, as is already said. This will necessarily follow in Master Masons doctrine, upon the proof of these two points. First, that to the delivery of lawful calling, is required in him that ordaineth, not only the power of order, but also the lawful use and exercise thereof. Secondly, that the lawful use and exercise of this power is lost, or taken away by heresy. These two things being proved, it will necessarily follow I say that Cranmer had no lawful calling in Master Masons opinion, who esteemeth the Pope, and all the Bishops of the Roman church to be heretics.  
12. The first of these two points is proved, by the practice of our Saviour himself, who gave his Apostles the power of order, before he gave them authority to use it which doth show, that these two powers are distinct the one from the other, and also that they are both necessary to lawful calling. At his last supper he gave them power, to celebrated the holy mysteries (I do not say to sacrifice his true body, though this also be true, because I will not here involve that controversy being not necessary to this question) saying: 
Luc. 22.19.  Do ye this for commemoration of me: and after his resurrection, adjoined hereunto the power to remit sins, saying unto them. 
Io. 20.22.23  Receive yea the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven: Yet did he not give them Commission to use this power, at lest everywhere, till immediately before his Ascension when he said thus unto them. 
Math. 20.18▪ 19.20.  All power is given to me in Heaven, and in Earth, going therefore teach yea all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And again: Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel to all creatures. 
Marc. 16.15.  Hereby it is evident, that the power of order, and the power of the lawful use thereof, which usually is called the power of jurisdiction, are two distinct things, in such sort, as that the first may be without the latter, which is also proved by the expostulation which the disciples had with S. Peter, 
Act. 11.3.  for preaching and baptizing the Gentiles; which (till they understood by him the warrant he had from God) they thought he had no commission to do, though they well knew his Apostleship.  
The same verity is also confirmed by the commission, which the Apostles had to preach amongst the jews before our saviours Passion, 
Math. 10.5.6.7. Marc. 6.7.8. Luc. 9.1.  and prohibition to preach to others, showing that albeit the power of order be always one and the same, yet the lawful use thereof, and power of jurisdiction may be restrained, or amplified, suspended or quite taken away, as pleaseth him. that is the author thereof.  
14. The example that may be taken from civil government doth make this yet more plain. For the King when he maketh Magistrates and Officers of the Kingdom, as for example judges, he giveth them his letters patents, whereby they are created judges. Yet for all that can they not use, or exercise this office over the King's subjects, without a special warrant, or commission enabling them thereunto. Which commission if either it expire, or be taken from them, or be suspended, they may still remain judges having their patent, but they cannot use or exercise the office. And for this reason both the power of order, which is given by consecration, or ordination, and the indicatory power given by patent, may fitly be called after the fashion of Schoolmen, potestas in actu primo (that is) a power fit or able (when the use and exercise thereof is granted) to do such and such actions, and not otherways. Nature also itself affordeth examples explaining this truth. For though the fire have power and activity to heat, yea and burn, yet can it do neither unless it be applied to that, which it should heat or burn.  
From all which it is evidently concluded, that the sole power of order in any Bishop, without the lawful authority to use it, is not sufficient to give lawful calling. And therefore though it be confess, that the ordainers of Cranmer had the true power of order, yet is not that sufficient to prove, that they gave him lawful calling, which without the lawful power to use their orders, they could not give. Wherefore it now remaineth, that we examine the second point proposed, whether the orderers of Cranmer had together with the power of order the lawful use thereof. And certain it is, that in M. Masons opinion they had it not. For in his opinion they were heretics, and consequently had lost all power of jurisdiction, and lawful use of their orders, as is plainly the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church above 1200. years agone, as appeareth by most irreproovable testimonies.  
15. First the Arians accusing the Catholic Bishops of heresy, in like manner as the Protestants now do the Bishops of the Catholic Roman Church, notwithstanding that their first Bishops were ordained by them, as also the first Protestant Bishops were, are urged by S. Athanasius in this sort. 
In epist. de concilijs Arim. & Seleuc. § Quae autem Seleuciae: post medium. Apol. 2. epist. julij. De Synodis con. Arianos', ad finem.  By what right can they be Bishops, if they received their ordination from heretics, as they themselves accuse them to be? And in another place, speaking in the person of julius Pope, he saith. It is unpossible that the ordinations made by Secundus being an Arian could have any force in the Catholic church. S. Hilary argueth in the like manner and saith. What will become of us, that bring the matter to this pass, that because they (his predecessors) were not Bishops, we also are not, for we are ordained by them, and are their successors. Let us renounce our Episcopat, because we received it of excommunicate persons. This he saith to certain Bishops that indirectly objected heresy to the Catholic Bishops of the council of Nice their predecessors S. Hierome also protesteth, that there are now (speaking of his own time) no Bishops in all the world, 
Con. Luciferian.  but those that were ordained by the council of Nice, understanding those that did communicate with the fathers of that council. Whereby it is evident, that he esteemed the heretics no Bishops, though they had been ordained by the Catholic Bishops.  
Secondly heretics publicly known, and declared to be such, are excommunicate, and cut of from all union, and communion with the Church, S. Paul giving sentence against them, saying: A man that is an heretic, after the first, 
Tit. 3.10.  and second admonition avoid. And our Saviour himself: he that will not hear the Church (of which sort are all heretics) let him be to thee as a publican and heathen, but he that is excommunicate, and cut of from the body of the Church, can have no lawful power to minister in the Church, as is evident of itself. And Tertullian deduceth it in this sort. 
Mat. 18.17. de praescriptione. Of heretics and gentiles we are tun speak in the same fashion: Hiero. contra Luciferia: ad initium.  If they be heretics, they cannot be Christians, if not Christians, they can have no right to the scriptures of Christians: the same may be said of the power to ordain others in the Church. So that by the judgement of the ancient Church, of S. Paul yea and our Saviour himself it is evident, that heretics can have no lawful power, to ordain ministers of Christ's word and sacraments. Whence is necessarily deduced, that Cranmer in M. Masons doctrine could be no lawful Bishop or minister, because he was ordained by none, but such as he esteemeth heretics. When M. Mason shall plaster up this breach (standing in his own doctrine) I shall esteem him a master in his art and that he daubeth cleanly in deed.  
16. But M. Mason hath yet one shift more, before he receive the check mate. For he will say, that albeit Cranmer was ordained by Bishops of the Roman Church, who, as he thinketh, were heretics, and therefore could not receive any lawful power, to derive his orders or calling unto others, as is already showed; yet having by their ordination received the power of order, as before is confessed; he might without any great difficulty recover also the lawful power, to use the same, by being admitted to the communion of other Bishops lawfully ordained, as is manifest by the practice of the Church, both ancient and modern in absolving from excommunication, and reconciling to the unity of the Church, such as were before excommunicate and separated from the same. But this shift doth not avoid, the conclusion made against him. For first this evasion in M. Masons doctrine, who admitteth no character left in the soul of him that is ordained, (for example in him that ordained M. Cranmer) hath no show of probability at all. For if the ordination once past, nothing do remain in the ordained, if by excommunication he lose the right and power, which he received, how can it be imagined, that he may receive the same power without a new ordination? But as I said before, I will give M. Mason leave to help himself out of this mire, by the hold he may take of the Catholic doctrine in this point. In which it is nothing hard to conceive, how a Bishop, or Priest excommunicate, may be restored to his former orders, or rather to the lawful use of them, without any new ordination. The Catholic doctrine teacheth, that holy order leaveth an incorruptible mark in the ordained, which remaining, the power of order doth ever remain, and therefore nothing appertaining to that function can be wanting in him, but only the right, authority and power lawfully to use it, which may easily be recovered without any reordination, by the sole removal of the impediment, whereby he is hindered from the communion of the Church. But all this helpeth nothing M. Mason, so desperate is his case. For Cranmer wanting true calling, by reason of that defect of heresy found in his ordainers (as M. Mason will) it is unpossible for him to found a suplie of this defect, and therefore must he necessarily remain, without true calling for ever. And the reason hereof is evident, because this defect cannot be taken away, but by the reunion, and reconciliation of Cranmer to the body of the true Church, and the true Catholic Bishops. But this was absolutely unpossible, because besides the Church of Rome, and the Catholic Roman Bishops, there were none in the whole world, of whom he could receive this reconciliation. For to say, that there were other Protestant Churches already founded before Cranmers revolt, to which he might be reunited and reconciled, is too too idle to be alleged, the case of those Churches being the same with that of England, and worse, as is before showed: wherefore to recurre unto them for help in this point, is like as if a lame cripple should crave help over a stile, of another that is both blind, and lame. There were indeed other Churches separated from that of Rome, long before Luther's apostasy, as that of the Ethiopians, Grecians, Russians, and others; but to none of all these did our new reformers unite themselves, differing as far from them, as they do from the Catholic Roman: and therefore doth there remain no mean of their reconciliation to any church, whereby they might recover that, which they wanted of lawful calling.  
17. Having thus evidently showed (as I think) that albeit it should be granted, that our now English superintendents have their calling from the Catholic Bishops, that went before them, yet they cannot in their own doctrine be esteemed to have true calling. And farther though they should be granted to have true calling, by reason of their pretended succession, yet would this rather destroy, then edify their Church, because it doth evidently separate them from all other Churches, and therefore doth constitute them, a manifest schismatical conventicle, and depriveth them of all appearance of a true Church: having, I say, sufficiently showed this, I would here make an end of my dispute with Monsieur Mason, as having already frustrated the whole drift of his book (which is to make good their vocation, and thereby to clear their Church, from a principal defect ever objected against it) were it not, that he, to wind himself out of the difficulty last mentioned, laboureth to show, how their calling may be good and canonical, though it be derived from that of the Roman Church, which in his opinion is Antichristian, and wicked, and thereby provoketh me to proceed yet farther with him, in this same argument. And because our contestation is like to be somewhat prolix▪ that it may not be over irksome or tedious to the reader, I will separate it from that, which is already said of that matter, and handle it under this title.   

The tenth Chapter. The calling of the now English superintendents cannot be lawful, supposing, that of the Bishops of the Roman church, from which it is taken, to be unlawful.  
1. THIS in substance is the title of the 12. chapter of M. Masons fifth book, who putteth down his discourse by way of a Dialogue between Philodox bearing the person of a Roman Catholic, and Orthodox representing (as M. Mason will have it) an English Protestant. I will not quarrel with him for miscalling himself, but I will leave it to Didimus a third interlocutor, to convince him of theft, (if it be theft to take that, which is another man's without his consent.) Philodox therefore and Orthodox shall speak, as Master Mason will have them, but Didimus as truth shall teach him.  
Well I perceive one thing, 
Philodox.  that howsoever you speak against Popish Priests calling them sacrilegious, and abominable, yet when your own calling is put to the trial, you are glad to derive it from such Bishops, as were Popish Priests, which you so disdainfully call sacrilegious, and abominable.  
And I perceive another thing, that howsoever you exclaim against Cranmer as a schismatic, and burned him for an heretic: 
Orthodox.  yet when the glorious succession of your Bishops in Queen Mary's time is put to trial, you are forced to derive it from him, whom you scornfully call a schismatic, & heretic.  
Not verily Orthodox, 
Didimus.  you cannot infer any such thing against Philodox, as he urgeth against you, the case being nothing like. For Philodox doth not esteem the Priesthood, or Bishophood of Cranmer to be sacrilegious and abominable, but good, holy, and the same Catholic order, that is in their Bishops, and therefore no inconvenience followeth against him, though their Bishops in Queen Mary's time derive their succession from Cranmer, or (truer) by Cranmer. And though Cranmer falling into heresy lost the power, and authority to use lawfully his orders, and therefore could not give lawful calling, which includeth not only the power of order, but also the lawful use thereof: yet might this defect be easily supplied in these, whom he ordained after the Catholic rite (of whom only I speak here, for the ordained by him in King Edward's time, there is a great difference as we shall see in due place) by their reconciliation to the Catholic church, and absolution from all ecclesiastical censure or other impediment: which was done in the beginning of Queen Mary's reign, 
Mason p. 79. S. Hierome contra Lucifer: satis ante finem. Theod. l. 1. c. 9 hist. Cencilium Ni●eu. 1. can. 8. Tharasius in Nice. 2 act. 1.  as you yourself relate out of Sanders. I suppose you are too Well read in antiquity, to doubt of the truth of this doctrine, and practise in the ancient church yet lest you should have any scruple therein, I wish you should take the pains to see the places quoted in the margin.  
Now you (Orthodox) cannot say this in justification of yur calling. For first you esteem the Priesthood of the Roman church whence you would derive your calling, sacrilegious, idolatrous, Antichristian, and abominable, and therefore must of necessity make your own which you say is derived from it as bad. Secondly, you had no Catholic church going before you, and extant, when your first Postors ran out, by reconciliation whereunto, Cranmer and the rest might receive that, which they must of necessity want in their calling (if the Bishops who ordered them were heretics) but are truly such, as S. john speaketh of, saying they went out from us, an evident mark, or band of heretics. So that you see two great differences, 
1. joh. 2.19.  for which you cannot retort upon Philodox, that which he urgeth against you, and therefore if you have nothing else to answer, you must be constrained to bear that, which he chargeth you with.  

Orthodox.  But if our forefathers derived their orders from such Bishops, as were Popish Priests, what inconvenience will follow?  

Didimus.  Why do you speak with iffs, Orthodox, seeing it is the whole ground of all your proofs? But let Philodox speak.  

Philodox.  Then either confess your calling to be unlawful, or acknowledge ours to be lawful, from whence you derive it. You cannot gather figs of thorns, or grapes of thistles: neither is it possible for a Rose, to spring out of a nettle.  

Orthodox.  2. But a garden of roses may be overgrown with nettles. For the ministery pl●●ted by Christ was a sweet rose without any nettle, and so it continued in the Church for certain ages: but when Antichrist began to reveal himself in the temple of God, as though he were God, the Romish Priest ho●● became a monstrous birth, strangely compounded, half rose, and half nettle: the church of England, in the beginning of reformation, did borrow from the church of Rome the rose, 
Didimus.  but left the nettle.  
Fie, fie, Orthodox, I am ashamed on your behalf, did ever man hear so senseless a discourse, in so serious a subject? Do you not mark, that this very point is of such moment, that unless it be thoroughly cleared by authority, either of holy scripture, or received antiquity, all that, which you have said in your whole 5. books, is but mere wind, a blast of words without all true force? If you see this, why do you reason so idly? or if you do not see it, permit me to show it you, that thereby you may also see, how far you are from concluding your purpose. Is not your intent, to maintain the calling of your Bishops in England to be canonical? and your mean or medium to do this, is it not to maintain their succession from the Catholic Bishops? whence riseth the objection proposed by Philodox, to wit, how your Bishop's calling can be good, being derived by succession from that, which you esteem sacrilegious, and abominable? which unless you solve solidly, you willbe so far from proving your calling good & canonical, that you will leave it proved, even by your own principles, sacrilegius, and abominable. For answer to this main objection, you tell a tale, not of a tub indeed, but (less to the purpose) of a monstrous birth, of a thing half nettle, & half rose. Surely you were not in your wits I think, when you bestowed so much labour, to bring the matter to such a point as that neither you must confess your superintendents to be sacrilegious Priests, (as you term them) or else mere laie-men For I dare undertake to show this dream, of the nettle and the rose, to be as idle a fancy, as ever entered into any man's imagination; which being performed, one of the aforementioned members, to wit, that your superintendents are either sacrilegius priests (I speak in your opinion) or mere lay men, must necessarily follow, unless you can bring some better reason for the contrary than hitherto is showed. But to perform that which I have promised.  
3. First, it is evident by the consent of all men, that an argument, or proof drawn from a simile, or comparison (as this of the composition of the Roman Priesthood is) is the most weak, and feeble kind of argument of all other. secondly, a simile drawn from, a natural thing may sometimes, when it is fitly applied, help us to conceive supernatural, which for the height, and eminency it hath above our capacity, cannot otherwise be conceived of us, but in that case, a simile proveth nothing at all. thirdly, all similes (that they may be of any use in our discourses) must be taken from things either truly being, or at lest in possibility by nature to be. For he that would prove one thing, by a simile taken from another, which is unpossible, shall not only not prove that he would, but shall evidently disprove the same. For example, if one would prove you Orthodox to be so composed, as that you should be half a man, and half an ass. (patience Orthodox, you shall see I intent you no wrong) by this same example of a birth half nettle, and half rose which you use, and should say, that though you were borne a perfect man, and so continued for some years, yet since you went to the University, you are become a monstrous birth strangely compounded, half man and half ass, would you not say (and truly in mine opinion) that he was not half, but a perfect ass, that should make such an argument? and that he is so far from proving that he purposed, that he concludeth manifestly the contrary? All these defects being in your discourse Orthodox, I leave to your self to judge, how sound your answer is to Philodox his objection. fourth, seeing the force of your answer dependeth, upon the truth of that strange composition of the Roman Priesthood, which you mention, you should have not supposed it (though it had been more probable, or possible than it is) but you should have proved it, if not by holy Scripture (which kind of proof you rigorously exact of your adversaries) yet by received antiquity, or some sound natural reason, or at lest by some true example in nature, and not by a mere chimerical, and impossible composition, which nature never intended, or thought of▪ But will you, that I tell you the truth? this comparison suiteth well with the calling of your ministry, which is as truly lawful as your monstrous birth half rose, and half nettle is in nature possible.  

Pag. 264.  4. Fiftly, though, as I imagine, you are not so Orthodox as to hold, that holy orders is a sacrament, yet you acknowledge a certain form of words, necessary for conferring of orders. which being supposed, I ask of you, whether these words may not so be altered, by adding of others unto them, that they remain no more the true form of holy orders? If you say no: you must also say (contrary to all authority,) that this form of baptism is good, I baptize thee in the name of the Father greater, and of the Son lesser, and of the holy Ghost, the lest. If you say, yea, then would I know of you, why the additions, which you say the Papists have added to the true form of order (being greater than that, which is mentioned in the form of baptism) do not make the order none? Again, you know, as I suppose, that every addition made to the essence, or nature of any thing doth change it into another essence, or nature, as every addition put to a number, maketh it a distinct number from that it was before, for the nature or essence of every thing, in good Philosophy is like a number, which consisting indivisible, is altered by every addition put thereunto. The Papists therefore adding (as you say) to the nature, and essence of the form of holy orders, that which appertaineth not thereunto, but maketh it idolatrous, they must needs corrupt the whole, and make all nettle, and consequently leave no rose, for your Superintendents to pluck after them: who therefore must of necessity seek their calling, elsewhere, then from the Papists, who are proved out of your doctrine (mark that I say out of your doctrine Orthodox) to have none at all. And thus you see, that Philodox his objection standeth, in full force against you: and that you must either acknowledge the Roman priesthood to be good and lawful, or confess that yours is either none at all, or at lest unlawful; seeing you have none other but that, which you take from them. Again, seeing you confess, that the ministery planted by Christ was a sweet rose, and continued so for certain ages: why do you not note the time, and place, and persons; when, where, and by whom this monstrous birth was brought forth? If you can bring but reasonable proof, of any one of these three circumstances of this monstrous change you speak of, I will take it for a satisfying answer, to all that which hath hitherto been objected against you, so that you shall not need to labour in any thing else. If you cannot do this (as I know you cannot) cease for shame to object, against your mother the Catholic church, such profane, and adulterous behaviour. But let us now hear Philodox. 
Philodox.   
What will you make of us? are we ministers, or lay men? if we be ministers, than so acknowledge us. If we be lay men, than I pray you, what was Cranmer, who had no consecration, but in our church? what were all the Bishops in king Edward's time, which were consecrated by Cranmer? what was Matthew Parker, Grindall, Sands, Horn, which were all ordained Priests in our church? were they all lay men? what are all the ministers in England at this day, which derive their orders from the former? are they all lay men?  
5. Your popish Priests are neither the true ministers of the Gospel, 
Orthodox.  nor merely lay men. For your ordination consisteth of two parts: the former in these words, take thou power to offer sacrifice, and to celebrated mass for the quick, and the dead, which you accounted the principal function of Christian priesthood▪ but in truth it maketh you not the ministers of Christ, but of Antichrist: the latter in these words, receive the holy Ghost, whose sins thou forgivest, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou retainest, they are retained, in which evangelical words, there is delivered a ghostly ministerial power to forgive sins, which, according to the true meaning of Christ, is performed by the ministery of reconciliation. Therefore whosoever hath received this power, hath withal received the ministery of reconciliation, consisting, as was before declared, in the due administration of the word, and sacraments.  

Didimus.  You do greatly abuse your terms Orthodox, in saying th●t the ordination of the Popish Priests consisteth of two parts▪ (if by ordination you understand the order received, as you do in the paragraph following.) For as the soul of man is but one indivisible substance, having divers distinct powers; so likewise the order of priesthood is but one indivisible power, residing in the soul of the ordained, and having also divers distinct faculties. And therefore your conceit of two parts of their priesthood, is but a gross error of your own, which you seem to correct in the words following, calling that a function (like a scholar) which before you called a part, like a man ignorant in his terms. Now seeing the whole force of your solution to the objection made, dependeth upon this error of two parts in the Popish priesthood, you cannot be so blind but see, that it is nothing to the purpose. For if it be but one simple power with divers faculties, but without parts, you must either take it all, and be sacrilegious with the Papists, or leave it all, and be but mere lay men. And albeit the divers faculties, or functions of priesthood be given at divers times, and by diverse words, as you say, yet is not priesthood thereby proved to have divers parts, more than the soul of man is proved, to be also compounded of divers parts, by that it first giveth life and growth, than sense, and last of all understanding, and reason.  
Of the chief function of priesthood, which is to ofter sacrifice for the quick and the dead, we shall have fit opportunity to speak hereafter. In the mean while, I cannot omit to tell you Orthodox, that I much marvel at your rachnes in affirming, without all testimony either of scripture, or antiquity, that the power of sacrificing is the ministery of Antichrist, especially seeing you are accustomed to demand of your adversaries so rigorously express scripture, for the proof of their religion, and hold it as an article of your belief, that nothing is to be believed, which is not proved by scripture. Surely Orthodox, there is no equal dealing in this course of yours, and therefore for your credit sake do I require some testimony of scripture, or at lest of antiquity, proving this position of yours: to wit, that the power of sacrificing maketh the Priests of the Roman church, to be the ministers of Antichrist. For if this power be not disproved, your ministery, which wanteth it, is clearly disproved: and seeing the disproof of it belongeth unto you, as necessary for the justifying of your ministery, you foully forget yourself, in leaving it without all other proof, but your own bore assertion.  
For your doctrine of the latter part of their priesthood (I speak in your own terms Orthodox, for your better understanding) those, that you call Papists in England, are greatly beholding to you: for you deliver them from the fowl imputation of treason, whereof divers have been accused, condemned, and executed for reconciling men to god, by the power of reconciliation, given them by Christ himself, as you confess. Surely if in the Popish priesthood (as you term it) be included the lawful power of reconciliation, as you say, and your adversaries do not deny, the statute made against the practice of that power, in the 23. year of Q. Elizabeth, and confirmed by King james must needs be unjust, as directly against the power given by Christ to his lawful ministers. And if for fear of incurring the severe penalty of the same statute, you will say, that they abuse the lawful power of reconciliation, and therefore are, or may be traitors. I answer in their behalf, that if by abuse you understand, that they use it not, but by the means of sacramental confession, I acknowledge that they use it not otherways, but I deny this to be any abuse. Again though it were an abuse, yet can it have no appearance of treason, But I see you ready to reply, that they reconcile men to the church, and to the obedience of the see of Rome, which is treason; whereunto I am as ready to answer, that their intent, and practice is only, to reconcile sinners to God, through remission of their sins by that power, which you confess them to have, and if it follow hereupon, that they are reconciled to the Catholic Roman church, as to the spouse of Christ, who ordained this power of reconciliation, and thereby are made sheep of that fold, whereof the Pope (being Christ's vicar upon earth) is chief Pastor, this cannot justly be imputed unto them for treason, no more than it can be to you, to have baptized one, whereupon followeth necessarily the self same reconciliation to the Catholic church, and to the visible Pastor thereof.  

Philodox.  If it be so, than you must confess, that the priesthood of the church of Rome hath the ministerial function, because these words are used in our ordination.  

Orthodox.  Though these words as they were spoken by Christ, practised in the primitive church, and are used at this day in the church of England, imply the substance of this holy function, yet as you abuse them in the church of Rome, to maintain Popish shrift, the gold is covered with dross, and the sweet flower is overshadowed with noisome weeds. Wherefore if we consider your priesthood, as it is a totum aggregatum consisting of sacrificing, and absolving, it is unlawful, and contrary to the scripture: if we come to the parts thereof, 
Why is not this scripture cited? because it is not to be found.  your massing, and sacrificing is simply abominable; the other part, so far as it relieth upon the words of Christ, taken in their true sense and meaning, is holy, and implieth a ministerial power, which notwithstanding by your construction and practice is greatly depraved.  

Didimus.  I am weary Orthodox of those empty, and idle discourses, where so many things are said, and not one proved. In steed of sound arguments to prove the Roman priesthood to be sacrilegious, and your ministry (though derived from it) to be good, you bring nothing but imaginary similes of births half nettle, and half rose, and impertinent Metaphors of Gold and flowers, dross and weeds, fictions of a tot●m aggregatum, where there is but one simple power having divers functions, as is aforesaid, I never heard such a drossy discourse. If this be sufficient to overthrow the Roman priesthood, and establish your ministry, what will you say to the Puritans and Anabaptists, who will afford you the like, yea and better arguments against you?  
Mark, I pray you, this saying of that great pillar of God's church S. Athanasius writing against the Arrians, who bragged as much of the error of their Catholic predecessors, as you do of that of the Papists, 
Epist. de concilijs Arimin. & Seleve. sect. quis igitur. See a notable saying of Tertullian to the same purpose, cap. 4. n. 4.  of whom he saith thus: What will they teach the people whom they instruct? will they say, that their predecessors erred? and how shall they be esteemed of their disciplies true saiers, whom they persuade that they are not to give credit to their masters? Is not this the true reason, for which since Luther's revolt from the Catholic Church, you are divided into so many sects and reformations, that it is not easy to reckon them? you say, the Papists erred, and their priesthood is sacrilegious: do not the Puritans say the same of you, and the Anabaptists of them? And rightly. For whilst you say, that your fathers erred, you teach your successors and scholars to say the same of you, and theirs of them, till you end in plain Atheism. In one word if you will say any thing to the purpose, in the matter you have in hand, you must first prove by holy Scripture, the Roman Priest hood to be sacrilegious, or at lest you must show when, and by whom it began to be corrupted, seeing you confess it was once pure and good, and then are you to prove, that it is also divisible in such sort, as that one part or piece remaineth good, though the other be corrupted, and lastly that you have the second part. These three things when you have well proved (as I know you can never prove one of them) then may you brag, that your calling and ministry is lawful, though it be taken from that of the Roman church, which you esteem unlawful, till than your Superintendents must be content, either to be Popish Priests, from whom you pretend they be descended, (but this they neither are, nor would be) or else to be sacrilegious usurpers of an holy vocation, which though they would not be, yet are they: for true Bishops, which they would be, they are not, as henceforth shall be proved.  
6. Hitherto hath it been proved against Master Mason, that though the pretended Bishop of England did truly, and verily receive their calling, from the Catholic Bishops, yet can this be none at all according to their own doctrine, in which the Bishops of the Roman church are heretics and consequently unable to give any lawful calling, as is before showed.  
Secondly, that though the former impediment were not, yet, seeing they disclaim from the whole, and perfect order of the Catholic Roman Bishops, as being sacrilegious and abominable, they are for another reason concluded to have none at all. For the order of the Roman Priesthood is not divisible in divers parts, but is one and an indivisible power, having divers functions not unlike our souls, as is before showed, and therefore is either all wholly given, or nothing at all. All which hath been said not to disprove, or disallow the Priesthood, and calling of the Roman church, which is most holy and canonical, but only to show the miserable blindness, and perversity of the Protestants, that being forced to challenge their calling from those, who, if they were such, as by them they are esteemed, can give them none, are therefore constrained either to condemn themselves, of sacrilegious usurpation, and intrusion, as having no calling, or to justify them whom they blindly abhor, as wicked, and abominable.  
Henceforth we will examine the calling that our English intendents pretend to have, according to the three heads before mentioned. To wit, whether their calling, which they pretend to receive from Cranmer, be good and canonical, as well in respect of the callers as of the called, and calling itself, supposing (as confessed of either part) the calling of the Catholic Roman Bishops to be good, and canonical, or at lest so sufficient, as lawful calling may be derived from it.  
And because there are four divers sorts or degrees of persons, all pretending to be true bishops, of whose true calling, there is question for divers difficulties therein appearing, they shall be examined all apart, as they also are by M. Masons, beginning first with Cranmer, proceeding afterward to Barlow, Scorie, Coverdall and others made in King Edward's days then descending to Matthew Parker with his fellows, made in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, and last of all to those that have ever since succeeded until this day. For though there be canonical impediments in all and every one of these, yet are they not the same in every one, and therefore can they not be handled together, but must be spoken of a part. I mention not here those, that were either made, or continued in Queen Mary's time, because there is no controversy, but they were ordered after the Catholic manner of the Roman church. And though some of them were in the schism of King Henry the eight, yet being the whole Realm reconciled, to the unity of the Catholic church, 
Stow in Q. Marie.  the second year of Queen Marie, they could have no firmed by Cardinal Poole Legate, as M. Mason allegeth out of Saunders l. 2. 260. 
Lib. 2. cap. 9 pag. 79.    

The eleventh Chapter. Cranmer continued not lawful Bishop till his death.  
1. I Suppose that Cranmer was canonically ordained Bishop, as well in respect of his maintainers, of his ordination, and also of himself ordained, and therefore propose the question only of his continuation, in his lawful ordination and calling. Neither is the question, 
The sense of the question.  whether the power of order continued with him till his death. For no Catholic author ever either denied, or doubted, but that holy order once received (notwithstanding what censure soever incurred, yea degradation itself, or crime committed) doth ever remain, because it is immortal, or incorruptible, as baptism is. And therefore M. Mason fighteth against his own shadow, when he laboureth to prove this (which no man denieth) as he doth at large in his 2. book and 9●. chapter. But the question is, whether during his life he lost the lawful authority to use, and exercise the power of his order, or no; which is a question far different from tother, 
Cap 9 n. 11. and forward.  as hath been already proved, and may briefly be declared by this example. He that hath the king's patent of chief justiceship, is truly chief justice, yet if the king suspend him from the execution of his office, either in whole or in part, he hath not the lawful use thereof: 
The distinction of the power of order, and the lawful use thereof M. Mason alloweth, as is manifest by his Words cited in the proof of the conclusion following.  and if during that suspension he attempt any thing in the execution of his office, his fact shallbe unlawful, not for default of power, which he is supposed to have by the king's patent, but for default of authority, to use the power he hath. In like manner he that hath the order, or character of a Bishop, is truly Bishop, but if the use and exercise of his order, be suspended (as it may many ways be without prejudice of his order) whatsoever he shall attempt in the exercise of it, during the suspension, shallbe unlawful. This example is brought only to show, that the power of order remaining, the lawful use thereof may be lost, or taken away, which it doth sufficiently show, though there be in other respects disparity in the two cases, a thing ordinary in all examples, which do not run upon four feet, as the saying is. The question therefore being this, the resolution is.  

Conclusion.  That Cranmer before his death lost the lawful use, and exercise of his Bishop's power, or order; and therefore lost also the power to give true and lawful calling to those, whom he ordained. The second part of this conclusion will necessarily follow upon the proof of the first. For the power to give true calling includeth necessarily the lawful use of order, aswell in him that calleth, as in him that is called, no man being called but to use the power, which he receiveth by his calling, and he only is said to use a thing, that lawfully useth it. The first part therefore I prove thus. By schism and heresy is lost the lawful use of the power of Episcopal order: But Cranmer before he died, fell into schism and heresy: Therefore before he died, he lost the lawful use of the power of Episcopal order. This argument concludeth directly, and infallibly, if the premises be made good. The first whereof M. Ma●on denie●h not, yea directly granteth, 
Pag. 61.  saying that such as observe the substance of institution being themselves in schism or heresy, do minister legitimum, but not legitime, and those that receive it from them have a lawful baptism, but not lawfully; though he specify here baptism only yet is his doctrine, and the Catholic also the same of holy orders. And he teacheth the same more plainly in these words: 
Pag. 82.  If by indel●ble cbaracter be meant only a gracious gift never to be reiterated, than we may safely confess, that in baptism, and holy orders, there is imprinted an indelible character. For a man rightly baptized, becoming a Turk or jew, and returning to the faith, is in no case to be rebaptized: likewise when a Priest lawfully ordained, becoming a schismatic, or heretic, is justly censured for his crimes, and after is reclaimed, he may in no case be reordayned, but may perform his function, by virtue of his orders formerly received▪ Hence it followeth manifestly, that in M. Masons doctrine, schism and heresy taketh away, the lawful use of holy order. For seeing it taketh not away the order itself, as M. Mason for his own advantage saith (though not concordably with the rest of his doctrine of holy order) and yet maketh the ordination given by it, to be unlawfully given, as he confesseth in his former words, it must necessarily take away the lawful use thereof. But lest M. Mason seeing himself priest with his own doctrine, ●hould recall it, or at lest others his brethren should deny it, I will prove it by more weighty authority, then M. Masons. For which purpose I will first prove, that schism, and heresy take not away, the power of order received, which though I might suppose as not only granted, but also proved by M. Mason, yet because my purpose is, 
Pag. 83.  not only to refute M. Mason, but to prove against all our English Protestants, that their Bishops have no true calling at all, I will leave nothing unprooved, that may be doubted of by any one. But to the purpose.  
3. S. Leo the great receiveth Donatus Salicinensis, 
Epist. 22. ad Episcopos Afric. n. 3.  and his people, or flock converted from the heresy of Novatus to the Catholic church, and leaveth him in his charge.  
And of one Maximus he saith thus. If Maximus be no more a Donatist, but free from schism, though ordered not without fault, we do not depose him from his episcopal dignity.  
secondly, the seventh general council, which was holden at Nice, and is called the 2. Nicene council, defineth according to the doctrine of the former general counsels, and fathers, that not only such Bishops, and others of the clergy, 
Synod. 7. actio. r. per tot.  as having been heretics, and afterwards are converted to the Catholic faith, but also such as were ordained by heretics, being likewise converted, are to be received not only to the unity of the church, but also to the use of their order, and that council received ten Bishops, whereof some confessed themselves to have been borne in heresy, and so ever continued until that time, when they did abjure their error.  
thirdly S. Augustine saith, that holy order doth so remain, 
De bono coniugali cap. 24.  that albeit any one be for his fault removed from his office, yet the sacrament once given is never lost, though it remain to the condemnation of him, that hath it. And again. Both are sacraments, and given by a certain consecration, 
Lib. 2. con. epist, Parm●nian cap. 13.  that, whe● one is baptized, this, when one is ordered, and therefore in the Catholic church, it is not lawful, that either of them be reiterated. And this shall suffice for the proof of this point, which is most clear both in the grounds of Christian doctrine, and also in the practice of the whole church, which (as S. Augustin saith in the words even now cited) never allowed reordination, yea did absolutely forbidden it in the council of Capu● in S. Ambrose his time, 
This canon is cited in the 3. council of carthag cap. 37. Bin. to▪ 1. pag. 545. Concili: Nice cau. 19 Bin. to, 1. pag. 3, 10.  which is to be understood of ordination truly given. For the council of Nice did decree, that the Paulianists should be ordered again by Catholic Bishops, but that was because they had no true orders before, not nor yet true baptism. If therefore reordination have ever been practised by any, it was upon conjecture, or presumption of some essential defect in the former ordination, but how probably this was done, it neither belongeth to this place to examine, neither doth it any way pertain to the question in hand. And therefore M. Mason, if it had not been either to make his book swell, or that the good man was loath to lose such an occasion, to tax some Pope of error, though but in a matter of fact, wherein no man doth think them infallible, well might have omitted that, 
Pag. 85. & sequentib.  which he inserteth of this matter impertinently, showing therein more of the spirit of graceless Cham, that published his Father's nakedness, then of his other brethren, that covered the same.  
Now albeit it be clear, that heresy doth not take away the power of order, or character once received, yet is it no less manifest, that it maketh the ordinations by heretics to be unlawful, and not canonical. And because this cannot be, but by depriving them of the lawful use and exercise of the power of order, which they have, therefore it is plain, that heretics have not the lawful use of their orders received: which is that I am here to prove.  
4. That ordinations made by heretics have ever been esteemed unlawful, there is nothing more manifest in all antiquity, as appeareth.  

Synod, 7. act. 1.  First by the long dispute had in the second council of Nice, about the receiving of those that were ordained by heretics.  
secondly, the first Nicen council decreed, that such as had been ordained by Meletius an heretic should, upon their conversion be received with their orders, being confirmed with more holy prayers, 
Sacratioribus suffragijs confirmatos. l. 1. c. 9  or suffrages as Theodoret testifieth. Meletius himself being deprived of all power to ordain any more.  
thirdly, the council of Sardis declared, that not only Gregorius of Alexandria, Basilius of Ancyra, and Quintianus of Gaza heretics, 
Theod. l. 2. c. 8 post medium,  and intruded into other men's see as, but also Theodorus of Heraclea, Narcissus of Neroniadis, 
See a notable testimony of the council of sardy to the same purpose hereafter cap. 15. n 3. Apol 2. epist. julij ab initio satis. Epist ad Nycopolitas cited in the 7. general council act. 1, ad finem. Pag. 7●. Pag. 87.  with divers others, convicted of Arrius, his heresy, to be no Bishops, not because they had not the power of episcopal order, but because they had lost the lawful use thereof by heresy.  
fourthly S. Athanasius in the person of julius Pope of Rome saith, that it is unpossible, the ordination of Priests made by Secundus an Arrian Bishop should have any place in the Catholic church.  
And S. Basil. I know him not for Bishop, nor number them amongst the Priests of Christ, which have been promoted to any dignity, by defiled hands, to the destruction of faith.  
The same teach Innocentius the first, and Nicholaus the first, with divers others cited by M. Mason, who either not understanding, or dissembling their meaning, maketh doubt, how they may be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine, forbidding reordination. I marvel that so small a thing doth trouble him, especially considering his own doctrine, wherein he evidently distenguisheth, as is already noted, between the power of order, and the lawful use thereof, whereby are easily reconciled all the diferences, which seem to appear in the words of the ancient Fathers or counsels in this point, they sometimes acknowledging, and receiving the ordinations by heretics for sufficient, sometimes rejecting them as if they were none at all. For receiving them, they acknowledge the po●er of order, or character given by heretics (supposing they use true form, and substance of ordination) and add thereunto the lawful use, which the ordained had not by their ordination, but recover it by their reconciliation to the church. When they reject them, they deny not the power of order, but the lawful use thereof, which the ordained cannot have, so long as they remain in heresy, and separation from the church. For the lawful use of the power of order necessarily supposeth the union, or communion with the Catholic church. 
True calling doth not only include the power of order, but also the lawful use of the same.  And this is it that Innocentius and others fathers say, that heretics cannot give to those they ordain, because they have it not themselves: and not having, this, and wanting thereby the lawful use of their orders, they are said to have nothing, because he that hath any thing ordained to a certain use, and yet cannot make that use thereof, is in the same case, as if he had it not at all. So that the great difficulty M. Mason did apprehended in reconciling Innocentius, and Nicholaus with the rest of the fathers and counsels, rejecting reordination, is easily overcome.  
5. And that the communion with the true church (wheresoever it be) is necessarily required to the lawful use of the power of holy order, and consequently to the delivery of lawful calling, our adversaries cannot deny. For I would know of them, whether they think, that the Arrians had either true calling themselves being in heresy, or true power to call others? and whether by their ordinations, they did give true calling to the ordained? If they say yea, then must they necessarily condemn the whole Catholic church of error, and injustice, for condemning them in the council of Sardis, even now cited and declaring them to be no Bishops. If they say no (as I think they will) then must they necessarily confess, that besides the power of order which they had, was necessary also the union with the Catholic church, that they might either have true calling themselves, or deliver it to others, no other reason why they should not have true calling, being to be assigned. If therefore it be proved, that Cranmer was an heretic, and therebily separated from the union of the Catholic church, it will also follow, that notwithstanding he was canonically ordained (as all or most of the first Arrian Bishops were) that he lost the lawful use of his orders, and therefore neither continued in true calling himself, nor could truly call others.  
And to make it yet more plain, that the actual union, or communion with the body of Christ (which is his church) is necessary, that any one may have, or give true calling (and consequently that no heretics can either have it, or give it, they being by the Apostles own mouth separated from the community of the faithful) it is to be considered, 
Tit. 3.10.  that no man is either called himself, or calleth others to any Ecclesiastical function or office, to exercise the same in his own name; by his own power, or to his own behalf, or benefit alone: but in the power and honour first of Christ, and then in the name, and for the benefit of his church, whose minister he is; if therefore he be wilfully separated from Christ, and his church (as all heretics are) he cannot do any thing in their name or power, or in their honour or edification, for neither hath he their concurrence or commission, being separated from them, nor hath he the will and intention thereunto, but to the contrary: Whatsoever therefore he doth or attempteth to do in that kind, he doth it in his own name and power, and to the benefit of that body, whereof he is either head, or member, to wit, of that sect of heresy, whereof he maketh profession, and consequently unlawfully. And in steed of making him, whom he ordaineth, a minister of Christ, and of his church, he maketh him partaker of his own heresy, and rebellion, and a minister thereof.  
6. And in this respect there is a great difference, between the sacrament of baptism, and holy order, though in some other things they be like. For though the power of order, or character be truly given by heretics (supposing always the true matter and form be used by a true Bishop) as is that of baptism; yet because the power of order is an active power, ordained to minister other sacraments, and exercise other functions in the church, whereas the character of baptism is only a passive power, in respect of other sacraments, which it maketh us capable to receive, but not to minister: therefore doth the sacrament of orders to the lawful ministering thereof, require besides the power of order, the lawful use of the same, which those, who are excommunicate, and separated from the unity of God's church (as all heretics are) cannot have. And thus far have we proved, that heretic Bishops, though canonically ordered, have no lawful power to use their episcopal order, and consequently cannot give any lawful calling to tother's, which was the first of the premises of that argument, wherewith our conclusion was proved. Now it remaineth to prove the second, which is, that Cranmer before he died, fell into heresy.  
Though I need not stand much upon the proof of this, but might make good the conclusion before set down by this argument. Either Cranmer, after his revolt from the Catholic church or those that ordered him, were heretics: but whether he or they were so, he could not have the lawful use, and exercise of his Bishop's power, or order; therefore Cranmer, whether he was heretic or not, could not have the lawful use of his Bishop's order. This argument, supposing the doctrine of all antiquity to be true (that heretics are not lawful Bishops) is unanswerable. And though, I say, I might make use thereof, to prove mine intent without any Farther labour, yet will I for thy greater contentment (good reader) prove M. Cranmer an heretic, and purge his orderers from that note, which I will do.  
7. First, by his own confession, which M. Fox Setteth down at large thus, 
Acts pag. 1710▪ editionis 1610.  I Thomas Cranmer late Archbishop of Canterbury, do renounce, abhor and detest, all manner of heresies, and errors of Luther and Zuinglius, and all other teachings, which be contrary to sound and true doctrines. And I believe most constantly in mine heart, and with my mo●th I confess one only and Catholic church visible, without the which there is no salvation, and thereof I acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be supreme head in earth, whom I acknowledge to be the highest Bishop, and Pope, and Christ's vicar, unto whom all Christian people aught to be subject. And after the confession of many other articles of the Catholic faith he concludeth thus. And God is my witness, that I have not done this for favour, or fear of any person, but willingly and of mine own mind as well to the discharge of mine own conscience, as to the instruction of other. In rigour of law this one argument would suffice to prove Cranmer to have been an heretic, not for this abjuration, which here he maketh, but for that he perfidiously returned to the errors here abjured, and therein died, as also he had lived in them before.  
8. Secondly, the doctrine, which he professed after his separation from the Roman church, was authentically condemned by the same authority and judgement, that Arranianisme, and all other heresies have been condemned since the Apostles time to wit, by the judgement of the same Catholic church, assembled in a lawful general council at Trent. Where I would have thee (judicious reader) to observe, that as on th'one side nothing can be said in defence, or favour of this heresy, condemned in the general council of Trent, which the Arrians might not have said in defence of their heresy condemned in the holy general council of Nice, the Arrians alleging scripture, and the error of the Catholic church in defence of their heresy, as well as the protestāns do for theirs: so on the other side there can be no kind of argument produced for the proof of the doctrine defined, set down or declared in the Nicene council, and for the dispoofe of the heresy therein condemned, which may not in like manner be produced, for the proof of the doctrine of the Tridentine council, and in disproof of the heresy, which is in it condemned. For as the Catholics alleged against the Arians, the authority of scriptures, fathers, consent and judgement of the church both ancient and modern, so do they also against the Protestants. Therefore as Arrianisme is a condemned heresy, and the professors thereof heretics, so likewise is Protestantisme a condemned heresy and those that profess it be heretics, whereof Cranmer was one.  
Thirdly, Cranmer went out, and separated himself from the church, wherein he was baptized, and ordered, which therefore was before him, and which neither he, nor any one for him can show to have gone out, or separated itself from any other church more ancient than ●t, since the Apostles times. But whosoever goeth out of that church, or congregation wherein he is baptized, unless he can show, that it went out of another more ancient, is an heretic, therefore was Cranmer an heretic.  
Fourtly, Cranmer going out from the Roman church joined himself to that company, whose first founders or beginners went also out of the same church, and which cannot derive their Christianity from the Apostles, but by the descent, and succession of the Roman church, which notwithstanding they left, and afterwards impugned. But he that cannot derive the Cristianitie of that company, whereunto he hath joined himself, from the Apostles, but by the descent, or succession of that church, which he hath forsaken and impugneth, is an heretic. Therefore was Cranmer an heretic. This shall suffice for the proof of the second proposition of the argument, whereby was proved the conclusion before set down. And that M. Mason shall see, that I use no hard measure of partiality towards Cranmer, I do offer and promise, that if he can retort or apply, but any one of these four arguments to the orderers of Cranmer, I will esteem them to have been heretics. It remaineth therefore fully proved, that Cranmer through heresy lost the lawful use, and exercise of his episcopal power and order; and consequently, that he also lost the power to give true calling to those, whom he ordained in the state of heresy.  
9 But here M. Mason out of his love towards the Catholic Roman church, charitably warneth, that we take heed, lest while we go about to put out their eyes, 
L. 2. c. 9 n. 3.  we pull out our own. For (saith he) if your allegations be sound, what will become of Bonner, Heath, and Turlby, who were consecrated at such time, when in your judgement, both the consecrators and consecrated were stained with schism, and heresy? Did all these receive nothing, because their consecrators had nothing to give? If they were no Bishops, than what becomes of the Bishops in Q. Mary's time, whom these did consecrated?  
This great difficulty, lest we should not be able to solve; M. Mason solveth for us saying within a few lines after, that Cardinal Poole the Pope's legate absolved them from schism and heresy, and so they were confirmed for lawful Bishops. 
Can. 8.  The same thing that the council of Nice practised with the novatians, as also S. Leo with the same, and with the Donatists, the 7. general council with other heretics (as hath been showed before) and which hath ever been used in the church, as occasion occurred. So that M. Mason is not, as I suppose, so blind, but that he seethe well; that in all this, there is no danger of putting out our eyes: let him look therefore, how he can keep his own, and his fellows safe; which, unless he can show the like confirmation, and reconciliation of Cranmer, and the rest descended from him, to the unity of the Catholic church, which he confesseth of Bonner, and the rest objected by him, they must necessarily remain in the same state, that the Arrians, and novatians were in, whilst they, continued in their heresy, and therefore can be no lawful Bishops. For they, by the gravest judgement of the whole world were declared to be no Bishops, as we have seen before out of Theodoretus. And how impossible it is for M. Mason to show any such reconciliation, 
Lib. 2 ca 8.  it is easily understood, seeing there were no Bishops in the whole world, by whom, or to whom, Cranmer might be reconciled, but those from whom he wilfully separated himself. For if he think to answer, that Cranmer leaving the unity of the Roman church, was received into the true church reform by Luther, and Zuinglius (who were both his masters, though opposite th'one to tother) he is already prevented in that evasion. For besides that they were no Bishops, and therefore neither had the true calling of Pastors, nor could give it to others: there is the same difficulty of their reconciliation, that there is of Cranmers, they having also gone out of the same Roman church not long before him, and therefore must either necessarily show some church, whereunto they were united, after their separation from the Roman, or else must confess themselves the founders, and beginners of a church never heard of before, or at lest not extant, when they revolted, which is as much as any man of judgement will require, to prove them renegates and heretics.  
To conclude therefore this point; it is apparent by that, which hath hitherto been proved, were there no other defect, in the calling of the superintendents of the now English church, then that which they draw from Cranmer▪ that they have no true, and lawful calling at all, no more than the Arrians, novatians, and other condemned heretics had: ●ut we shall yet found other matter. And thus much of Cranmers c●lling, of whose lewd life and deserved death, thou mayst good reader, (if thou be disposed) see much in a few lines in that learned, and unanswerable book, called A prudential balance pag. 234.   

The twelfth Chapter. That the Bishops made in King Edward's days were no true, or lawful Bishops.  
1. Having showed in the precedent chapter, that Cranmer after his fall into heresy (for in King Edward's time he was first a Lutheran, and afterwards a Zwinglian) he was no more lawful Bishop, by the judgement of the most entire and flourishing church of Christ, in the councils of Nice, and Sardis, it followeth by necessary consequence, that those that were ordered by him, and communicated with him in the same heresy, and continued therein, were for the same reason no Bishops, though they had had no other defect, or impediment at all. Yet because the Bishops ordained in King Edward's time from whom those of Queen Elizabeth pretend to derive their Succession are deemed, to have a more essential defect, then that of heresy either 〈◊〉 themselves, or in their ordainers: for the more clear proof of the mere secularity▪ and pure nullity of the pretended clergy of England, as well as of other falsely reformed churches: I will here examine the ordination of them, who are confessed to have been made in the reign of K. Edward, that so we may by degrees descend to thothers ordained since. These were, a M. Mason saith, 
Lib 2. cap. 11  Nicholas Ridley, Robert Ferrar, john Hoop, john Poynet, john Scory, and miles Coverdall, whose calling is not only defective, in respect of heresy both in their callers (which we have seen in the former chapter) and in themselves (they being confessed to have been Lutherans or zwinglians) but also in respect of their calling itself, which is much more essential than tother, this being by not means to be repaired without a new ordination, whereas the other requireth only a confirmation, or reconciliation, as we have said before. So that touching these men, the question is not whether their callers were lawful Bishops or not, but whether the manner of their calling itself was substantial, and sufficient or no.  
2. M. Mason, who hath travailed more painfully, in the maintenance of the calling of the present English clergy, than any other that I know, confesseth, yea evidently proveth, that the manner of consecrating Bishops in K. Edward's time was altered from that, which had been in King Henry's time, 
Lib. 2. cap. 11. n. 2▪ pag 94.  and ever before, bringing for this purpose a statute made in the third year of his reign: which because he faileth truly to relate, (whether of purpose, or of negligence I know not) I will set it down, as it is recorded by M. Poulton in these words.  

Kallend an. 3. Ed. 6. cap. 12. Mason: pag. 94.  Such form of making and consecrating of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other ministers of the church, shallbe used and none other, as by Six Prelates, and Six other men, learned in God's law (to be appointed by the king) or the most number of them, shallbe devised, and set forth under the great seal, before the first day of April next. According to this act was there a form, or manner of making Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, set forth the fift and sixth year of king Edward, which, (as M Mason saith) was recalled the first of Q. Mhrie, but re-established the first of Q. Blizabeth, and confirmed the eight year of her reign. So that 〈◊〉 the ministers of England are ordered according to that book, concerning which I would know (saith he) wherein it transgresseth the ecclesiastical manner.  
3. Where if M. Mason had opened his mind so far, as to have told what he meaneth by ecclesiastical manner, it would not be hard to show him that which he demandeth. For if he understand by ecclesiastical manner, those words and actions only, which are expressed in holy scripture: his puritan brethren will save us a labour: for they will show him, that it transgresseth the ecclesiastical manner in many things. For example, the Litanies, the hymn come holieghost, the oath of supremacy, all the set prayers prescribed in the ritual, none of all which have any warrant in the scripture. And which is more: the forms of words used together with the imposition of hands aswell in ordering Deacons, as Priests, and Bishops, are without all warrant of holy scripture. For where are these words used in making Deacons, found in all the whole Bible? Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon, in the church of God committed unto thee: In the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy Ghost: or that the Bishop delivering unto him the new testament should say: Take thou authority to read the Gospel in the church of God, and to preach the same, if thou be thereunto ordinarily commanded. Or where is it recorded, that the Apostles in ordering of Priests either used, or appointed these words to be used? Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive▪ 
All this is in their ritual, or manner of making Bishops, Priests, and Deacons printed at London 1607  they are forgiven, and who●e sins thou dost retain, they are retained, and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his holy sacraments, In the name of the father and of the son, and of the holy Ghost. Or where the Apostles delivered them the Bible with these words. Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and to minister the holy sacraments in this congregation, where thou shalt be so appointed. Where is to be noted an absurd repetition of the same authority, of ministering sacraments given before; which repetition in matter of sacraments, is sacrilegious, except in case of doubt of the validity of the former, by some accident extraordinarily occurring. And in the consecration of Bishops, where are these words prescribed by holy scripture? Take the holy Ghost: and remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee by imposition of hands, for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness.  
If M. Mason think to answer, that most of these words are the words of the holy scripture, and seem to be fitly applied to this purpose: he shall nothing satisfy. For besides that infinite other words of holy scripture might be as fitly, and more fitly applied to the same purpose, than many of these, which notwithstanding, I suppose M. Mason will not say, are any sufficient form of holy order, unless he will admit many forms of the same thing: (a proposition never heard of either in Divinity, or Philosophy) besides this I say, it being manifest, that by holy order (whether it be a Sacrament or not) is given power to exercise certain ecclesiastical and Spiritual actions, which have their effect in our souls, and in God's Sacraments: which power cannot be given by any man or any other means, but such as-our saviour Christ the author thereof hath ordained for that purpose. M. Mason must either show these words, and actions now repeated to have been instituted by our Saviour Christ, as the lawful means of giving holy order, or else must he necessarily confess them, to be evidently sacrilegious and superstitious: Sacrilegious, as an irreverent abuse of holy things: Superstitious as applying or ascribing an holy power to a thing that hath none at all And seeing it is manifest, that M. Mason cannot show by holy scripture, that our Saviout Christ hath instituted these forms of holy orders, and that in all other points of faith and religion, he rejecteth the authority of traditions (and therefore cannot with any show of honesty recurre unto them in this particular, though they favoured him never so much) my wit, I confess, is too short or shallow to conceive, how M. Mason can justify this their form, and manner of making Bishops, Priests, and Deacons from evident sacrilege and superstition or at lest mere human inventious even by his own judgement deliverered upon the same matter in these words: Do you mean that the oil, wherewith the head (of the Bishop) is anointed with these words, be thy head anointed and consecrated with celestial benediction: or the ring blessed with prayer and holy water, and put upon his fingar with these words▪ receive the ring, the seal of faith: Or the crosier delivered with these words: receive the staff of the pastoral office: do you mean that these or the like belong to the offence of episcopal consecration? If you do: you must give us leave to reject them, because they are only human inventions. The matter of ordination as you say is certain and determined of God: now where shall we found the determination of God but in the book of God.  
When you can demonstre your rings and crosiers out of the book of God we will accept them, in the mean while we cannot admit them as essential matter of ordination▪ thus far are his own words pag. 95.  
If we should now pay him with his own coin, how cold he possibly justify their new ordinations? by no means can he do it. But as in other points heretofore, we have dealt liberally with M. Mason and his fellow reformists permitting them to recurre to the fortress of Catholic doctrine, when they could found no refuge in their own: So likewise in this particular will I give him leave to have recourse to traditions, and to seek refuge there, for the justification of their orders.  
If therefore he say, that he meaneth by ecclesiastical manner that, which hath been used in the church from the beginning, and is brought down from the Apostles to us, by a not interrupted tradition; his meaning is good, and such as it should be in this point. But it is so evident, that their manner of making Bishops, and priests is so different, from the ecclesiastical manner according to this meaning that I much marvel at M. Masons either boldness, or blindness, when he saith, I would know, wherein it transgresseth the ecclesiastical manner. If M. Mason would but confer their manner of ordering Bishops, and Priests, with that of the Roman church, (which because he cannot show to have begun since the Apostles times, he may safely with S. Augustine believe it to come from them) he will found it to transgress the ecclesiastical manner in so many things, that it doth not agreed therewith in any one, unless peradventure in a small shadow, or semblance of words not the same, but diverse. This needeth no other proof than the confronting of their ritual, with that of the Roman church, which I will leave to M. Mason to do, if he make doubt thereof, and will expect his disproof therim. Or if he think not good to compare their manner of ordination with that of the Roman church, let him bring forth some other if he can, more ancient than it, wherewith theirs doth agree, and he shall satisfy.  
secondly the words of the statute before rehearsed, if he had not over looked them, would easily have instructed him in this his demand. For if the new church hatched in king Edward's time, had approved the ecclesiastical manner of making Bishops and priests, it had been needles, and very superfluous, to have employed the prelate's and learned in God's law, to devise (mark I pray you this word devise, which is the very word of the statute, if M. Poulton relate it truly) a new form and manner. Hereby M. Mason may see, and all others that have eyes and will see, that their newly devised manner of consecrating Bishops and priests (which he confesseth to be observed till this day, and that all their ministers are no otherwise ordered) is a mere human devise and invention, 
Pag. 95. fine.  (and therefore by his own judgement to be rejected) but of yesterdays standing neither authorized by scripture, nor approved by ecclesiastical tradition, a mere shadow without substance, indented by giddy heads, and unquiet Spirits greedy of novelty, authorised first by the temporal power of a child in nonage, and after confirmed by the like authority of a woman, contrary to the practice of the whose Christian world present, and without instance or example in any age for above fifteen hundred years. And therefore doth M Mason discover to much his blind affection, when he saith, I would know wherein it transgresseth the ecclesiastical manner. 6 M. Mason to his former words addeth. Sanders saith, that King Edward took away the ceremony. What ceremony? If he mean the ceremony of imposition of hands, he slandereth King Edward: If he mean their blessings, offerings, and crosiers; the gravity of that sacred action may well spare them: as for the solemn unction, yourselves confess it to be accidental, other of your ceremonies being partly superfluous, partly superstitious: the wisdom of our church hath discreetly and religiously pared them away, establishing (mark this) such a form, as is holy and acceptable in God's sight.  
Sanders doth not speak of taking away any ceremonies, but saith directly, that altogether a new form of ordering was prescribed by parliament, in King Edward's days, which appearing to be true by the same form yet observed, as M. Mason confesseth, Saunders doth not slander King Edward, but M. Mason either slaudereth or corrupteth Saunders. But why doth he not here set down, by what authority the wisdom of their church doth shave, and pair away such large portions of those holy rites, which the wisdom of the universal church of Christ hath so long observed, that the beginning thereof cannot be found, and in their steed hath established a new form of their own invention, that is not so old as themselves, and they little older than King Edward the sixth. Can any man of judgement think, that these men have any spark of Christian religion in them? or the lest reverence to the mysteries of Gods holy church? who make no scruple to cut and pair, chop and change in the holiest actions, whatsoever their fancy disliketh? these men I say, that breath nothing but scripture: 
Psal. 4.3.  O ye Sons of men how long will you love vanity and seek after lies?  
M. Mason for all this in the two pages following earnestly contendeth, 
Pag. 95. and 96.  that the church of England (notwithstanding the alteration made in the manner of ordination) still retaineth the essential matter of Episcopal order: to wit, imposition of hands: and likewise the essential form of the same order, consisting (as he saith) in these words: Receive thou the holy ghost: whence it will necessarily fallow, that they are true Bishops. But he neither proveth that these two things here mentoined belong to the essential matter, and form of Episcopal order, nor yet that nothing else belongeth thereunto. And yet the verity of both these points doth so much import, to the trial of the question in hand, that if either of them should be found false, our English superintendents will evidently be proved no lawful Bishops, and consequently M. Mason shall fall far short of his purpose here aimed at. Wherefore it behoved him to have made some better proof of them, than his own bore assertion. And seeing the proof of these thing belongeth evidently to him, as maintaining the affirmative, and that therefore no man can justly exact, or expect any more of me in this particular then that which pertaineth to the defendant, which is only to answer the arguments of mine adversary. Yet notwithstanding in assurance that the clear truth standeth on my side, I will willingly, herein make myself actor, and prove against him the negative of his assertion: which for more distinct, and clare manner of proceeding, and to avoid the tediousness of long chapters, I will handle apart under this title.   

The thirteenth Chapter. The whole essential matter, and form of Episcopal order consist not in imposition of hands, and these words, receive thou the holy ghost.  
1. FOr the more easy explication of this question, it is first to be observed, that the precise matter and form of no one Sacrament is so clearly expressed in holy scripture, but that without the authority of the church, and tradition, there may be doubt, and question made thereof. This is evident even in Baptism itself. For this form N. I baptize thee in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost which is used in all the west church: Or this form, Be the servant of Christ baptised in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost, which is used in the east church, is no where in these terms expressed in the holy scripture. The same I say of the matter, which all men hold to be elemental, or natural water, and no other, which notwithstanding is no where expressly prescribed in holy scripture. The precise matter and form likewise of the holy Eucharist, are not so expressly set down in holy scripture but (were it not fore the church's authority) there might, as also there have been questions thereof. And here by the way it may be noted, how necessary the authority of the church and tradition is, for the support of the very grounds of Christian faith and doctrine: and that therefore not without cause S. Paul styleth the church the pillar: and ground of truth.  

1. Timoth. 3.15.  2. secondly it is to be observed, that the precise matter, and form of divers Sacraments, and amongst others of holy orders (which according to Catholic doctrine I suppose to be a Sacrament, because this doth neither advantage me, nor disadvantage mine adversary in the present question) are not so expressed either in any Council, or the ancient fathers, but that there are divers probable opinions in the same, according to the probable grounds that are found, either in reason or authority. For the holy councils and fathers not making rituals, nor explicating at large the whole order, or manner of ministering all Sacraments, but delivering to their posterity the practice of that manner, which they received from their Predecessors, do not prescribe in what precise things, actions, or words the matter and form of all Sacraments de consist, nor of this in particular, which now is in question. Hence it cometh, that those Catholic Doctors, that have had occasion to treat of this matter, finding no precise rule prescribed unto them, neither in the scriptures, councils, nor Fathers, have delivered their judgement thereupon diversly, according to the divers grounds which every one thinketh most probable. And therefore if any should say that the essential matter of Episcopal order is the only imposition of hands (which notwithstanding I found not affirmed by any but one only auctor) others will join thereunto the unction used in that action, and also the delivery of those things which are exhibited in consecration, as the book of Gospels, the Pastoral staff, and ring: Others excluding the imposition of hands from the order of priesthood, as not pertaining to the essence thereof and therefore seem also to exclude it from the essential matter of episcopal order: none of these opinions touching the matter should be certainly false, nor yet any of them certainly true. And because the common judgement of the form of holy order is, that it consisteth in those words, which declare the power of the order given, and are uttered when the matter is delivered, the form likewise of episcopal order cometh to be in such sort uncertain, as it is not certainly known in which words precisely it doth consist.  
Neither doth the church of God suffer any detriment hereby being assured, that she hath the true matter and form, which the Apostles delivered her from our saviour Christ, though it be not known in what words, or actions precisely they do consist: as it happeneth in like uncertainty, and diversity of opinions, about the precise matter and form of matrimony, some saying the matter thereof to be the mutual consent of the party, expressed by words of the present tense, 
Cancrone. de locis l. 8. cap. 5. Palud. in 4. di. 26. qu. 4. Adrian. qu. 1. de matri.  and form to be the words of the priest joining them together: others, that the people contracting are the matter, and the words expressing their consents, the form▪ others that the words of the people contracting are both matter & form in such sort, as the words of that party, that last expresseth his consent, are the form, and thothers that went before, 
In 4. di. 26. q. 2. ar. 1. qu. 245. de Sacramentis. In caput. tua nos. extra de sponsalibus. Manuale ca 22. n. 20.  the matter, so S. Thomas, and victoria: others, that the matter is the mutual, and inward consent of the parties contracting the form, the words of the same parties expressing the same consent, so the Canonists commonly and Navarre: all which diversity of opinions in this precise point, doth bring no inconvenience at all to the church, or Christian common wealth, so long as nothing is omitted, that by any opinion belongeth to the true matter, and form. But if any one should be so peremptory in his private opinion, as to exclude all other but that, which he thinketh the true matter, and form, he should make all marriages doubtful, which must needs bring great inconvenience to the whole Christian world, as all men evidently see: And this is true whether matrimony be a Sacrament or no: for that doth neither help nor hinder in this present question. The like or greater inconvenience doth necessarily follow inthe whole church, if all her pastors, and ministers should be ordered with such matter, and form, as in some men's opinion only is true, and not in others. For if it should prove, that their opinion ●hould be true, that hold imposition of hands, and these words Receive the holy Ghost; are not the true matter and form of this order, than would it necessarily follow, that such as should be ordained therewith are no true Bishops. 
He citeth Sal meron Incarnatus, Navarre, Soto, for the contrary opinion, and might have added others: citing only Bellarmin for this own, and him falsely, pag. 95. Conclusion.  Seeing therefore M. Mason is not ignorant of this variety of opinions in this present question (which he relateth in part) and himself bringeth no better, not yet so good ground of his opinion, as others do of theirs, it is marvel unto me, that he should so peremptorily say, that their Bishops are ordered with the true matter, and form. But he doth well to be bold in affirming, for a good face sometimes helpeth out an ill game.  
3. My conclusion is, that the sole imposition of hands with these words, Receive the holy Ghost, is not the whole, true, and essential matter and form of Episcopal order, and consequently, that those, that are ordained with them alone, as our English superintendents are confessed to be, are not truly ordained, nor are any true Bishops. This conclusion I prove first by this negative argument. Neither scriptures, councils, Fathers, nor Divines one only escepted do teach, that the sole imposition of hands, and these words Receive the holy ghost, are the whole essential matter, and form of Episcopal order: therefore is it affirmed without ground. Bellarnime doth prove in the place alleged by M. Mason, 
De Sacramentis ordinis lib. 1. c. 9  that imposition of hands doth belong to the essential matter of priesthood, but he joineth therewith as more principal the delivery of the chalice, with the paten and host, and of the matter of Episcopal order, he saith nothing. And M. Maton bringeth four other Catholic authors, that exclude imposition of hands, from the essential matter of holy order, which showeth that it is but probable at the most, that imposition of hands pertameth, to the essential matter of holy order: but that it should be the whole and sole essential matter, is no way probable. Neither do I think M. Mason would say it were probable, but that he is forced unto it, not having other means to maintain for good, the newly devised manner of ordination of their Bishops, whereupon I appeal to his own judgement, whether that manner of ordination, devised by the six Prelates, and other six learned in the law of God, appointed by King Edward for that purpose, is more like to be that manner of ordination, which the Apostles themselves used, and left unto their successors, then that which was over and is still used thorough the whole Christian church.  
4. Again whether this new form of ordination was established by parliament, upon any grounded persuasion, that it was conformable to the manner used by the Apostles: or rather as a mean both to leave the Catholic manner, and yet to retain some external semblance of ordination, the world being not yet ready to receive the refined reformation, which we see smee to have crept in amongst those, that have apostated from the union of the Catholic Roman church, and by which is rejected as superstitious, not only this parlementarie fashion of ordination but the very order of Bishops itself it is not very doubtful. And that this second was the drift at lest of him, that first put into men's hearts the revolt, and separation from the unity of the Catholic church, it is plain enough by the book called; the form and manner of ordination, and admission of Pastors to their church, according to the manner of the reformed churches: Printed at Middelberrough by Richard S. Hilders 1602. which prescribeth quite another fashion of ordination, than that of the parliament of king Edward, and maketh a new Hierarchy of the church to wit, of Elders, Deacons, and ministers, Bishops, being esteemed by them, as all the world knoweth, Antichristian instruments. Whose senseless and absurd heresies I see not, but M. Mason and his fellows must accept of, and acknowledge for necessary reformations, by the same rule, that they pretend to have reform the Catholic Roman church. But I will proceed in the proof of my conclusion.  
5. Secondly the uniform doctrine of those that have written of holy order tracteth, that the matter thereof consisteth in the delivery of the instruments proper to every order, as of Deaconship the book of the Gospels; of priesthood the chalice, and paten with the host, and so in the other orders: And that the form consisteth in those words, which are uttered together with the delivery of the matter, and express the authority given by the same, which in deaconship are these. Take power to read the Gospel in the church of God, as well for the living as for the dead, in the name of our lord Amen. In priesthood they are these. Take power to off her sacrifice to God, and to celebrated mass as well for the living as for the dead, in the name of our lord. Amen. And the like in the rest of holy orders. Therefore Episcopal order aught in all reason, to have like matter and form, which cannot be imposition of hands, and these words Receive the holy Ghost, because neither the one, nor the other apart, nor yet both together do express the power given in that order: but they rather express the giving of the holy Ghost, whereby the consecrated is disposed or made fit, to exercise well, and worthily the power and authority given by that order.  
Thirdly seeing there want not in Episcopal consecration, the like sensible matter, and signifying form, which are of all divines confessed to be the essential matter and form of other orders. As for example, the anointing of the head of him that is consecrated with holy chrism, with these words Be thy head anointed, and consecrated with heavenly blessing in Episcopal order: Besides are delivered him the pastoral staff, the ring, the book of Gospels, all with several words aptly expressing the power given by that order, it is most probable that they pertain to the essential matter, and form of this order, I say most probable, because we have nothing clearly certain in this point, neither by scripture●, councils, nor Fathers, as is before noted.  
And this doctrine for as much as concerneth the anointing of the Bishop's head, which seemeth to some least probable, is confirmed by the testimony of most ancient Fathers. For S▪ Clement Pope and disciple of the Apostles saith, 
Epist. 3 ad universos.  that every Bishop anointed with holy chrism, placed in the city, and learned in holy scriptures, aught to be dear, and honoured of all men. And Pacianus of equal antiquity with S. Ambrose, whence (saith he) can your people have the holy Ghost, whom an anointed Priest hath not confirmed? Whereby this holy Father seemeth to ascribe the giving of the holy Ghost in confirmation, 
Epist. 3. ad S●mpronian: The fame may we say to our English superintendents.  to the unction of the Bishop that giveth it; and therefore must of necessity esteem it to be essential to be Episcopal order.  
I know that a certain schoolman of these days holdeth for probable that the imposition of hands, and these words accipe Spiritum Sanctum are the true matter and form of Episcopal order. His grounds are these. First that at the lest three Bishops are by divine ordinance necessary to Episcopal consecration. Secondly. that it is necessary that the true minister of holy order apply the matter of order unto the ordered, and therefore if one only Bishop apply the matter of Episcopal order it is not sufficient, because one Bishop alone (without commission given him for that purpose) is not the true minister of that order. Thirdly that only that action of imposing hands is performed by all the three Bishops. Whereupon he inferreth that that action is the true matter, and the words pronounced together with the same, are the form of Episcopal consecration. How true or probable his discourse is, I mean not here to dispute, but (be the grounds thereof what they will) I will for M Masons advantage suppose the conclusion to be probable, which is as much as he can expect, and more than he can exact. Now what will he infer hereupon for his purpose.  
6. If he say, that his opinion concerning the matter and form of Episcopal order being probable, it will follow, that their Bishops are at lest probably Bishops: I will answer him: First, that though it be probable, that imposition of hands, and these words Receive the holy Ghost appertain to the essential matter, and form of Episcopal order, yet is it not probable, that they are the whole essential matter and form thereof, because there is no probable ground of this, as is showed in the first argument against this opinion, and therefore are not their intendents so much as probable Bishops.  
secondly, be it probable (for the authority of that one modern writer now mentioned) that the whole essential matter, and form of Episcopal order consist in the imposition of hands, and these words Receive the holy Ghost: and consequently, that their superintendents are probably Bishops; yet will it not thence follow, that it is so much as probable, that they have the lawful calling of Bishops, because the lawful calling of the Pastors of God's church doth not hung upon probabilities, but requireth unfallible certainties, for so much at lest as appertaineth to their essential ordination, without including matter of fact: for otherways all their actions (as they are Bishops and Pastors) should be but probably canonical, and therefore uncertain, whence would necessarily rise an irremediable confusion in the church, which notwithstanding is called in the scripture an army well ordered. 
Cant. 6.3.  Therefore he that in ministering, or receiving holy order, leaveth the known, certain, and received matter and form, and useth that which is only probable, doth not only commit sacrilege by his temerity, but is also bound to renew the same action, by the accustomed matter and form, at lest under condition or else to supply that which was omitted. For though in humane and moral actions, which have no other rule but human reason, and prudence (which for the most part in matters of difficulty is but probable) it is sufficient, to excuse us from sinning in them, that we work according to a probable opinion, yet is it otherways in sacramental actions, which have not for rule any human reason, but divine institution, and ordination, made known unto us, by the infallible testimony either of the holy scripture, or of the doctrine and practice of the church of Christ, which (as is noted before) is the pillar and ground of truth. 
1. Timoth. 3   
M. Mason will peradventure yet farther object, that there is no mention made in the holy scriptures, of any other thing appertaining to the essential matter, and form of holy order, but only of imposition of hands, and these words Receive the holy Ghost and therefore are all other things to be rejected as man's inventions, and not divine ordinations. But first if he willbe so rigorous, as to accept of nothing as pertaining to the essential matter, and form of holy order, but that which is expressed in holy scripture as appertaining thereunto, without all respect to the authority of the church and ecclesiastical tradition, then must he reject the matter, and form prescribed in their ordinal not only of Deacons, and Priests, which are not expressed in holy scripture, but even those wherein he would the essential matter, and form of episcopal order to consist. For though these words Receive the holy Ghost are in holy scripture, 
john 21.  and that there is often mention made of imposition of hands, yet are these two never joined together in holy scripture, nor prescribed as the matter and form of Episcopal order. In their doctrine. Whence it followeth, that if M. Mason will either have Deacons, Priests, or Bishops in their church, he must be forced to give so much credit to the authority of the church and tradition, as to receive from them, the essential matter, and form of these orders. which being so, he will farther evidently found, that their superintendents having not been consecrated with that matter and form, which the church from ancient times used cannot be any true Bishops.  
Again, the scripture with imposition of hands joineth always prayer in the ordination of Deacons, Priests, or Bishops, as appeareth in the places cited in the margin, and therefore doth the scripture mention something usual in holy orders, besides imposition of hands, and these words Receive the holy Ghost. 
Acts 6.6. and cap. 13.1  Now what these prayers were, seeing the scripture doth not specify them, how can we better know, then by the church, which received them of the Apostles? And that they were not these words only, which M. Mason will have the only essential form of holy order, is manifest by S. Ambrose, saying. 
In 1. Timoth. 4.  The imposition of hands is mystical words, wherewith the elect is confirmed, and made apt to his function, receiving authority (his conscience bearing witness) that he may be bold in our lords steed to offer sacrifice to God. And S. Hierome. The imposition of hands is the ordering of clerk, which is done by prayer of the voice, and imposition of the hand. From all which I infer, 
In Esay● cap. 58.  that although it be not certain, what words or actions precisely are the essential matter, and form of episcopal order, as is before noted, yet is it evident, that the matter and form assigned by M. Mason, is not sufficient to the true ordination of Bishops, being more than doubtful, not to be the whole true matter and form, and consequently, the ordinations of their superintendents made thereby to be esteemed none at all. And that this is the judgement of all those both Catholics and Protestants, who aught to have known best the manner of their ordination, I will prove by two or three clear arguments.  
First M. Fox speaking of the degredation of Ridley (one of those that were made Bishops in King Edward's days, 
Acts pag. 1604.  and consecrated after this new manner as M. Mason supposeth) saith, that Doctor Brooke, Bishop of Gloucester delegated for that action of degredation told him, that they were to degrade him only of Priesthood, for that they did not take him for a Bishop. But if he had been truly ordered, they could not have denied him to have been a true Bishop, no more than Cranmer, whom they degraded as Archbishop. To this proposition of the Bishop of Gloucester, Ridley replied not one word, nor pleaded any thing to the contrary, but by his silence showed, that he consented thereunto, according to the received maxim. Qui tacet, consentire videtur. In which case he would not doubtless have been so mute (seeing he wanted not words in other occasions of far less moment) had he not known himself to have been not true Bishop nor truly consecrated. Where it is to be observed, that M. Mason bringeth this very objection of D. Brookes words to Ridley, 
Pap 92.  against the consecration of those, that were ordered in K. Edward's time, and confirmeth it greatly, for that he answereth it not otherways, but by this impertinent question: what was not he, and all the rest of them consecrated by a competent number? As though the question had been of the number of their consecrators, and not of the matter and form of their consecration itself.  

Acts pag. 1711.  secondly M. Fox saith, because that Ridley, Hooper, and Ferrare were not able to make even with Bishop Firsher, it seemed that Cranmer should be joined to them to fill up the equality. But if they had been in M. Fox's opinion true Bishops as well as Cranmer, surely their deaths would in his conceit have equalled Bishop Fishers, or else Cranmers would not do it, in whom there was nothing more, than there was in them, excepting the true consecration of a Bishop. So that it appeareth even by M. Fox's judgement, that Ridley, and his fellows were not esteemed true Bishops, as Cranmer was, and that not for any other defect, then for want of true consecration. And what judgement the whole realm made of the ordinations in king Edwa●●s reign is evident by this article of Queen Marie recorded by Fox. Item touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any orders after the new sort and fashion of orders: considering they were not ordered in very deed: 
Acts and monu. pag. 1295.  the Bishop of the diocese, finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in these men, may supply that thing which wanted in them before, and then according to his discretion admit them to minister. For albeit M. Mason would gather out of these words: (may supply that thing which wanted in them before) that they had some part or piece of order by their new manner of ordination. Yet neither doth this serve him to any purpose for the justification of their calling, nor yet can it stand with these plain words of the article: considering they were not ordered in very deed: for the plain meaning of the article is that those who had no orders, but such as they had received by the new fashion, should (being found fit) be ordered: but such as had received some orders before as of Subdeacon or Deacon, and the rest only after the new fashion should have that they wanted, supplied by their Catholic ordinary.  
Thirdly it is recorded in books of law cases, that the leases made by the Bishops consecrated in king Edward's time, though confirmed by the Deane an● chapter, were not esteemed available, and the reason is given, because those Bishops were never truly consecrated, and consequently never true Bishops. The judges words are these. Dicitur, 
Brooks nou●ll cases Placito 463. fol. 101 printed the year 1604. by Tho: wight with privilege.  que Euesques in tempore Ed. 6. ne fueront sacres & ideo ne fueront Euesques, & ideo lease pur ans, per tiels & conferinde per le Deane & Chapter, ne liera le successeur, car tiels ne vnques fueront Euesques contra de Euesques deprive que fuit Euesques in fait tempore dimissionis, & confirmation fait. viz: per le Deanne & chapter: which in English word for word is this. It is said that Bishops in K. Edward the sixth his days were not consecrated, and therefore were not Bishops, and therefore a lease for years made by them, and confirmed by the Dean and Chapter, shall not bind the successor, for such were never Bishops. Contrariwise of a Bishop deprived which was Bishop in fact at the time of the letting and confirmation made by the Dean, and Chapter. And in the margin. Leas per Euesques nient sacres & per Euesques deprives diversity. That is; Diversity of leases made by Bishops not consecrated, and Bishops deprived. So that it appeareth by the judgement aswell of the civil, as Ecclesiastical Magistrates, that the superintendents of King Edward's time were no true Bishops for want of true consecration yea M. Ridley himself (pretended Bishop of London) sueing unto Q. Marie (as Fox relateth) that the leases made by him, during the time of his usurpation of that see, might stand good, doth evidently show, that he either esteemed himself, or at lest know that others esteemed him not true, or lawful Bishop. For otherwise he would not have supplicated for that as a grace and favour, but would have demanded it as a thing due by right and justice. Before I proceed any farther, I will advertise thee (heedful reader) that albeit the arguments following are directly against the consecration of the Bishops in Q. Elizabeth's time, yet have they the same force against those of King Edward's time, for they were all ordered after the same manner, as is evident by the statute of the 8. of Elizabeth, which shallbe set down by and by, which I would have to be borne in mind, that it may not be needful to repeat the same things hereafter, when we sh●ll come to speak of the Bishops made in her time.  
8. My fourth argument therefore, proving all these pretended Bishops to have been no true and lawful Bishops, even by the judgement of the Protestants themselves is drawn from that notorious, and public case of Bishop Bonner, which was this.  
Bishop Bonner being prisoner in the Marshalsae was convented by M. Horn, called then Bishop of Winchester, and lodging at that time in Winchester house by the clink, who tendered to him the oath of supremacy, which Bishop Bonner refusing, his refusal was certified to the King's bench, and thereupon an indictment was drawn against him upon the statute. He was called for, and appeared before the judges of the King's bench. The indictment being read he denied not the fact, but desired to have council assigned him, judge Catline chief justice granted his request, and assigned him M. Plowdon, M. Wray, and M. Lovelaise, who at the pleading of the case excepted against the indictment. First, because he was indicted by the name of Edmond Bonner without the title of Bishop, he being at that present lawful Bishop of London, and therefore the inditment insufficient. Secondly, because the oath was said to have been tendered unto him by Robert Horn Bishop of Winchester, who was by no law Bishop, and therefore had no authority to tender him the oath. These points were first argued at the bar by the Bishop's council, and after by all the judges at sergeant Inn in Fleetstreet, in judge Catline, the chief justice his chamber, where, after much debate as judge pier reporteth it was resolved by all the judges, 
Abrigment of Dyer's reports 7. Eliza. 234.  that Bishop Bonner his plea upon this issue; that he was not culpable because Horn was no Bishop when he tendered him the oath, should be received: and that the jury should try it: now what the trial was, appeareth by that he was not condemned nor ever troubled any farther for that case: though he was a man specially shot at. Hereupon in the next parliament, which was holden the year following to wit the 8. year of Elizabeth (and this may be another argument, for proof of the nullity of these new superintendents) this act was made.  
9 Such form and order, for the consecrting of Archbishops, Bishops, 
Poulton in his calendar pag. 141. n. 5.  Priests etc. as was set forth in the time of King Edward the sixth shall stand, and be in full force and effect, and all acts and things heretofore had, made, or done by any person, or persons in or about any consecration, confirmation, or investing of any person, or persons, elected to the office or dignity of Archbishop, Bishop,— by virtue of the Queen's letters patents, or commission, sithence, the beginning of her reign, be and shallbe by authority of this parliament declared and judged— good and perfect in all respects, and purposes: any matter or thing that can or may be objected to the contrary thereof in any wise, notwithstanding. And all persons that have been or shallbe made, ordered or, consecrated Archbishops, Bishops, Priests after the form and order prescribed, in the same form and order, be in very deed and also by authority hereof declared, and enacted to be, and shallbe Archbishops, Bishops, Priests etc. and rightly made, ordered and consecrated any Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding 8. Eliza. 1. 
Poulton ibidem. This statute doth argue that the former statute of the 8, of Eliza. did not wholly warrant these new Bishops for if it had, this would have been superfluous.   
In the 39 year of Elizabeth, there were also two other statutes made, the one for the ratifying, and making good in law the depositions, and deprivations of Archbishops, Bishops, and Deans, from the beginning of her reign till the tenth day of November in the 4. year of the same: and tother for the ratifying, and making good in law the placing of other Archbishops, Bishops, and Deans, in the rooms of the deposed with in the compass of the same time, no ambiguity or question either heretofore made, or hereaftet to be made, to the contrary notwithstanding.  
By all which it is manifest, that the Bishops ordained aswell in King Edward's time, as in Q. Elizabeth's, were not otherways Bishops, but by act of parliament, for before these acts, they were judged by the fathers of the law to be no Bishops, as we have already seen.  
10. M. Mason peradventure will untie us this knot, let us hear what he saith. 
Lib. 3 de schismate Mason pag. 121.  He maketh to himself this objection out of Sanders. They (Matthew Parker with his fellows) being destitute of all lawful ordination, when they were commonly said, and proved by the laws of England to be no Bishops, they were constrained to crave the assistance of the secular power that they might receive the confirmation of the lay Magistrate in the next parliament, by authority whereof if any thing were done amiss, and not according to the prescript of the law, or omitted and left undone in the former inauguration, it might be pardoned them: And that, after they had enjoyed the Episcopal office, and chair certain years without any Episcopal consecration. Hence it was that they were called Parliament Bishops. Hereunto M. Mason frameth this answer.  

Pag. 122.  The Parliament mentioned was in the 8. year of Q. elizabeth, wherein first they reprove the overmuch boldness of some, which slandered the estate of the clergy, by calling into question, whether their making, and consecrating were according to the law.  
Well then their consecration was questionable, and doubtful, and therefore (though there had been no other cause) to be rejected. For what wisdom could it be after 1500. years to bring into the world, a new manner of ordination of Pastors, and that doubtful whether it be sufficient or not, and to leave of that, which no man ever doubted of? But farther it was not only called into question, but as it appeareth before, proved to be none at all.  

Mason ibidem.  Secondly, they touch such laws as concern the point, declaring that every thing requisite and material, was done as precisely in her majesties time, as ever before.  
But what laws were these? Certainly they could be none other than those made in Ed. the 6. his reign. For if any other be meant, both the parliament, and M. Mason should avouch a manifest untruth, saying, that every thing requisite and material, was done as precisely in her majesties time, as ever before: seeing there was nothing observed of the ancient form, and manner, which before K. Edward's time was not altered. The laws therefore here mentioned must necessarily be those of K. Edward. But the question in the parliament of the 8. of Elizabeth being, as yet it is, of the validity, and sufficiency of that form of ordination devised in K. Edward's time, it doth no way appear, how either the parliament then did, or M. Mason now doth show it to be sufficient, but only by force of that act, whereof we now speak: which notwithstanding (as M. Mason supposeth) giveth no force, nor valour to their consecration, nor maketh it good, but supposeth it to be good of itself; so that betwixt both these acts of parliament, I mean that of K. Edward, and other of Q. Elizabeth, their new manner of consecration remaineth as sufficient as ever.  
thirdly, they confirm again the book of common prayer, 
● Mason.  with the for●●● thereunto annexed, enacting that all persons, that then had been, or hereafter should be made, ordered, or consecrated Archbishops, Bishops, Priests etc. after the form and order herein prescribed, were by authority thereof declared, and enacted to be Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests etc. rightly made, ordered, and consecrated, any Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding. Whereby it is evident, that the parliament did not make them Bishops, but being in rerie deed true Bishops by lawful consecration, that honourable court did declare, and enact them so to be. But what say the Papists to all this? when they cannot infringe their consecration, for a poor revenge they call our religion parliament religion, and our Bishop's parliament Bishops.  
If they had been in very deed true Bishops by lawful consecration, this act of parliament (being only to declare that to be good and lawful, which in itself was such, and which the prince, and parliament had power to maintain as such, by ordinary course of law without any new act) should have been wholly superfluous (a thing not to be admitted in acts of parliament) for no act was ever made only to declare that good and lawful, which was known or holden to be so before by the learned council of the land.  
secondly these words of the statute. All persons that have been, or shallbe made, ordered, or consecrated Archbishops, Bishops etc., after the form prescribed in the said order (of Edward the 6.) be in very deed, and also by authority hereof declared, and enacted to be, and shallbe Archbishops, Bishops etc. and rightly made, ordered, and consecrated, any Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding. These words, I say, do clearly show, that this act doth not only declare these ordinations to be good (which yet is more than it can do, being but the decree of a temporal court) but doth enact, and if it could) make them good, and that so peremptorily, that no law neither divine nor human (for so much do import these words, Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing) can withstand it. A peerless power I wisse, and such as was never heard o● before in any Christian common wealth: yet such an one, as is altogether necessary to make the aforesaid ordinations good. For if the power of the parliament be not above the power both of the whole church, and of God himself, these ordinations warranted neither by God's word, nor the practice of the church for 1500. Years and more, must necessarily be none at all; and therefore with very good reason are their Bishops called parliament Bishops, seeing their manner of ordination was first instituted by act of parliament and since the ordination itself, hath received the force of true ordination, by act of parliament, which it had not before. For if we should take away the statute of the 5. and 6. year of Edward the 6. establishing the new form of ordering Bishops, devised by the six prelate's, and other six learned in God's law, as we have seen before; and this statute of the 8. of Elizabeth, I marvel whence M. Mason would derive their ordination, and by what authority he would maintain it to be good and Canonical. Certainly by none either in heaven, or in earth. Yea if their own judges, professors of their own new religion, supported by the countenance and favour of the Queen herself, and whole state, could not by law maintain their new ordination from nullity in their own courts, but that it was evicted against them, as appeareth by the case of B. Bonner set down before (whereupon was made this peremptory, and beyond all measure presumptuous all of the 8. of Elizabeth) who can deny, but if we take away this act, their ordination will remain none, and consequently their Bishops no Bishops, and therefore if they now be Bishops, they must necessarily be parliament Bishops.  
11. M. Mason not finding any colourable answer hereunto, notwithstanding the flaunt of words, which we have seen before, would willingly retort the same inconvenience upon Catholics in this wise. Might not we say as well that in Queen Mary's time, you had a parliament mass, and a parliament Pope? But I appeal to his own judgement (though I know him blindly partial in his own cause) whether there be the like comparison between the Mass, or the Pope's authority, and the parliament in Q. Mary's time, that there is between the form, or manner of consecrating Bishops, devised and authorized (I use the words of the statute) in K. Edw. and Q. Elizab. time? If he say yea, he shall forfeit his judgement for ever. For who knoweth not, that the Mass, and the Pope's authority were not only in England, but all the world over, many hundredth years before Q. Mary's reign? which cannot be said of their new form of ordaining Bishops. For 〈◊〉 Q. Marry did not enact by parliament, that the Mass should be a true Mass, and the Pope's authority a true authority, what law, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding, as this act of Q Elizabeth saith of the new superintendents and of their manner of consecration: But her act was to authorize the free use, and frequentation of the Mass, with the acknowledgement of the Pope's authority in her kingdom, which all her royal progenitors, and predecessors had frequented, and acknowledged, since Ethelbert the first Christian king of our country together with all other kings, and Princes in the Christian world. So that neither the Mass, nor the Pope's authority depend otherways of the parliament, then that it may be free for every subject of the king of England, to acknowledge both th'one and tother, without incurring the penalty of the temporal laws. And therefore though the free use of them may be taken away, by unjust and unlawful act of parliament, as we see practised, yet can neither th'one nor tother be made none by act of parliament, as it would fall out with their superintendents, add the manner of their consecration, if those acts were taken away, whereby they are devised and authorized. And the reason hereof is manifest. For neither the Mass, nor the Pope's authority have their beginning and institution by act of parliament, as the ordinations of our new superintendents have, and therefore can they not be made frustrate, and of no value by any power of the same, as these may be. Whence it is manifest that by very good reason, the pretended Bishops of England are called parliament Bishops, and consequently no Bishops at all, because the parliament cannot have any power to make Bishops: and that without all reason, or show of reason, the Mass is said to be a parliament mass. But let us go for word. 12. sixtly, the nullity of this new manner of consecration is proved by an objection, which M▪ Mason bringeth against himself, and answereth it not. The objection he proposeth thus.  
If their consecrations were found (he speaketh of D. Parker and his fellows consecrated in the 2. and 3. year of Q. Elizabeth as he saith) Why did the Queen in her letters patents, 
Pag. 132.  directed for the consecrating of them use divers general words and sentences, whereby she dispensed with all causes, or doubts of any imperfection, or disability, that could or might be objected in any wise against the same, as may appear by an 
a 8. Eliz. ca 1●  act of parliament, referring us to the said letters patents remaining upon record.  
M. Mason finding no sufficient answer to this objection (though not pressed so far, as if he had set down these letters patents, peradventure he might be) recurreth to the depth of her majesties designs, and hideth himself there, as in a Sanctuary: Wither he thinketh no man dareth approach to give him the pursuit, and thence as from a sure hold he delivereth his conjecture in these words.  
She might entertain some reason in her Royal breast, which you and I, and such shallow heads are not able to conceive: But if I might presume to give my conjecture, I suppose she did it ad maiorem cautelam: for there wanted not malicious Papists, which would pry into the state of the clergy, and observe the lest imperfection that could be, whereupon to prevent their slanders, and to stop the mouths of malice, that gracious Queen was not only careful, that every thing requisite, and material, should be made, and done as precisely as ever before, but also to the end that all men might be satisfied, that all doubt, scruple, and ambiguity might be taken away, and that there should not the lest spot of suspicion cleave unto her clergy, it pleased her majesty (if peradventure quick sighted malice could found any quick, or quiddity against them, by colour of any Canon or Statute) graciously to dispense with it: which doth not argue any unsoundness in their consecrations, but the Godly care, and providence of a religious prince.  
But M. Masons conjecture cometh far short, of the difficulty contained in the objection. For either there was some true, and real defect in these men's consecrations, or no. If none it was very impertinently, and imprudently done (which, in public acts of princes, and parlements is not to be admitted) to dispense with all causes, or doubts of any imperfection, or dishability, 
This power of dispensing with all caus●s etc. doth not agree with their doctrine of the only external coercitive jurisdiction of the Prince over the church: see the last cap.  that could, or might be objected against the same. For the Prince and parliament having more than sufficient power, to depend and maintain that which is well decreed, from all frivolous surmises of any adversaries, especially their subjects all dispensations in such cases, are not only superfluous, but also pernicious, as opening the way to all cavils against every decree of the Prince, and parliament. If there were any true, and real defect in their consecrations (as the former argument evidently concludeth) the Queen having no power to dispense therewith, it must necessarily still remain, and consequently their consecration shall always be defective, and insufficient. Or if it be pretended, that the Queen had any such power, Let some ground thereof be produced, if not out of scripture (which yet we might justly exact, seeing they protest to believe nothing but that, which is proved by scripture) yet out of some council, ancient father, or at lest the precedent of some one approved fact, within the compass of 1500. years. But if no such ground of this power can be produced, as most certainly it cannot, what man of sense can think this dispensation to be of any force? M. Mason with the rest of his brethren think it overmuch to grant this power to the successor of S. Peter, to whom our Saviour said: whatsoever thou shalt lose in earth, 
Math. 16.  shallbe loosed in heaven; and all Catholic Divines deny him to have any such power, in the case we here speak of, which is, of the matter, and form of holy order. How therefore can they think if due to the Queen of England, who if she would have been a Christian, must have been a sheep of his fold, to whom the Saviour of all our souls gave the charge of feeding his sheep? This dispensation therefore is so far from satisfying all men, 
joh. 21.  or taking away all doubt, scruple, or ambiguity in these new consecrations, that it maketh the matter more doubtful. For no man that doubted either of the power of King Edward to devise, and institute a new form, and manner of consecrating Bishops, and Priests, never known before in the church of Christ, or of the valour, and goodness of the form itself, but must necessarily doubt of the power of Queen Elizabeth, by any dispensation to ratify, and make good the same. Neither was it only the malicious Papists (as it pleaseth M. Mason to term them) that observed this imperfection in these new superintendents, but the Protestant judges of the realm (as we have seen before) which whilst the new statists laboured to cover by act of parliament (for they could not be of so weak judgement, as to think by that means to take it away) it is made more evident to all the world, no man being so devoid of sense or understanding, as to dream only, that the Queen could by any power she had, make those ordinations good and sufficient, which of themselves were not such.  

Pag, 133.  13. M. Mason seeing this to be overcleare to be denied, laboureth to shadow it at lest in some sort, saying: that the Quee●● did but dispense with the trespasses against her own laws, not in essential points of ordination, but only in accidental: not in substance, but in circumstance. Neither did she give leave to make any voluntary violation of the law, but only dispensed, with such omission, as 
a temporis ratione, & rerum neccssitate id postulante.  necessity itself should require, as may appear by the letters Patents. And it pleased the almighty so to dispose, that all things were performed in most exquisite manner: yet the Papists (such was their hatred against the clergy) did blaze abroad the contrary. Whereupon the high court of Parliament, assembled in the 8. year of that famous Queen, having deeply considered and pondered all things, pronounced, that their speeches were slanderous, not grounded upon any just matter, or cause. For God's name be blessed, all things were done honestly and in order, even from her first coming to the crown.  
What any man could say more in this matter I see not, and therefore in mine opinion M. Mason deserveth well his fee. Yet all he saith serveth to little purpose, for the justification of these new superintendents, as will appear in the particulars. Th● Queen (saith he) dispensed with the trespasses against her own laws. He should have specified the laws that it might appear, he played not voluntary, and without ground, willing only to shuffle of the matter. But there appear no such laws made by her (before this dispense was granted, which was in the second year of her reign) with the transgressions whereof she might dispense, and therefore must she be thought to have intended, to dispense with the trespasses of other laws either of God, or his church, or both, wherewith she could no more dispense then any of her subjects can dispense with her laws▪ For all parliament laws, which might make against this new promotion, she repealed in her first parliament, and therefore could not dispense therewith. She dispensed (saith he) not in essential points of ordination, but only in accidental: not in substance. but in circumstance.  
Foppery, mere foppery; these words of the latters patents clearly convince the contrary: we dispense with all causes or doubts, of any imperfection or disability, that can or may be objected in any wise against the same.  
secondly M. Mason saying, that the wisdom of their church discreetly, and religiously pared away all superfluous, 
Pap. 11. and 94.  and superstitious ceremonies in ordination; there appeareth no need of any dispensation in the accidental circumstances. For it is not to be thought, that the Queen would dispense with those, which the wisdom of their church retaineth as good, and lawful.  
That which he addeth: the Queen gave not loave to make any voluntary violation of the law: but only dispensed with such omission, as necessity itself would require: is neither warily, nor truly said. For no dispensation is a leave to violate the law, but a suspension of the obligation thereof, that it cannot be violated by doing of that, which the law forbiddeth. It is also unwarily said of him. For what necessity could drive them to omit any thing requisite, to the accustomed manner of ordination, excepting only the want of true Bishops, that would consecrated the newly designed and elected Superintendents? Surely no probable appearance of other necessity can be alleged, and therefore M. Mason labouring to justify this dispensation unwarily discovereth an essential defect in the same, and in steed of making up the breach, which appeareth in their vocation, doth (contrary to his name) make it greater. But of this point of the want of true Bishops, that might consecrated these new men, we shall speak of D. Parker's ordination. But before I come to that point: I will here add one other argument more to prove the nullity of this new ministery.  
14. In this sort. M. jewel one of the first promoted (or truer) intruded Intendents in Q. Elizabeth's time, the most forward, and peradventure the best able of all the troop to maintain his own and his fellows ordination did not, nor durst not in his life time deny the nullity thereof, but by his silent dissimulation of his adversaries more pressing arguments, did rather grant the same. Therefore it is more than probable in any prudent man's judgement, that their calling is not justifiable in itself and that for want of true consecration. But that the reader may make a more perfect judgement, of the force of this argument, I will here set down the dispute between D. Harding and M. jewel upon this point.  
Doctor Harding expostulateth with M. jewel, and demandeth of him, how he came to be Bishop in this sort. Therefore to go from your succession which 
Harding confutation of the Apology fol 57 58. M. jewel could not prove their succession: how therefore is it like M. Mason can do it. Mark well these demands, and the answer thereunto.  ye cannot prove and to come to your vocation, how say you sir? You bear yourself, as though you were Bishop of Salisbury. But how can you prove your vocation? By what authority usurp you the administration of doctrine, and sacraments? what can you allege for the right and proof of your ministry? who hath laid hands on you? By what example hath he done it? how and by whom are you consecrated? who hath sent you? who hath committed to you the office you take upon you? Be you a Priest, or be you not? If you be not how dare you usurp the name, and office of a Bishop? If you be, tell us who gave you orders? The institution of a Priest was never yet but in the power of a Bishop. Bishops have always after the Apoctles time, according to the Ecclesiastical Canons, been consecrated by three other Bishops, with the consent of the Metropolitan, and confirmation of the Bishop of Rome. Thus unity hath hither to been kept, 
Lib. 1. epist. 6  thus schisms have been stayed, and this S. Cyprian calleth legitimam ordinationem, for lack of which he denied Novatian to be a Bishop, or to have any authority, or power in the church. Hereto neither you, nor your fellows, who have unlawfully invaded the administration of the sacraments, can make any just, ad right answer I am sure.  

Athanas. Apolog. 2.  What, do ye not remember, what judgement Athanasius, and the Bishops of Egypt, Thebais, Libya, and Pentapoli were of concerning Is●hyras the Arian? And why may not all good Catholic men judge the like of you? Again, what say you to Epiphanius, who writeth against one Za●cheus of his time, for that being but a lay man, with wicked presumption took upon him, to handle the holy mysteries, and rashly to do the office of a Priest.  
To these pressing and urging demands, M. jewel maketh a very sleight and sly answer, wherein though all that which he saith were true, yet it is far short of the mark, which he should have touched; but being utterly false, as will appear by D. Hardings reply, doth evidently show his calling not to be justifiable: his answer is this.  

jewel.  
Whereas it farther pleaseth you, to call for my letters of orders, and to demand of me, as by some authority, whether I be Priest, or no? 
jewel defence of the Apology pag. 129. printed 1611  what hands were laid over me: and by what order I was made? I answer you, I am a Priest made long sithence, by the same order and ordinance, and I think also by the same man, and the same hands, that you M. Harding were made Priest by, in the late time of that most virtuous Prince K. Edward the sixth. Therefore ye cannot well doubt of my Priesthood, without the doubting of your own.   

Harding.  
Doctor Harding hereunto replieth in this sort. 
Detection of sundry foul errors etc.▪ fol. 129.  Neither by the same ordinance M. jewel, nor by the same man, nor by the same hands, nor in the time of the said late king. Howbeit you tell not half my tale, I laid for my foundation out of S. Hierome these words: Ecclesia non est, quae non habet sacerdotem: Church is there none, whi●h hath not a Priest, or Bishop, and such a Priest be there describeth, as may consecrated the sacrament of the altar, that is to say, that may offer external sacrifice, and such a Bishop be describeth, who may order Priests. For sacerdos as you know doth signify both a Priest, and Bishop. Now S. Hierome there disputed against Hilarius a Deacon, who being alone in his new sect, and not being able to offer sacrifice, nor to make Priests, it behoved needs to leave his congregation without Priest. I ask then aswell of your Bishoply vocation, and of your sending, as of your Priesthood. Give me leave, I pray you, here to put you in mind of my words once again. Thus I said, and yet you have not answered me. Therefore to go from your succession which you cannot prove, and to come to your vocation and so forth word by word, as is related before out of his first book, called the confutation of Apology, and there unto addeth in the place last quoted. These being my questions M. jewel, you answer, neither by what example hands were laid on you, 
Detection fol. 230.  nor who sent you, but only you say, he made you Priest, that made me in king Edward's time. Verily I never had any name, or title of priesthood given to me, during the reign of K. Edward: I only took the order of Deaconship, as it was then ministered, farther I went not) So that if you have no other priesthood, than I had in K. Edward's time, you are yet but a Deacon, and that also not after the Catholic manner, but in schismatical sort. Truly after I had well considered with myself those questions, which in my confutation I moved unto you, I took myself neither for Priest, nor yet for lawful Deacon in all respects, by those orders which were taken in K. Edward's days, being well assured that those, who took upon them to give orders, were altogether out of order themselves, and ministered them not, according to the rite, and manner of the Catholic church, as who had forsaken the whole succession of Bishops in all Christendom, end had erected a new congregation of their own planting, the form whereof was imagined only in their own brains, and had not been seen nor practised in the world before. 
Note.    
D. Harding having replied this, and much more upon M. jewels slight answer to his former demands: how doth M. jewel rejoine unto him think you? Marry with profound silence, deeply dissembling this whole reply, as though it had been never written, albeit he would have the world believe, that he hath fully answered in substance at lest the whole book, wherein these things are contained. Now whether the true reason of this dissembling silence be not the want of all probable means, to answer with satisfaction, let the discreet reader judge. But seeing he is so mute in this point, let us see, what he answereth to the rest of D. Hardings demands before related.  

jewel.  

jewel pag. 129. He giveth chalk sorcheefe, he was asked of his consecration, and he answereth of his election, and that with an heap of untruths. Harding detection fol. 232.  Further, as if you were my Metropolitan, you demand of me, whether I be a Bishop, or no? I answer you, I am a Bishop, and that by the free, accustomed, and canonical election of the whole chapter of Salisbury, assembled solemnly together for that purpose, of which company you M. Harding were then one, and as I was informed, being present there in your own person, amongst your brethren, gave free and open consent unto the election. If you deny this, take heed your own breath blow not against you.   

Harding.  
It was no free election M. jewel, when the chapter, which chose you, saw, that except it chose you; itself should be in danger of the Law, and of the Prince's displeasure, It was no canonical election, when he was chosen, whom the old Canons have judged unable for that vocation.  
For how can he be chosen Bishop, that is to say high Priest, who teacheth that there is not at all any external Pristhood in the church? how can he be chosen Bishop, that is to say high Priest, who teacheth with the old condemned heretic Aerius, that by God's Law there is no difference between a Bishop, and a Priest? How can he be chosen lawful Bishop in Salisbury according to the old Canons, who teacheth all the old Canons to be superstitious, wherein from the Apostles time prayers for the dead were commanded, and prescribed? what Canon can allow his election, who breaketh the unity of the church, and divideth himself and his flock, from all their unity and brotherbood, who made any Canons in any council from the Apostles time till this day? Is he to be chosen canonically, who with Constantius the Arian, teacheth Bishops being the successors of the Apostles, 
Anathas. apoloq. 2.  to be at the placing, and removing of Secular Officers, setting Cesar before Peter in God's house, and earth before heaven? When were the Canons made, that allowed such an election? And yet you were made a Bishop by canonical election forsooth. If the Canons were duly executed, they of that chapter aught rather to lose their voices, and otherwise to be punished, for that they were so dissolute, as to choose such a Prelate, who by the Canons is for many respects condemned.  
Was there ever any man more impudent, than you are M. jewel? what would you do if I were dead, sith you fear not to burden me being yet alive, with that thing which I never did, ne minded to do? Of that chapter I was one at that time I confess, as being then prebendary, and treasurer of that church, as yet I am in right. But of the company of them, that gave their voices, and consented to the election of you M. jewel, I was none. You were informed you say, that I was present, and gave free and open consent unto the election. Surely here you inform your reader of a false lie, as you have of many more. You were informed of the contrary. To be short I came not, ne was not made privy, when they went about the pretenced election.  
If my no be not sufficient against your yea, let the registers book be viewed, for the trial between us both. For I trow, that book (being never so great a falsifier otherways) you cannot well falsify, Let M. George Carew chanter of the same church, and Deane of the Queen's chapel, let M. Richard Channler prebendary there, and Archdeacon of Sarisbury, Let your own friend, and faithfellow M. Parry Chancellor of that church be demanded, whether I was present at your election, and gave free, and open consent unto it, or no. You knew it, you knew it right well M. jewel, that both I and M. Dominicke, that reverend and virtuous Priest; prebendary also there (whom in your visitation for the Queen's highness ye appointed to be a prisoner, as also myself in mine house at Salisbury) utterly, and with express words refused, to give our voices and consent to your pretended election, Truly we counted it no less crime to have chosen you Bishop of Sarisbury, then to have chosen Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Eutiches, Aerius, Pelagius, or any other like heretic. Wherfooe revoke so many untruths, as you have here uttered with one breath, your election was neither free, nor canonical, the whole chapter was not present, I was not one of that company, I gave not my consent, Now that you have so impudently affirmed all this, notwithstanding take heed (that I may use your own words) your own breath blow not against you.   
To all this M. jewel answereth with silence as before, having nothing to reply with show of truth: but to the rest of D. Hardings demands he answereth in this sort.  

jewel.  
As for the impertinent tales of Ischyras and Zaccheus, they touch us nothing: 
Pag. 129.  they were none of ours: we know them not: our Bishops are made in form and order, as they have been ever by free election of the chapter: by consecration of the Archbishops, and other three Bishops, and by the admission of the Prince.   

Harding.  

Detection fol. 234.  These true histories, not tales M. jewel touch you in this behalf, because Priests are not so consecrated with you, that they may stand to offer the sacrifice of the altar, as it was reported of Ischyras, that he had done.  
Moreover Epiphanius writeth of Zaccheus, ludentèr Sancta mysteria contrectabat, & sacrificia cum laicus esset, impudentèr tractabat: He lewdly handled the holy mysteries, and whereas he was a lay man, he impudently handled the sacrifices. What sacrifices (I pray you) hath your religion, which a lay man may not handle, as well as a Priest? But because you have abandoned all external sacrifice, and Priesthood, therefore you judge, the example of Zaccheus belongeth nothing unto you. Certainly by those examples it is proved, that ye are no Bishops, and so far they be not impertinent.  
Your Bishops are made (you say) [in form and order] what form and order mean you? mean you the old, which was used in the first five hundredth years, or the new? In the old form after the election, notice was given to the Bishop of Rome, and to all the Bishops of the church, that such a man was lawfully chosen Bishop with in the church, and not schismatically; and so all the other Bishops knew by the communicatory letters, to whom they should sand, or of whom they should receive such letters. But so ye were not made Bishops: If ye were, show us to what Bishops out of England ye wrote any such letters. After that, the custom of those letters becaine to be out of use, the only Bishop of Rome his confirmation was in steed of the said notice, and by him surely you were not confirmed: And yet seeing he is a Bishop, if you will not grant him the confirmation, ye aught at the lest to put him to knowledge of your election, that he may know you to be men, with whom he may communicate. But for as much as you wrote not to him in that matter, you show that ye be no Catholic Bishops. For never was there any Catholic Bishop in the church, which did not one way, or other, show himself to communicate with S. Peter's successor, from the beginning till this day.  
But ye were made, you say, by the consecration of the Archbishops, and other three Bishops. And how I pray was your Archbishops himself consecrated? what three Bishops in the Realm were there to lay hands upon him? you have now uttered a worse case for yourselves, than was by me before named. For your Metropolitan, who should give authority to all your consecrations, himself had no lawful consecration. 
M. Parker not consecrated.  If you had been consecrated after the form, and order which hath ever been used, ye might have had Bishops out of France, to have consecrated you, in case there had lacked in England. But now there were ancient Bishops enough in England, who either were not required, or refused to consecrated you, which is an evident sign, that ye sought not such a consecration, as had been ever used, but such an one, whereof all the former Bishops were ashamed.   
15. All this sharp reply affirming so directly M. Parker not to have been consecrated, whereby the consecrations of all the rest are necessarily proved to be none, M. jewel (finding nothing to answer thereunto) dissembleth, as he doth the former, excepting these words only. In the old form after the election, notice was given to the Bishop of Rome, and to all the Bishops in the church, that such a man was lawfully chosen in the church, and not schimastically etc. But so ye were not made Bishops. If ye were show us, to what Bishops out of England ye wrote any such letters. Whereunto though his answer be as impertinent, as his dissembling the rest is evident: yet because it pertaineth not much to our present purpose speaking here of consecration only, and not of those things, which go before, or follow the same, I will not abuse so far (good reader) thy patience, as to stand either to refute, or relate it, but will in brief give thee to understand, the twofold reason, for which I have set down here at large this dispute betwixt M. jewel, and M. Harding.  
First, that the heedful reader, be he Catholic, or Protestant may clearly see, how M. jewel himself, (the cheeftaine of all our new masters in England, and having part in the matter being one of the Bishops about whose consecration the controversy is, and therefore knew well how it was performed, and neither wanting wit, nor will to maintain it, if it had been to be maintained) is by strength of argument forced to yield the bucklers to his adversary, and to confess the nullity of his own and his fellows consecration, not by express acknowledgement of the truth, for that his heretical pride, and obstinate error would not permit him to do, but by his deep dissembling of his adversaries arguments, whereunto because he could not answer, he let them pass in silence, as if they had not been objected against him at all, And this is specially to be observed, in the objection of M. Parker's consecration, whereupon the consecrations of all the rest do necessarily depend, whom doubtless he either knew, not to be consecrated at all (unless it were done at the nags head, after the manner that is and hath hitherto been very credibly reported) or else in such other sort as being specified would have given his adversary (whom he knew was not altogether ignorant how that matter passed) greater advantage against him. For thou mayst be well assured (good reader) that M. jewel undertaking to answer this book of D. Hardings, if he could have shaped but any shifting answer, to those pressing points of his own, and his fellows calling M. Harding should have heard from him on both ears. judge thou therefore of what credit M. Masons records are, seeing that M. jewel who was Bishop himself, and (without doing M. Mason any jot of wrong) better able to have maintained his calling, and consecration than he, and being urged unto it in such sort, as we have seen, is driven into such an absolute non plus about the same, that he hath not one wise word to say in his own justification. Surely it must needs be, that either these records were not then coined, or if they were, yet were they of small force, for the justification of the new manner of ordination. For no man of ordinary sense can think, that either M. jewel knew them not at all, or knowing them did not understand, of what force they were, for the justifying of his own calling, supposing they were of any at all.  
secondly, I have related this dispute at large, that the reader, who hath not the means to read Harding, in his own books, but only as M. jewel relateth his words, may see, how easily he may be deceived therein. For as in this particular point, so in all others he leaveth out that, which doth most press; and relateth only those things, whereunto he thinketh he may make some such shuffling answer, that he may be by the more ignorant sort esteemed, to have satisfied his adversary. And this I would all men, that read him, should take notice of, whether they be Protestants, or otherways: For hardlies hall a man found a more colouring, and less  or substantial adversary of Catholic religion, then is M. jewel, being read with attention.  
16. And to conclude this chapter it is farther to be observed, that nor D. Harding only, but all or most of the Catholic writers of our own country (to say nothing of strangers) having in express words, objected to the new superintendents, intruded into Bishoprics in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign, the nullity of their calling, and consecration, did never by any either of themselves, who should best have known the records, or by any other in their behalf, hear of any such records, or registers, M. Mason now after 50. years would obtrude upon us, as authentical testimonies of their Canonical consecration. What therefore can any man of indifferent judgement think in this case, but that either these records, which M. Mason now produceth, 
From the page 126. to the page 142.  were not then extant, or if they were, that they are not such as can make any probable, much less authentical proof of these men's Canonical consecration. For if they had been in those days, and also were such, as might have made sufficient proof of the matter in question, how is it possible, that they should not be produced before now? the parties themselves, whom it specially behoved to make proof of their own Canonical calling being so often, and earnestly urged thereunto by their adversaries, triumphing over them for want of due proof thereof.  

Pag. 8.  M. Mason relateth some of the sayings of our Catholic writers, that object the nullity of the English new ministry, which I will here set down, and add one or two more unto them; that the reader may thereby judge, how unprobable it is, that M. Masons new found records should bear any credit for the proof of that, for which he produceth them.  

Motive 21.  Consider (saith D. Bristol) what church that is, whose ministers are but very lay men, unsent, uncalled, vnconsecrated, holding therefore amongst us, when they repent and return, no other place but of lay men, in no case admitted, not nor looking to minister in any office, unless they take orders, which before they had not?  
D. Sanders: The new clergy in England is composed partly of our Apostates, 
De Schismate lib. 3. pag. 299.  partly of mere laymen. And in the dedication of his rock of the church, he stilleth M. Parker, to whom he dedicateth that book, no otherways then M. D. Parker bearing the name of Archbishop of Canterbury.  
Reason 7 M. Howelt: that either all, or the most part of the ministers in England, be merely lay-men, and no priests, and consequently have no authority in these things it is evident.  

Rhoms testament Rom. 10.15.  All your new Evangelists, which have intruded themselves into church and pulpit, be every one from the highest to the lowest false prophets, running and usurping, being never lawfully called.  
Note that M. Fulke, who was ignorant of nothing in this point, that M. Mason can know, answering both bristol Motives, and the notes upon the new testament, to satisfy their objections of want of calling in the new ministry, denieth ordinary calling to be always necessary, which desperate shift he would never have used, if he had been provided of so easy, and sufficient an answer, as M. Masons records would have afforded him, if they had been authentical, and without flaw.  

Caluino turcis: lib. 4. cap. 15.  M. Reinolds: there is no herdman in all Turkey, which doth not undertake the government of his herd upon better reason, and greater right, order, and authority, than these your magnificent Apostles, and Evangelists can show, for this divine and high office of governing souls, reforming churches etc.  
D. Stapleton in his counterblast printed well-near fifty years ago, against M. Horn, them usurping the Bishops see of Winchester hath these urging speeches. 
Counterblast fol. 7.  To say truly you are no lord Winchester nor elsewhere, but only M. Robert Horn. Is 
a Ibid. fol. 9  it not notorious, that ye and your Colleagues were not ordained according to the prescripe, I will not say of the church, but even of the very statutes? How then can you challenge to yourself, the name of the lord Bishop of Winchester?  
You are without any consecration at all of your metropolitan, 
Fol. 301.  himself poor man being no Bishop neither.  
These speeches (which are no where answered) I do not relate, for that I intent to conclude any other thing out of them, then that in the judgement of any sensible person, it cannot be probable, that when these things were written, there were extant any such records, as being produced might make any thing for the justification of our new superintendentes Canonical consecration. For if there had been any such, doubtless they could not have been unknown to M. Parker, who should have been the author of them, as bearing the name of metropolitan: not to M. Horn, and M. jewel (to omit the rest) who should have subscribed thereunto, as the parties whose consecrations were recorded: and being not unknown, there is less probability, that they should be so concealed by them, that notwithstanding the nullity of consecration, so often objected against them, by their Catholic adversaries, they should not once mention 'em.  
It is also to be observed that M. Mason's registers disagree with those that M. Goodwin used in his catalogue of Bishops some time in the day, some time in the month, and some time in the year, as is manifest in the consecrations of Doynet, Ridley, Coverdall, Grindall, Horn, Guest, Piers: Which necessarily proveth falsity in the one at lest, with suspicion of forgery in both.  
Again M. Mason, M. Sutcliffe, and M. Butler, all speaking of M. Parker's consecration do all differ one from another in naming his consecrators. For M. Mason saith it was done by Barlow. Scorie, Coverdall and Hodgekins. M. Sutcliffe saith besides the tree first named by M. Mason there were two suffragans as the act of consecration yet to be seen (saith he) mentioneth. 
Pag. 127. Suit: against kell: pag. 5. But: defence of their mission.  M. Butler saith the suffragan of Dover was one of the consecrators, who notwithstanding is not so much as named in the Queen's patents, whereby commission was given to the named therein to consecrated M. Parker. So that these men seem to have had three divers and disagreeing registers of one and the same action and therefore the credit of every one of them is made at lest doubtful.   

The fourteenth Chapter. That M. Parker bearing some time the name of Archbishops of Canterbury, was not true and lawful Bishops.  
1. ALl the defects, and inhabilities either of heresy, or want of true consecration, which in the precedent chapters are showed to have been in Cranmer, and the Bishops aswell of K Edward's as Q. Elizabeth time, being without all controversy in M. Parker, it shall not be needful to say any more of them; yet because the succession of the present English ministry is derived from him, as from the fountain, I think it not amiss, to note some particular circumstances of his consecration, which to any indifferent judgement may show the nullity thereof, and consequently of all those that are derived from it. For the fountain being infected, the streams, that flow from it, unless they be purged, must necessarily be impure and noisome.  
These circumstances, which I intent to note, are for the most part taken out of M. Masons own relations, and therefore must needs be free, from all suspicion of sinister, or partial dealing in me.  
First therefore M. Mason relateth out of the life of M. Parker this Singular privilege, 
Pag. 131.  or (as it is termed) felicity; that being the 70. Archbishop after Augustin, yet of all that number he was the only man, and the first of all that received consecration without the Pope's bulls, and superfluous aaronical ornaments, as Gloves, Rings, Sandals, Slippers, Mitre, Pall, and such like trifles, making an happy beginning (more rightly, and more agreeable to the simplicity, and parity of the Gospel) with prayer, 
Mark that the Protestant ministtry begun but in M. Parker, and therefore was not afore.  invocation of the holy Ghost, imposition of hands, and religious promises.  
What in any sober judgement can he said more directly, for the reproof and disallowance of any man's ordination? M. Parker is confessed to be the first man of threescore and ten, that descending, and succeeding one to another in the see of Canterbury, for the space almost of a thousand years, that was consecrated without the Pope's bulls etc. Who therefore would not say, that he was the first man that was intruded into that see without all order, or Canonical consecration? He is also confessed to be the first, that began the new order of consecration, who can therefore doubt, but that his consecration is not of Christ's institution, descending unto him by succession from the Apostles, but a new invention of man never heard of before?  
If M. Parker were not consecrated Archbishop, after the same manner that S. Austin was, who brought unto our nation, now a thousand years ago the doctrine of Christ (as confessedly he was not) what man of sense and reason will say, that his consecration is good, and canonical?  
Surely there is no more reason to say this, then to say that he should be rightly baptized, that should receive another manner of baptism, then that which S. Augustin brought unto us, and practised. If therefore we retain the baptism which he brought unto us, as the only true baptism instituted by Christ, and preached by his Apostles through the whole world; why should not we also retain the orders, and manner of consecration of priests, and Bishops taught by him?  
Who hath eyes and seethe not, that to reject the one, is but a step to cast the other away also, and so by certain degrees to return to our former paganism, from which God converted us, by the ministry, and cooperation of that holy man, and servant of his S. Augustine.  
2. I know that some have been so furious and frantic, 
Harrison in his description of Britanny, Aschan, Bale, and others have the like.  as to writ that S. Augustin, in steed of converting us from Paganism to Christianity, brought us from one superstition to another. But these men being possessed with his Spirit, that envieth our conversion, and therefore would draw us back to out former errors, and infidelity, speak not but as they have learned of him; who, if they could be heard in this point, would quickly say as much of the Apostles, yea and of our saviour Christ himself. For that is the end aimed at by them, or at lest by their master, which because he is out of all hope to bring men unto at the first jump, he laboureth to win them unto it by degrees. And surely he hath much prevailed already in his purpose, seeing he hath found such instruments, as dare preach that he that converted us first to Christ, brought us into error: o senseless wretches!  

Page 131.  M. Mason saith: that M. Parker with the rest was made Bishop with imposition of hands, which is the only ceremony of ordination mentioned in the scripture: and which Bellarnime thinketh to be the matter essential. And for other ceremonies which are but inventions of man, they cannot be enforced upon us, Farther than the wisdom of our church hold it convenient.  

Acts. 13.3.  It is false that the scripture mentioneth only imposition of hands in ordination: for it mentioneth also both fasting and prayer; which are th'one or both out of use with our new ministry. Neither is the imposition of hands mentioned in the scripture, a bore laying on of hands, without an express form of words, as is before showed out of S. Ambrose saying, that imposition of hands is mystical words, 
Upon the acts, Cap. 13.  wherewith the elect is confirmed to this work, receiving authority (his conscience bearing witness) that he may be bold in our lords steed to offer sacrifice to God. But in the new form of ordination there is no such words used, as may give authority to the ordained, to exercise any power of order. For these words. Receive thou the holy ghost, which they only use, are not such as is before showed.  
And although Bellarmine say, that imposition of hands pertaineth to the essential matter of ordination, yet others doubt thereof, (as is before mentioned out of M. Mason himself) in whose opinion (which cannot be denied but to be probable) our new ministry must needs want all essential matter of ordination: But be it true, that imposition of hands pertaineth to the essential matter of ordination, as Bellarmine thinketh, and that most probably, yet doth neither he, nor any other Catholic author one escepted say, that it is the only or whole essential matter of ordination, 
De Sacram. ordinis Ca 9  yea he teached expressly the contrary, in the place cited by M. Mason, and therefore his doctrine serveth nothing at all, for the justification of M. Parker's ordination by sole imposition of hands.  
And albeit the Catholic church doth not command (as necessary to the Sacrament) any ceremonies not pertaining to the substance of holy order, yet doth she justly condemn the rashness, and presumption of those, that of set purpose, or contempt do omit in ordination, any of those holy rites, which she hath received from her first Pastors, and hath religiously conserved unto our days, commanding us to use the same: And Farther because amongst divers words, and actions which she hath always used in ordination, it is not declared in which of them precisely, the substance, or essence of holy order consisteth, especially that of Episcopal order, therefore doth she upon good reason, reject that ordination as none at all; wherein are omitted either all, or the greatest part of those solemn words, and actions, which are known to have ever been used, of which kind it is evident, and confessed here, M. Parker's ordination to have been. And therefore it is a notorious untruth, that it was performed in such form, 
Pag. 121.  as is required by the ancient Canons, as M. Mason affirmeth, unless by ancient Canons he understand the statutes, made of this matter in Edward the sixth his days.  
4. Secondly I gather out of M. Mason, that of the four consecrators of M. Parker, there was never one of them true Bishop, unless peradventure it were Hodgekins the suffragan of Bedford: who (suppose he was truly consecrated himself, which is not certain) yet could he not (even in M. Masons doctrine) consecrated tother, 
Two Bb. present the party to be consecrate● 〈◊〉 the Archbishops or some for ●him pronounteth the blessing as principal consecrator. Saith M. Mason pa. 39 Page 127. Esdrae. 2. cap. 7.64.  being only assistant in that action, and not he that did consecrated, which (as M. Mason saith) was done by Barlow; who was never consecrated Bishop himself, as appeareth by that his consecration is no where registered, and therefore is he no more to be numbered in the rank of Bishops, than they were in the number of priests, who could not found themselves recorded in their lineage.  
M. Mason bringeth divers conjectures of M. Barlowes consecration, but not one haft proof. He discharged (saith he) all things belonging to the order of a Bishop, even Episcepall consecration: therefore doubtless was he consecrated. But by the like form of argument might he be proved to have been a lawful husband, because he had a Woman, and divers children. Which kind of proof how current soever it may be in M. Masons logic, yet in itself it is ridiculous, as evidently supposing that for a truth, which is in question, and thereby begging that which he should prove. For unless he first suppose, that M Barlow was consecrated himself, which is the thing in question, to say that he did help to consecrated others, doth prove nothing, unless he could farther prove, or that it were granted him, that M. Barlow never did any thing in that kind, but that he might lawfully do, which I suppose M. Mason will not easily undertake to prove.  
Secondly, he was (saith he) generally acknowledged, and obeyed as a Bishop. So I think he will not deny, but. Ridley, Hooper, Farrer, and the rest of their creation were, during the time they held the rooms of Bishops, and yet were they judged, both by the Spiritual, and temporal court, as we have seen before, not to have been consecrated, therefore this argument proveth nothing to the purpose but a popular error, grounded upon the unjust possession of a Bishopric. And much less doth that prove any thing, which he addeth, saying that Bucanan called him Bishop of S. David's. For it is no strange thing, that he that hath a Bishopric, should be called Bishop especially by a stranger, to whose testimony M. Mason recurring in this matter, doth show that he is hard set for proofs.  
These are M. Masons conjectures of M. Barlowes consecration, which, if the case should be brought into any indifferent court, would not I dare say suffice to prove his consecration. For seeing that no simple priest can be believed, that he is a Priest, without the letters of his ordination (especially where there is doubt of his priesthood) much less aught a Bishop to be believed to be a Bishop, without authentical records of his ordination.  
And is there not therefore in all Bishops, and Archbishops sees, an office of register, where all the ordinations are recorded, to the end that every one truly ordained may have at all times authentical constat●●, of his orders received? So that unless the records perish by fire, or other extraordinary accident (which cannot be said in M. Barlowes case) no man can fail of proof of his orders, which in Bishops is by so much more certain, by how much more diligence there is used therein, by reason of the great inconvenience which would ensue, if any such default should happen. Seeing therefore the records of M. Barlowes consecration do not appear, (in so much that M. Mason is forced to prove it by conjecture, as we have seen: Whereas he citeth the registers of the consecrations of all the rest but his) nor yet have miscarried by any extraordinary accident happening to the Metropolitans registers, how can he be judged to have been truly consecrated? Especially seeing (as M. Mason saith) the registers of Cranmer bear record of his (I mean M. Barlowes) preferment to the priory of Bishame, of his election to the Bishopric of S. Asaph, 
Pag. 127.  and of the confirmation of the same; how is it therefore possible, that his consecration (if ever it had been) should not be found likewise recorded?  
Farther if M. Barlow had been truly consecrated, and consequently a true Bishop, he should not doubtless have been put after Antony Kitchen Bishop of Landaffe, in the Queen's letters directed unto them, and the rest for consecration of M. Parker, 
Page 126.  of which letter's M. Mason repeateth a piece (saying that they are not only recorded in the registers of M. Parker; but in the chancery itself) in these words. Elizabeth Dei gratia etc. Reverendis in Christo patribus, Anthonio Landavensi. Will? Barlowe quondam Bath: nunc Cicestrensi electo, Ioh: Scory etc. Whereas Barlow if he had been consecrated Bishop, should have been first in the rank, as being most ancient by 4. years at the lest, as is evident by M. Masons own Chronology, putting Arthur: Buckley his consecration (whereat he saith assisted as Bishop M. Barlow) an: 1541. and Anth. kitchens consecration an. 1545. For it is evident that those Bishops, who have not precedency by reason of their sees (as none have in England, excepting the two Archbishops, and two or three more whereof Landaffe is none) have their place and rank, according to their antiquity in consecration, which is always necessarily observed in such public and solemn acts (as is the consecration of an Archbishop) for avoiding of scandal, which should necessarily follow, by invercing and confounding of men's ranks and places. And doubtless if M. Barlow had known himself as truly a Bishop, as h● esteemed M. Kitchen to be, he would have disdained to have been his second in that honourable action, seeing he should have been so much his signior Bishop, if he had been Bishop indeed.  
And what I pray you was the reason, that M. Kitchen Bishop of Landaffe having that honourable place assigned him; in that action by the Queen's patents, to be the consecrator of the new Archbishop, though he was junior Bishop to M. Barlow by four years as is already noted, was not for all that one of the consecrators, seeing he was present? Marry because he would not commit such a sacrilege; nor incur the censures belonging thereunto though (fearing the Queens and councils indignation) he pretended darkness of sight to be the reason: upon his refusal (which was not expected) they were forced to have recourse to others, who made no scruple of any thing. But because this particular toucheth directly the matter in question, I will here set down how the whole action of the consecration of all the first Bishops made in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign (whereof M. Parker was one) passed, by the relation of such as were present thereat. At the nags head in Cheapside by accorded appointment met all those that were nominated to bishoprics vacant either by death, as was that of Canterbury only, or by unjust deposition, as were all the rest: their names are set down in the chapter following. Thither came also the old Bishop of Landaffe to make them Bishops, which thing being known to D. Bonner's Bishop of London then prisoner, he sent unto the Bishop of Landaffe, forbidding him under pain of excommunication to exercise any such power within his Diocese, as to order those men, wherewith the old Bishop being terrified, and otherwise also moved in his own conscience refused to proceed in that action, alleging chief for reason of his forbearance his want of sight as is before said: which excuse they interpreting to be but an evasion were much moved against the poor old man, and whereas hitherto they had used him with all courtesy and respect, they then turned their copy, reviling and calling him doting fool, and the like some of them saying. This old fool thinketh we cannot be Bishops unless we be greased, to the disgrace as well of him, as of the Catholic manner of episcopal consecration. Being notwithstanding thus deceived of their expectation, and having no other mean to come to their desire, they resolved to use M. Scories' help, who having borne the name of Bishop in king Edward's time, was though to have sufficient power to perform that office, especially in such a street necessity. He having cast of together with his religious habit (for he had been a religious man) all scruple of conscience willingly went about the matter, which he performed in this sort, having the Bible in his hand, and they all kneeling before him, he laid it upon every one of their heads or shoulders saying, Take thou authority to preach the word of God sincerely. And so they rose up Bishops.  
This whole narration without adding or detracting any word pertaining to the substance of the matter, I have heard oftener than once of M. Thomas Bluet a grave, learned, and judicious priest. He having received it of M. Neale a man of good sort and reputation, sometimes reader of the Hebrew or Greek Lecture (I remember not whether) in Oxford: But when this matter passed, was belonging to Bishop Bonner, and sent by him to deliver the message before mentioned to the Bishop of Landaffe, and withal to attend there to see the end of the business. Again M. Bluet had other good means to be informed of this matter being long time prisoner together with D. Watson Bishop of Lincoln, and divers other men of mark of the ancient clergy, in whose time and in whose sight, as a man may say, this matter was done. Of this narration there are (I thieke) as many witnesses yet living as there are priests remaining alive, that have been prisoners together with M. Bluet in Wisbich castle, where I also heard it of him.  
M. 
What law doth he mean that they should have incurred danger of.  Mason in the appendix to his book having related this same thing out of Sacro Bosco (who had heard it from the same party for he was also prisoner sometime in Wisbich castle) for answer saith. No man of reason can imagine that they would go to consecrated one another in a tavern, and so incur the danger of the law, after they had according to their hearts desire an Archbishop of their own religion, quietly possessed of his church and chair.  
But this is nothing to the purpose. For he supposeth M. Parker to have been consecrated, and already installed in his church and chair before this solemn meeting at the nags head, whereas the objection whereunto he answereth saith the contrary, and includeth M. Parker with the rest, as one of the number to be consecrated there, and therefore is his answer very frivolous. Peradventure he thinketh that he that already proved M. Parker's consecration so fully by producing the registers, that it cannot be denied, and therefore supposeth it in this his answer as clear. But seeing his registers are found so full of cracks and flaws, that they need to be made good by other proofs then yet appear, they cannot in any indifferent man's judgement be holden for good proofs of that which is here in question; when he saith, that they having quiet possession of churches it cannot be probable that they would go to a tavern to be consecrated: he speaketh with more show of reason then in any thing he hath said of this matter in his whole book before, and yet this is also easily and truly answered, for it is not said that they went to the tavern to be consecrated, because they had not the liberty of churches, but the reason was because they being out of all hope or expectation to draw the old Bishop of Landaffe (by whom they thought they should be consecrated) to their church with them, they made no difficulty or scruple to resort to such a place, as he would be content to come unto, and so it came to pass that their meeting was at the nags head, as is said before.  
Not only Catholics, who by our adversaries may be suspected of partiality, are witnesses in this matter, but john Stow a Protestant hath testified the same, not in writing, for that he durst not, though he had diligently sought out all particulars thereof, but in words to some persons that are yet living, and of most entire credit and fidelity, who notwithstanding being no less fearful to witness this of him though now dead, than he himself was to writ it being alive, cannot here be named. But that this is true I can give this most probable argument, if it be no more than probable, Stow in his Chronicle maketh no more mention of the consecration of these new prelate's, or any thing belonging thereunto, then if there never had been any such matter, not not so much as of M. Parker's consecration or installing, which silence, all circumstances considered, could not proceed from any other reason, then from fear of offending by saying the truth. For first it is evident that he is careful to set down all occurrents worthy of any memory, (especially happening about London) though of far less moment than this. secondly he professeth special love, and respect to M. Parker, and therefore setteth down many particulars of him, of much less moment, then is his consecration or installing. Thirdly not only he, but all other Chronographers take diligent care not to omit any innovation, or change of old customs or fashions into new, especially in a matter of such moment as this is. fourthly he setteth down the consecration, installing receiving the pall, yea and the first mass of Cardinal Pole, M. Parker's immediate predecessor. All which were but ordinary occurrents in other Archbishops, much less therefore could he forget to set down the consecration of M. Parker, which was so new and extraordinary, as M. Mason himself saith, it was singular and unlike to all those that went before since S. Austin the first Archbishop of that see, and might as truly have said since Christ his time.  
Fiftly, besides many other things pertaining to the change of religion, set down by him in that year 1559. of far less consideration than is the institution of a new clergy: he putteth down the deprivation (so he calleth it) of the old Bishops in the month of july, which could not permit him to forget the creation of the new ones, especially he having joined together before in Q. Mary's time, the restitution of Bishop Bonner, 
Pag. 1036.  and the rest of the Catholic Bishops displaced by K. Edward, and the removing of the others intruded in their place, some reason therefore must there necessarily be of his affected silence in this particular.  
Sixthly speaking of Henry the 2. King of France his obsequies solemnized in Paul's this same year 1559. saith, that the 9 of September (to wit three months and more before M. Parker's consecration according to M. Masons registers) was a sermon preached by D. Scory, in place of D. Grindall Bishop of London. 
Pag. 1083.  Now seeing he calleth him Bishop absolutely without adding of elect or other like restriction, it seemeth that he had then some consecration; which could not be that which M. Masons registers speak of, for this was three months after and more as is already note●, and therefore most like to be that at the nags head. I see well that Stow some lines before calleth D. Parker Archbishop of Canterbury elect. But this taketh not away the difficulty. For he might for all that be consecrated Bishop as well as D. Barlow, whom he calleth in the same place Bishop of Chichester elect, and D. Scory whom he calleth Bishop of Hereford elect, which two notwithstanding are supposed to have been consecrated long before that time. And surely if D. Parker had not been consecrated at lest after their manner, he could not have had pl●ce in that solemn action of the King's obsequies, before D. Barlow and D. Scory if they were consecrated, as they are supposed by M. Mason to have been. For Archbishops only elect cannot have place before consecrated Bishops in the offices of the church.  

M. Mason will not have priests though cardinals to sit before Bishops pag. 27. much less therefore priests nominated only Archbishops.  Therefore when Stow calleth him Archbishop of Canterbury elect, he doubtless speaketh in the same sense of him, that he doth when he calleth D. Barlow Bishop of Chichester elect, and D. Scory Bishop of Hereford elect, which he doth not because they were not consecrated Bishops after their manner, but because they were not as yet installed in those sees, as D. Parker also was not as yet in that of Canterbury. And that this is true, it appeareth by the different stile he giveth to D. Parker and D. Grindall, terming th'one absolutely Bishop of London without all restriction, because he was already installed and in possession of his Brishopricke, and tother only Archbishop elect for want of the same circumstance. If therefore D. Parker and D. Grindall were Bishops in the month of September the year 1559. as by the testimony of Stowe they appear to have been, what verity can there be in M. Masons registers, that make M. Parker to be consecrated only the 17. of December in the same year, and D. Grindall after him.  

Sanders de schismate lib. 3.  It is also to be understood, that at the same time, when there was question of consecrating these new Bishops, there was prisoner in the tower of London an Archbishop of Ireland, who was offered his liberty and divers other rewards, if he would have consecrated the newly elected Bishops, which doubtless argueth the want of others, that were (even by themselves) esteemed true Bishops, for if such had been at hand, they would not have recurred to him, with danger to receive a disgraceful denial as they did. But now I will return to my former purpose.  
6. The rest of M. Parker's consecrators, according to M. Masons account to wit M. Scory and M Coverdall were of the new consecration, devised in K. Edward the 6. his time, and therefore found even by the judges of the Realm, to be no Bishops, as is before showed. 
Pag. 93.  And is evidently proved out of M. Masons own records and testimonies. For they were consecrated, as M. Mason saith the 30. of August 1551. to wit five months before the new form of consecrations was see forth or allowed, which was done in the parliament holden the 5. and 6. year of Edward the 6. as appeareth both by the statute itself, which is the first of that parliament, as also by the first statute of the 8. of Elizabeth: but this parliament of the 5. and 6. of Edw. the 6. began the 13. of januarie 1551. that is four months and more after the consecration of Scorie and Coverdall. For by the count of England the year beginneth in March, and not in januarie as all men know. Evident therefore it is that they could not be consecrated by the new form: and no less evident it is, that they were not consecrated by the old form; 
Pag 94.  for that (as M. Mason confesseth) was abrogated in the parliament of the third and fourth of Ed. the 6. and appeareth also by the 12. statute of that parliament. So that it is clear that these two consecrators of M. Parker were never consecrated at all neither by one form or other. And therefore had there been none other defect in M. Parker's consecration (as divers others have been already proved) but only this, that his consecrators were not consecrated, and therefore no true Bishops, it is more than sufficient to prove his want of consecration, and consequently his want of all true calling.  
Notwithstanding all which so blind is M. Mason, either through his affection to new falsehood, or hatred to ancient truth, that he blusheth not to writ in this sort. Thus have we examined the place, the persons, the matter, the form of his (M. Parker) consecration, and found nothing but agreeable to the laws of the land, the Canons of the church, and the practice of reverend antiquity. Do not think (good Reader) that I exceeded in saying, that M. Mason was blinded by affection when he wrote these words for he himself doth evidently prove it, not seeing what he wrote, but only ten or twelve lines before in these words. This was his singuller felicity, that being the 70. Archbishop after Austin yet was the first of all, which received consecration without the Pope's bulls etc. For if he were the first, that was consecrated in this manner, how doth his consecration agreed, either with the laws of the land which were extant before this new manner of consecration was devised many ages; and much less is it agreeable with the Canons of the church, and venerable antiquity? Wherefore to make this speech of his agree aswell with that, which he said before, as also with the truth itself, he must wipe out this little word (but) and so shall his saying be most true in itself, and conformable to his former words. Yet doth he show himself more senseless in that which followeth, adding; wherein how circumspectly the Queen proceeded, may further appear by this, that her letters patenet were sent▪ to divers learned professors of the law, that they might freely give their judgement, and all of them jointly confessed, that both the Queen's majesty might lawfully authorize, the persons to the effect specified (which was to consecrated M. Parker) and the said persons also might lawfully exercise the act of confirming, and consecrating in the same to them committed▪ whose names subscribed with their own hands remain in record, 
Ex Registro Math. Parker fol. 3.  as followeth. William May, Robert weston, Edward Leeds-Henry Haruy. Thomas Yale. Nicolas Bullinghan. Is not this beyond measure ridiculous? For, suppose that these men had been as great divines as S Augustin: as absolute lawyers as Barthold, as constant and uncorrupt as Curius Dentatus, and withal, not subject to her that demanded their resolution, and thereby more like ad to deliver their opinions with indifferency. of what moment should their judgement be, in comparison of that of the whole Christian world from the Apostles time, till the reign of King Edward the 6. For if in all this compass either of time or place, including also the Apostles themselves, M. Mason can bring one instance, or example of a Bishop ordered in this sort, that M. Parker was, he shall gain his cause. To bring therefore the approbation of half a dozen very ordinary lawyers, no divines, of no extraordinary reputation for their integrity, and no more than ordinary for their courage, and constancy, subjects to her that demanded their opinions, a princess peremptory in her proceed, and already absolutely resolved in her determination, whatsoever their resolution should be: demanding their opinions (which she knew before hand would be according to her will) only for a slender mask, or pretence of some colour of law; to bring six such men's judgement (I say) against the judgement, and practice of the whole Christian world (for nor only Catholics, whom they ttulie esteem enemies to their heresy, though not to their persons, but all their own brethren of the pretended reformation in France, Geneva, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Holland, Scotland, yea and in England itself, for the greater or at lest for the more Zealous part, do all condemn, and disavow their parliament Bishops, and clergy) is not this I say most perfect senselessness? Surely such an argument is most fit to conclude, and shut up in all security, the ordination of the first Metropolitan of so new a clergy. Yet this default I do not so much ascribe to the want of judgement in M. Mason, as to the want of truth in the matter he would maintain, which must needs be very miserable standing in need of such beggarly support.  
After all this M. Mason filleth eight pages in deriving the descent of their new clergy from M. Parker, who being the first of that race (as M. Mason willingly professeth) and yet not of full fifty years antiquity, their church whereof he was the first Pastor, cannot possibly be the church of Christ, yet M. Mason confidently addeth. 
See his own words in the beginning of this chapter. M. Parker's consecration is disproved, and consequently the consecrations of all the rest depending thereupon.  The records alleged are of such high credit and reputation, that they cannot pessibly be infringed. As for the main point whereupon all the rest dependeth, that is, the consecration of Archbishop Parker, as it was solemnly performed in a great assembly, so it was published in print in his own time, when all things were in fresh memory. And though some of his spiteful and bitter enemies did then scornfully comment upon his life, yet the truth of this fact they never called in question.  
What high credit or reputation his records are of, I leave to the unpartial reader to judge by that which hath been hitherto said thereof. And for the new proof which he addeth here of M. Parker's consecration saying it was published in print in his own time without being called in question, it is a manifest untruth. For both D. Harding, D. Saunders, and D. Stapleton besides others (as is evident by their own words before cited towards the end of the chapter before this) even in his own time, and some of them to himself did not only (without any touch of his life) call his consecration in question but absolutely denied it, and that without any reply or disproof made either by himself, or any other in his behalf as is before showed. Therefore if there were any such thing published in print, as M. Mason speaketh of, it went belike either in private amongst friends only who were willing to believe that which they desired to be true, or else was it esteemed to be of small weight or authority, seeing neither M. Parker himself, nor M. jewel, nor M. Horn, though earnestly called upon for some proof of their consecration, did never so much as once mention it; And thus much of M. Parker's consecration, the disproof whereof, is the disproof of the consecrations of all the rest of our English superintendents which as M. Mason saith depend thereupon.   

The fifteenth Chapter. That M. Grindall, M. Horn with the rest preferred to Bishoprics in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign were not true, and lawful Bishops  
1. ALl the defects and inhabilities proved either in Cranmer, the Bishops ordained in K. Edward the 6. his reign, or in M. Parker, are manifestly found in these, of whom there is now question: and therefore if the proofs already produced against thothers hold good, it is a clear case, that these men can neither be true, nor lawful Bishops. Wherefore leaving them marked with these notes (of no Bishops) till they purge themselves, we will in this chapter examine, whether they had not yet some other inability, which thothers had not.  
And first it is evident, that when M. Grindall, M. Horn, and the rest (whose names I will by and by express out of M. Mason) were appointed to be Bishops, all the sees, whereunto they were nominated, were full, being possessed by true, and lawful pastors. Therefore it is clear, that these newly preferred must necessarily be violent intruders, and usurpers, and no lawful Bishops.  
That the sees, whereunto these intendents were nominated, were full and not vacant, it is evident by this table set down by M. Mason.  
Soes Displaced Placed Provinces 

Cant. 

London.  
Winchester.  
Ely.  
Lincoln.  
Cou: and Lichfield.  
Bath and wells.  
Exon.  
Worcester.  
Peterborrowe.  
Asaph.  
York.  
Durham.  
carlil.  
Chester.    
York.   Bonner. Grindall. 
Page 134.  White. Horn. Thurlby. Core. Watson. Bullingham. Bane. Bentham. Bourne. Barkly. Turberuille. Ally. Pates. Sands. Poole. Scambler. Gouldwell. davis. Heath. Young. Tunstall. Pilkinton. Oglethorpe Best. Scot Downhame.  
And that the displaced were lawful Bishops, it is no less evident, neither their consecration, or any thing belonging thereunto, being at any time called in question by any of their adversaries even until this day. It is therefore evident, that these new placed were intruders, and not lawful Bishops.  
2. This consequence, (supposing the displaced to have been lawful Bishops, and not lawfully deposed, the first of which points is not denied, and the second shallbe proved in due place) is both evident in itself, and proved by infinite testimonies of antiquity. Whereof I will only bring one as out of the council of Sardis, whereof I make choice as well for that it is most direct for this purpose, and of irrefragable authority, as for that by the same labour I mean to show, how impertinently it is alleged by M. Mason, in the behalf of those, that in K. Edward time being thrust into Bishops sees, fled always in Q. Mary's time. In whose favour to prove, that they were lawful Bishops of those sees, even in the time of their absence he saith thus.  

Pag. 129.  3. Although the Arian faction prevailing, the council of tire deposed Athanasius, yea and the council of Antioch, in the presence and with the consent of the Emperor, 
Sozo. li. 2. c, 24. Socra li. 2. c. 5.  did institute Gregory in his place, yet the council of Sardica pronounced Athanasius (as also Marcellus, Asclepas, and other Catholic exiled Bishops) to be pure and innocent: And denyet that Gregory the usurper of Alexandria, Bafill of Ancyra, Quintianus of Gaza (which had entered like wolves upon the churches of these men) should be called Bishops. So the council judged the churches to belong to the (Catholic) Bishops, even at such time as they were exiled, 
Note this words Catholic.  and the Arians in possession: And accordingly they deposed Gregory with such like, and restored Athanasius and the rest with honour. Which act they signified in a synodical epistle to the church of Alexandria, in this manner. 
Heretics make not Bishops lawfully. Binnius to 1. Pag 444.  We would have you to know, that Gregory being made Bishop unlawfully by heretics, and brought by them unto your city, is deposed from his Bishopric by the whole synod, although in very deed he was never Bishop, therefore farewell, and receive your Bishop Athanasius. Thus you see that though Athanasius fled away in time of persecution, though he were deposed by a council, and another chosen in his place, with the consent of the Emperor: yet for all this he is judged to be the true Bishop of Alexandria, and Gregory never to have been Bishop thereof. The like is to be said of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, and others, who were persecuted for the Catholic faith, as well as Athanasius. Whersore if you will conform your judgement to the council of Sardica, 
They were not lawfully possessed, no more than Gregory was, whole is declared never to have been Bishop.  you must confess that such as in K. Edward's time were lawfully possessed of bishoprics (though in Q. Mary's time being persecuted in one city they fled into another) did still retain the titles of true Bishops, and that those that invaded their churches were intruders, and usurpers. Thus therefore it appeareth, that as Athanasius and the rest returning from exile, might ordain, and do all such things as belonged to their episcopal office, even so Bishop Barlow, Bishop Coverdall, and the rest returning from exile, might likewise ordain, and justify their proceed in their episcopal function.  
If M. Mason can apply this rightly to that purpose, for which he bringeth it, he shall no doubt gain his cause. For the authority he useth is authentical. But he doth in this as one, that having stolen another man's evidence, and records, produceth them against the right owner, thinking thereby to dispossess him of his inheritance, but in fine the matter being borough to light he is overthrown by the same proofs, which he allegeth for himself. So no doubt will it fall out with M. Mason in this allegation. For I do not think, that any man could have brought any thing more direct, either against those in whose behalf he bringeth it, or for them of whom the question is here to wit Bishop Heath, Thurlby Bonner, and the rest of their fellow confessors deposed by Queen Elyzabeth, whose case in all respects like unto that of S. Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, and their Catholic consorts. And contrariwise the case of Young, Grindall, Horn, with the rest of their crew, whereof I count Barlow, Coverdall, and the rest of K. Edw. Bishops, because their ordination is the same with thothers like to that of Gregory, Bafil, Quintianus and the others intruded by the Arian Emperor Constantius. Yet this disparity there is betwixt the fact of Constantius, displacing Athanasius with the other Catholic Bishops, and intruding Gregory and his fellows into their sees: and the fact of Q. Elizabeth dispossessing Bishop Heath and Bonner with the rest, and thrusting into their places M. Young, Grindall, and others: that Constantius seemed to proceed canonically in this fact, having the colour, and show of the sentence of two Synods, to wit of tire and Antioch, though both heretical assemblies, for the displacing of S. Athanasius; whereas Q. Elizabeth made no difficulty, nor had any scruple to thrust Catholic Bishops out of their sees, and intrude others into their rooms, without all show, or colour of canonical judgement. So that the Arian Emperor Constantius, and the Arian Bishops were much more religious in appearance then Q. Elizabeth, and the Bishops of her creation, seeing they made scruple to commit so unjust and sacrilegious a fact, as to depose Catholic Bishops, and thrust others in their rooms, without show at lest of some Ecclesiastical and canonical judgement, whereof these made no difficulty. And if in defence of Q. Elizabeth's fact it be replied, that she being the head of the church of England, might do that she did of her absolute power, without the judgement, or sentence of any Synod, what shall we say of Constantius his fact? For if Q Elizabeth was head of the church of England, he must necessarily be head of the church of the Empire, and therefore if her fact were justifiable for that reason, his was justifiable for the same, which notwithstanding was condemned by the council. But it is evident, if any thing that is passed be evident, that neither Constantius though an heretic, nor any other Emperor, King, or Prince, before Henry the 8. of England, Father to Q. Elizabeth, did ever challenge, or pretend to be head of the church, or to have any jurisdiction in spiritual causes and matters, Farther than the power to put in execution, the decrees and ordinances of the church. And this very case of the deposition of Athanasius doth sufficiently show thus much of Constantius, who did no more, than put in execution the unjust decrees, of the two heretical assemblies before mentioned, which decrees he would not have expected for the deposition of S. Athanasius, had he esteemed himself head of the church. Farther had he been head of the church, what power could there have remained in the church, to reverse his sentence, which notwithstanding we see done in the council of Sardis.  
4. M. Mason, or some other in his behalf will demand the reasons, why this decree of the council of Sardis for the restitution of S. Athanasius, and the deposition of Gregory the intruder, may not be as fitly applied to prove the restitution of Barlow, Coverdall, and others, together with the creation of Young, Grindall, and their fellows by Q. Elizabeth, and the deposition of Heath, Bonner, and the rest to be, lawful? as we say it may be applied, to prove the deposition of Heath and Bonner, with their fellows, and the intrusion of Young, Grindall, and their company to be unlawful? I answer that the reason hereof is evident. For this decree of the council of Sardis being made, (as M. Mason truly noteth) in the behalf of the Catholic Bishops extruded by the heretical party, who entered as wolves, and were not Bishops, as the council declared, cannot in any show of reason be applied, or wrested, to favour the heretical party in prejudice of the Catholic. True, will M. Mason say: But why should the Bishops put out of their seas by Q. Elizabeth, be esteemed Catholics, rather than those that she put into their places? Marry for the self same reason, for which S. Athanasius and his fellows were esteemed, and were indeed true Catholic Bishops, and their adversaries heretics. And if M. Mason ask what that reason was: I answer, that it was because S. Athanasius, and the rest restored by the council of Sardis, did communicate both in faith and Sacraments, with the whole Catholic church, both present and precedent, as also the Bishops, thrust out of their sees by Q. Elizabeth, are known to have done: whereas their adversaries, to wit, the Arians, made a sect apart not heard of, before Arius revolted from the Catholic church, breaking communion therewith both in faith and Sacraments; as in like sort, the Bishops intruded by Q. Elizabeth, who separated themselves from the unity of the Catholic church, and made a sect apart, never heard of in the world before Luther's revolt, and apostasy. And if M. Mason or any other can bring any thing to prove Barlowe. Young, Grindall, with the rest of their confession to be Catholics, which the Arrian Bihops Gregory, Basil and Quinrianus deposed, and condemned by the council of Sardis, could not with as much, or more show of truth, have brought for themselves; or contrariwise if he can allege any one thing to prove, that S. Athanasius was a Catholic, which may with the same truth be alleged for Bishop Heath, and his fellows, he shall gain his cause in this point. And therefore do I conclude with M. Masons own words against himself in this sort. Wherefore if you will conform your judgement to the council of Sardis, 
Pag. 129.  you must confess that the Bishops deposed by Q. Elizabeth, were the true Bishops of their sees, and those that invaded their churches, were intruders and usurpers.  
5. And this is Farther proved, by the continual practice of the whole church, even from the Apostles themselves, wherein is not to be found one example of so many Bishops deposed, and thrust out of their sees, without the judgement and sentence of a council. It is true that some princes upon unjust indignation, have forced divers holy Bishops to leave their sees, and transport themselves into other countries, as (not going any Farther for examples) William Rufus did by S. Anselme and H●nry the 2. by S. Thomas, yet did they forbear to put any others into their places, so long as their cause was not judged by ecclesiastical sentence. And if any be found to have proceeded further, to the injust intrusion of some one, into the place of another unjustly deposed, without a synodical sentence yet none was ever found, to have proceeded in that sort against all the Bishops of a whole realm, but Q. Elizabeth, the first woman head of the church, that ever was in the world. And therefore no doubt, but if the case of the deposed should be examined, by a Synod of lawful Bishops (to whom the hearing, and determining thereof doth only pertain) they would be judged to have been the true Bishops of those sees, and thothers to be intruders, and usurpres, not entering into the fold of Christ by the door of canonical election, and consecration, but climbing up an other way by the power, and force of the secular Prince, and therefore could not be true pastors, but thieves and robbers, as our saviour himself testifieth of them. 
joh. 10.1.   
6. M. Mason, notwithstanding to justify these men M. Young, Grindall, and the rest of intrusion, inditeth the deposed (after so many years that they are in the other world) of three things, whereof their greatest adversaries never accused them, in their life time, when they might have answered for themselves: So pious he is towards the departed, of whom (according to the common saying) we aught to say nothing but well. How well (saith he) they Bishop Bonner, 
Page 101.  White, and the rest before mentioned) deserved at the Queen's hands, may appear by their behaviour in three points; concerning the coronation, disputation, and excommunication. In the two first, they refused to be actors, and for the third, they consulted whether they should excommunicate the Qweene, or no.  
Of these three things M. Mason (thinking to found therein some colourable matter to justify the unjust deposition of those venerable Pastors, and the intrusion of the new intendents, maketh a large dispute, which I intent not here to repair, but will make in brief this answer. First none of all these three points was objected against them as any cause, or occasion of their deposition, which doubtless would not have been omitted by their adversaries, if they had been thought material for that purpose. Secondly it is false, that all the deposed were culpable of these things (supposing they were faults) Owen Oglethorpe Bishop of carlil, neither consenting to excommunicate the Queen, not yet refusing to crown her, for as M. Mason saith and all men know he set the crown upon her head, whom notwithstanding she deposed, for continuing in his Catholic religion, and refusing the oath of supremacy, as M. Mason himself testifieth in express words, 
Pag. 125.  which indeed was the only cause of all their deposition, as we shall see by and by.  
Thirdly suppose, that all M. Mason saith concerning these points were true, 
Ambro. li. 2. epist. 13. Ruffinus li. 2 hist.  (as it is not) yet should they not therefore have deserved deposition. For neither S. Ambrose, nor Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople were yet ever so censured by any, though the first, both refused disputation with the Arrians for the like reasons, 
Theodor. Anagnostes li. 2. coll histor. acclesiastic.  for which those Catholic Bishops did refuse to proceed in the disputations appointed with such unequal conditions as were prescribed and also did excommunicate the Emperor Theodosius indeed, and not only in consultation. And the second refused to acknowledge Anastasius for Emperor, but called him heretic, and unworthy to rule over Christians, till he gave him a protestation in writing to embrace the doctrine of the council of Chalcedon.  
Fourthly, the only true cause of their deposition, being the profession of the Catholic Roman faith, and their refusal to swear that the Queen was supreme head of the church, 
Pag. 1082. impression 1605.  as not only , but also Stow affirmeth, yea and M. Mason himself confesseth both in Bishop Oglethorpe, as we have already seen, and in all the rest, in this title. 
Pag. 113.  Of the oath of the prince's supremacy, for denying whereof the old Bishops were deprived, he doth ignorantly and impertinently multiply so many words in these other points, which appertain nothing to the purpose he goeth about: which is to justify the deposition of Bishop Heath, Bonner, and the rest, that thereby he may make way, for the lawful entry of the intruded.  
7. This controversy therefore standeth in this only point, whether the Queen and her council, could lawfully depose those Bishops for refusing to swear, that she was head of the church or no? For if they were not lawfully deposed; it will necessarily follow that those, who were put into their sees, were manifest intruders, and therefore no lawful Bishop, and that they were not lawfully deposed, belongeth to me to prove against M. Mason, in proof whereof I will use this only argument.  

Not judicial action is of validity where the agent hath no austority With M. Mason pa. 107.  No sentence or judgement can be lawful, but where the judge hath lawful and competent power, both over the cause and persons judged. But the Queen, and her council (whether they be taken jointly or severally) had no lawful and competent power over these Bishops, and the cause for which they were judged by them. Therefore their sentence and judgement of deposition pronounced against them could not be lawful.  
In this whole argument there is nothing that needeth proof, but only the second proposition, which I will make good both by divine, and human authority, supposing first, that which is evident and cannot be denied, to wit, that the parties judged were Bishops, the cause a point, or article of faith and religion, and that the judges were lay, or secular persons. This being presupposed I say thus.  
Those, who are appointed, and authorized by God, to teach unto others all matters of faith, and religion, cannot in the same matters of faith and religion be subject to their judgement, who are bound to hear and learn the same of them: for otherways the scholar should be above his master even in that, wherein he is his master, contrary both to the light of reason, and the express doctrine of our Saviour Christ. But the Bishops, and Pastors of God's church are appointed, 
Math. 10.24  and authorized by him, to teach all temporal men, as well the highest Princes, as the meanest people, all matters of faith, and religion. Terfore the Bishops, and Pastors of God's church cannot be subject to temporal men's judgement, (though they be princes) in matters of faith, and religion: And consequently temporal Princes cannot have authority, or power to judge them therein. Whence it is evidently concluded, that the Qeeene and her council, being secular, or lay persons had not, nor could have any lawful and competent power, over these Bishops in the cause judged by them. I add of purpose these words (in matters of faith and religion) because I will not enter here into that other question, whether ecclesiastical persons are exempted in all causes, from the judgement of the secular court, or tribunal, because this question is nothing necessary for the determination of the controversy here proposed.  
The first proposition of this argument, being of itself clear to all men of any understanding, and the conclusion following directly of the premises, there remaineth only the second proposition, which may seem to have need of proof. Notwithstanding in proving this, will I also prove tother, for the fuller satisfaction of those, that may have any doubt thereof. That Bishops therefore and Pastors are authorized by God, to teach all men their faith, and belief, which is the proposition chiefly to be proved, it is evident by the testimony of our Saviour himself, saying: All power is given me in heaven, 
Math. 28, 19.20.  and in earth; Going therefore teach ye all nations: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: And behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world. Which last words do show, that this power to teach all men all matters necessary for their salvation, was not meant to the Apostles only, to whom our Saviour then spoke (because they were not to continued till the world's end) but also to all such, as should succeed them in the function of Pastors, as Bishops do.  
The same proposition together with tother, that Bishops cannot be judged in matters of religion by secular persons, is as evidently proved by the testimony likewise of our Saviour himself, saying to those whom he sent to preach. He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me. 
Luke 10.16.  He therefore (may we say in the person of Christ) that judgeth you, judgeth me; which is true at lest in matters of faith and religion, wherein he hath ordained them preachers and teachers.  
The same is yet more clearly convinced out of the doctrine of S. Paul, saying. Obey your prelate's, and be subject unto them. 
Hebr. 13.17.  For they watch as being to tender account for your souls. For it is evident, that our prelate's, and pastors cannot be subject to us, and to our power in those things, wherein we are by God's ordinance subject unto them, and they have charge over us (no more than the sun being above the moon can also be under it) but we are subject to our prelate's, in matters pertaining to our souls, in such sort, as they are to give an account thereof, as S. Paul testifieth; And therefore they cannot be subject unto us, not judged by us therein.  

Act. 20.  Farther, God hath appointed Bishops to govern his church, which he purchased with his blood, as witnesseth S. Paul, how therefore can they be commanded, or judged by them, who are or aught to be members of the same church, whereof they have the government by Gods own appointment?  
To these few but firm testimonies of divine authority, I will according to my promise add one or two human, not to add force to the former, but to declare, what hath been the sense of the greatest judgements, of former ages in this point.  
Constantine the great, the glory of our country, worthily honoured for many memorable deeds, and sayings, who had as great right to all power pertaining to temporal princes, as any other whatsoever, was so far from challenging jurisdiction over Bishops, in matters of faith and religion, that he disclaimed from all power, to judge of their private complaints made one against another, 
Buff. l. 1. ca 2  saying; God hath made you priests, and hath given you power to judge us, and therefore are we rightly judged by you. But you cannot be judged by men, wherefore expect the judgement of God only, and reserve your complaints to his divine examination. For you are given to us by God as Gods, and it is not convenient that man judge Gods, but he alone of whom it is written, God stood in the Synagogue of Gods.  

Sozomon. l. 6 c. 7. Epist. ad synod. Ephesin. Bui. to. 1. pag. 732  And Valentinian the first. It is not granted to me being a lay man to attribute unto myself these judgements.  
Theodosius also the younger together with Valentinian. It is not lawful for him that is no Bishop, to meddle with the decision, or judgement of ecclesiastical matters.  
These great Monarches, who knew as well as any others, what pertained to their right, were far from judging their prelate's, and pastors in matters of religion; and much farther from challenging unto themselves, the headship of God's church. But seeing they disclaim from this power, let us see whether peradventure the pastors of the church in those times did attribute it unto them. 
Epist. ad Constantium apud Athanas. Epis. ad ●oli. vit. ag. Epist. ad solit. vit. agentes. Ibidem.  Certes no such thing, but quite the contrary. It is not lawful for us (saith the great Hosius of Corduba to Constantius Emperor) to hold the Empire upon earth, nor for you to take into your hands the censer, and usurp authority in religion. And S. Athanasius the glory of pastors. When was it heard from the memory of man, that Ecclesiastical judgement? had their force from the Emperor? And again The question is not of the affairs of the Roman commonwealth, where you have power as Emperor. But the question is of a Bishop. And yet again. 
Ibid.  Who seeing the Emperor precedent, in counsel of Ecclesiastical matters, will not judge, that it is the abomination of desolation foretold by Daniel? S. Gregory Nazianzen some what behind them in time, but of equal authority. 
Orat adciues rim perculsos & princip. irascontem.  Will you hear (O Precedent) a free speech? the law of Christ hath made you subject to my jurisdiction, and to my tribunal; for we have also an Empire, yea a greater, and more perfect than that of yours, unless it be fit to subject the soul to the body and heavenly things to earthly. And S. Ambrose the most ancient of the four doctors of the west church. 
Epist. 13. ad Valenti. juniorem.  Who will deny if we look either into the holy scripture, or antiquity, but that Bishops are accustomed to judge Christian Emperors in matters of faith and not Emperors to judge Bishops? Again. Your father said it appertaineth not to me to judge between Bishops, and your clemency saith, I aught to judge. And yet again: when did you ever hear most gracious Emperor that in matters of faith lay men judged Bishops? And his Majesty our dread sovereign doth testify the same truth in these express words. It is true, 
In his declaration against Cardi. du Perron pag. 70. impression of Paris.  that the Emperors did never avow themselves to be sovereign judges, in matter of faith and doctrine. And a little after. I confess that it is a point of divinity, to judge how far the power of the keys reacheth: and that clergy may, and aught to use their censures against those princes, that make war against jesus Christ, without making the laity judges thereof.  
Thus we see it most clear, both by divine and human, Ecclesiastical, Imperial, and Regal authority, that secular persons, be they princes or others, can have no jurisdiction, or power over Bishops, in matters of faith and religion. Neither is the contrary maintained by any of the pretended reformation, our parliament prelate's only excepted: who as the have no other origen, or beginning, but the temporal power of the prince, so can they expect no other uphold but from the same. And therefore do they, not for the princes right, but for their own interest, labour to maintain that Paradox of the supreme authority of temporal princes, in spiritual or Ecclesiastical causes, which is odious and contemned, even by their own reformed brethren, as appeareth by Caluin himself, who calleth it blasphemy and sacrilege. 
Amos 7.13.  And the Centurists say of the civil Magistrates. 
Praefat. centur. 7. pag 11 ante medium. Epist. ad electorem Brandeburg.  Non sunt capita ecelesiae quia ipsis non competit iste primatu●: that is, they are not heads of the church, for this primacy belongeth not to them. And Chemnitius saith of Q. Elizabeth. Famineo & a saeculis ina●dito fastu, se Papissam & caput ecclesiae fecit. She made herself Pope, and head of the church, by a womanish and unheard of pride.  
6. Now for the preventing, and satisfying of all such arguments, as usually are brought either against this evident truth, or for proof of the contrary, I would have thee (judicious reader) diligently to observe, that temporal princes have power to make laws for the conservation, and increase of Catholic religion, and for the suppression, and extirpation of all sort of infidelity, whether it be heresy, judaisme, or Paganism yea this is their greatest honour, and the chiefest reason, for which they are endued with the sovereign power of the sword, 
Esay 49.23.  and for this are they called in the holy scripture nourishers, or nurses of the church. But, what is truth in all points of faith and religion, wherein question may be moved, they are to learn of their Pastors, and Prelates, to whom God hath given commission, and authority to teach all men all things necessary for their salvation; 
Math. 28.20  I say they are to learn this of them, and not to teach it unto them: yet having learned it, the are bound not only to believe it themselves, but also to maintain, and defend it by the power of their sceptre, against all invasions of heresy, or other falsity whatsoever. By which only observation are answered all the arguments drawn, either from the facts of Kings, as well in the jewish, as Christian church, interposing their authority in Ecclesiastical, or spiritual matters (I speak only of approved facts) or from the counsels, and fathers soliciting, or moving them thereunto. For no King either of the one, or other church hath (with approbation and allowance) ever attempted any thing in matter of religion, contrary and repugnant to the judgement of the Pastors, and Prelates of the universal church then militant upon earth, which is the only faithful keeper, and infallible interpreter of God's law, in matters pertaining to men's salvation; and therefore is called by S. Paul the house of the living God, 
1. ad Timoth.  the pillar and ground of truth. And that temporal Princes have no other power, or jurisdiction, in matters of religion than this, M. Mason is forced to grant.  

Pag. 113.  7. For having alleged for the proof of the Prince's supremacy in spiritual causes: that Gratian the Emperor made a law against the Arrians, commanding them like wild beasts, to be driven from the churches, and the places to be restored to good Pastors, committing the execution thereof to Sapor as captain: and inferring thereupon, that Q. Elizabeth might with more reason do the like, because of the necessity, and want of good Bishops, whereof there were plenty in his time. He objecteth to himself: that Gratian having the determination of synods, condemning the Arrians, he might lawfully make such a law, and commit the execution thereof to his captain.  
To which objection what answer maketh he, think you? Marry that Q Elizabeth had also for her supremacy, the determination of a Synod of Bishops whereof Bishop Fisher was one, which synod gave to K. Henry the title of supreme head, of the church of England, which was renewed in another Synod two years after. And two years after that, the two universities delivered their judgement. That the Pope had no more to do in England by the law of God, than any other Bishop.  
In which answer is first to be noted, the grant of that, which the objection intendeth, to wit, that the Queen without the determination of a Synod, could not make any law concerning matter of religion: whence it evidently followeth, that all the laws made in her reign, in prejudice of the Catholic Roman faith, are unjust, as not proceeding from true, and lawful authority, no Synod having determined any such laws to be either good or lawful.  
secondly, for as much as concerneth this particular point of supremacy, whereof the present question is: the Synods whereof he speaketh, are not extant, but th'one in a manuscript as he saith, and tother 〈◊〉 where. But let it be, that there was such a synodical determination, as he speaketh of, of what authority could it be? Surely of none at all. For first the same parties, that consented to that determination in King Henry's time, recalled and disavowed their own fact in Q. Mary's reign, as M. Mason himself confesseth: yea Bishop Fisher, (whom he fraudulently here nameth as not dissenting from that decree) is known to all the world, to have died for the defence of the contrary. And though he never consented to the new title of the King's supremacy, yet having once said, 
Saunders d● schismate li. ●  that he would grant it so far, as it was agreeable with holy scriptures, did penance all his life after, for that fearful speech, knowing and confessing that he being a Bishop, and therefore bound to instruct others, as having charge over their souls, should not have spoken in that doubtful manner, but should have said, that it was wholly repugnant to holy scriptures, that others might thereby have been kept from error.  
furthermore, what authority can a synod of the Bishops of one only nation have, being assembled by the commandment of their own King within his own dominions, in a matter most earnestly affected, and pursued by him: what authority I say, can such a synod have against the judgement of all the whole world besides? First this synod if it be to be called so, was no lawful or general council, as the weight and moment of that matter would have required. Secondly, it was no free council, as appeareth as well by the circumstances already mentioned, as by the changing of their opinions afterwards, which only consideration (of want of freedom) is sufficient to make it of none authority, as it did that great council of Arriminum, which after the threats of the Arrian Emperor Constantius, was never holden to be free council, nor the decrees therefore of any force. Therefore (to apply all that which hath hitherto been said to the matter now in question) if there had been any just cause of deposition probably suspected in Bishop Heath, and the rest, why was not their cause committed to the examination of the rest of the Bishops of the church, as the custom grounded upon manifest reason, and equity hath ever been, in cases of difference between Bishops and their own Prince? In which case if they had been found culpable, their deposition had been justifiable to all the world. But they were well known to be without all fault worthy of deposition, nor could in any equal, or cempetent judgement, have been found guilty of any crime deserving it: Therefore their deposition being already decreed, to make room for those that were to be intruded, it was necessary they should be judged by such, as would assuredly found them guilty, though they were never so innocent.  
The case of these venerable Prelates being thus, as hath been mentioned, Let any indifferent man judge, whether their deposition was just, or not, and consequently, whether those, that were thrust into their rooms, were lawfully invested therein.  
M. Mason from the page 106. to the page 113. laboureth to justify the deposition of these Bishops by the example of Abiathar deposed by Solomon. His argument in brief is this. Solomon deposed Abiathar high Priest, and put another in his place.  
Therefore Queen Elizabeth might do the like by the Bishops of her kingdom. I answer that though we should suppose, 
3. Reg. 2.26.  first that the fact of Solomon was just and lawful which is not evident. Secondly that he did depose Abiathar as King and not as a Prophet, by special revelation or warrant which is uncertame. Thirdly, that the Priests and Priesthood of the old and new law are of equal dignity and privilege, which with all true Christians is evidently false. Though (I say) we should suppose all these things, yet is this argument altogether impertinent for M. Masons purpose. For abiather's case was altogether different from that of the Catholic Bishops, of whom the question is here: his case being merely temporal, to wit the conspiring against Solomon in behalf of his brother Adonias, which had it not been in the person of a Priest, should without all controversy have belonged to the trial of the temporal tribunal, whereas theirs was a case of faith and religion, which though it had not been in the persons of Priests, yet could it not have been judged by the temporal Magistrate, as is already showed both by divine and human, Ecclesiastical and temporal, imperial and regal authority. Most impertinently therefore is this fact of Solomon deposing Abiathar, alleged for the justification of that of Queen Elizabeth deposing the Catholic Bishops.  
After this argument of abiather's deposition, M. Mason putteth great force, he sweateth hard in justifying the oath of supremacy, for refusal whereof he confesseth the old Bishops to have been deposed. And for answer (besides that which hath been already said in this chapter for proof of the contrary) I will remit the reader to the last chapter of this treatise, where he shall found how opposite the oath of supremacy is to the Protestants own doctrine, and therefore needeth no other refutation by the Catholic party.   

The sixteenth Chapter. Of the oath of the Prince's supremacy, for denying whereof the old Bishops were deprived.  
1. THIS is the title of the third chapter of M. Masons; book. Where first is to be noted, the true cause of the deprivation of the Bishops to have been the refusal to swear, that the Queen was supreme had of the church of England in spiritual causes. And therefore the; other points objected against them by M. Mason, and already rejected, are mere impertinencies of his own. secondly, that here I am only to answer the arguments, that M. Mason bringeth for the proof of this supremacy, and not to prove the contrary, which is already performed in the precedent chapter. To come therefore to the point, M. Mason having in the beginning of this chapter alleged, for the proof of the Queen's supremacy in spiritual causes, that Marcian, justinian, Theodosius, and Gratian Emperors made laws pertaining to Ecclesiastical affairs, and frustrated the same allegation by saying, that these Princes followed therein the determination of Synods, which he would have to be true also in Q. Elizabeth, as we have seen and refuted before. 
Apol. cap. 1.  he cometh to cite these word out of Card. Alen. was there ever any King or Queen, Christian or heathen, Catholic or heretic in all the world beside, before our age, that did practice, challenge, or accept of the title of supremacy? Whereunto he maketh this answer Look into the godly Kings of juda; 
Pag. 114.  look into the proceed of Christian Emperors, Constantine, Gratian, Theodosius, and such like, look into the laws of Charles, and Lodowick: and you shall see, that they practised as much, as ever we ascribed to the Queen in this oath.  
But first M. Mason bringeth no one fact of any one of all these, proving the practice of this supremacy, which was very necessary he should have done. Secondly, by this answer, if he will stand thereunto, it willbe very easy to convince him either of treason, against the Queen if she were living and her laws, or of manifest falsi y. For if he say, that by the oath of supremacy, he ascribeth to the Queen no other power than that, which these Emperors practised, he shall by the laws of England be guilty of high treason; they having never practised any other power in ecclesiastical affairs, then that which standeth well with the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, which M. Mason is bound by the laws of England, 
In the oath of supremacy and the statute made for the resusull of the same anno. 1. Eli.  under the pain of high treason to abjure. If he ascribe unto her by the oath, any other power than that may stand with the Pope's supremacy, then is that false, which he here affirmeth, to wit, that by the oath of supremacy, they ascribe no other power to the Queen, than these Emperors practised. The testimonies before alleged out of Constantine, and Theodosius own mouths, as they are faithfully related by authentical authors, do prove for their parts, that they never practised any power, which did not stand well with the Pope's supremacy. And as for Gratian, M. Mason himself confesseth, that in making laws pertaining to ecclesiastical matters, he followed the determination of Synods, and therefore did not take upon him supreme judgement therein. Charles the great is so far from the practice of supreme power of the church, that he allegeth and approveth the examples, and sayings of Constantine, and of Valentinian Emperors for the contrary, saying. 
Capitularies Caroli Mag. l. 6. cap. 301.  Constantine answered that it was not lawful for him, to judge the causes of Bishops. Again. Valentinian (saith he) answered, your cause is above us, and therefore judge your causes amongst yourselves, for you are above us. Now if M. Mason do give to Bishops this power above the Queen, that these Emperors do, he shallbe a traitor by the laws of England, which give to the Queen, supreme power in all causes. If he do not, then is it false to say, that he ascribeth no other power to Queen Elizabeth, than these Emperors practised: Let him take whether part he william. But he goeth on;  
2. When the Council of Ephesus, by the packing of Dioscorus had allowed the cursed opinion of Eutiches, and deposed Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, Pope Leo upon this occasion wrote thus unto the Emperor Theodosius. Behold most Christian and reverend Emperor, I, with the rest of my fellow Bishops make supplication unto you, that all things may stand in the same state, in which they were before these judgements, until a greater number of Bishops may be gathered out of the whole world. Who made this supplication? Pope Leo an holy, and learned Pope. To whom? To the Emperor Theodosius. For what? that all things might stand in their former state. What things meaneth he? The highest mysteries of religion, concerning the natures and person of Christ. But what is it to stand in the former state? That is might be lawful for all men, so to judge and speak of these holy mysteries, as they did before the springing up of the Eutychian heresy: for than they held the truth according to the apostolic faith. And this he beseecheth the Emperor to command, notwithstanding the contrary determination of the council of Ephesus.  
Here is a great deal of Cry, but to little purpose S. Leo entreateth the Emperor Theodosius, that notwithstanding the violent judgement, of the heretical assembly holden at Ephesus, whereby the Catholic faith was evidently impugned, and the Eutychian heresy approved, he would command that all things should remain in the same state, they were before that wicked judgement. Therefore (inferreth M. Mason) hath the Emperor authority to command what to judge: and speak in the highest mysteries of religion, concerning the person and natures of Christ. A strange illation. If Clement the seventh had written in the same terms to Henry the 8. concerning the title of supreme head of the church, given him by the Synod of Bishops mentioned before by M. Mason (as doubtless he would have done, if he had had the like occasion to hope, that he would have harkened to his request, as S. Leo had of Theodosius) M. Mason would not for all that (I suppose) infer thereupon, that Pope Clement esteemed King Henry to have authority to command, what should be judged, and spoken of that matter. Certes S. Leo his words import no more, but that the Emperor would not in any sort favour, or strengthen the wicked decree of Dioscorus and his complices, and thereby make himself partaker of their sin (as he saith) knowing right well (as none of common sense can be ignorant) how much force the favour of the Prince hath, for maintaining either of the Catholic truth, or for the bolstering of the contrary, though he have not any deciding power therein. And that S. Leo did not ascribe unto the Emperor any decisive, much less supreme power in that matter, it is manifest by the same epistle. For first he requesteth a suspension, of the decree of the false Ephesine council, only until a greater number of Bishops through the whole church, should be called together in council, that might determine that controversy: whereby it is more than manifest, that S. Leo attributed the power to judge that matter, to the pastors of the church, and not to the Emperor.  
Secondly Flavianus who was wrongfully deposed by the packing of Lioscorus (as M. Mason well saith) appealing from that sentence, delivered his appeal into the hands of the Pope's Legates, as to the Lieutenants of his supreme judge, and did not address himself to the Emperor, which he would not have omitted, if he had esteemed him supreme judge in his cause.  
Thirdly Theodosius himself disclaimeth not only from supreme power in Ecclesiastical matters, but from all power therein, saying: It is not lawful for me being no Bishop, to meddle with the decision, 
Epist. ad Synod. Ephesin.  or judgement of Ecclesiastical matters.  
And here I will put M. Mason in mind of one thing, which he noteth well against his own heresy, which is, that as before the springing up of the Eutychian heresy, all men held the truth of ou● saviours two distinct natures in one person, so also before the springing up of the Lutheran heresy, all men held the truth in all those points, wherein he and his differeth from the same: and consequently as Euthices was to be called back to that faith, which was in the church before his heresy sprang up, so are likewise the Lutherans, and all their progeny. But he proveth by another epistle of S. Leo to Marcian the Emperor's supremacy. S. Leo saith thus.  
3. The second council of Ephesus, which apparently subverted the faith. 
Leo epist. 43.  cannot rightly be called a council, which your highness for love to the truth, will make void by your decree to the contrary, most glorious Emperor. I therefore earnestly request, and beseech your majesty by our lord jesus-christ, 
Mark here the authority of traditions fathers, and counsels.  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 preached, being delivered unto them from the Apostles, neither permit such things, as have been long since condemned by them, to be freshly revived again, but that you will rather command, that the constitutions of the ancient council of Nice may stand in force, the interpretation of heretics being removed. Thus far S. Leo, as M. Mason relateth his words. Whereupon he saith. Here the Pope ascribeth to the Emperor power to ratify, and establish those councils, that they call not the truth of God in question. Which the Emperor Marcians preactised, entering the council of Chalcedon in his own person, and forbidding the Bishops to avouch any thing, concerning the birth of our Saviour, otherwise then was contained in the Nicene creed. Moreover when the council of Chalcedon was concluded, 
Leo epist. 59  Pope Leo wrote thus again to the Emperor. Because I must by all means obey your piety, and most religious will, I have willingly given my consenting sentence to these Synodical constitutions, which concerning the confirmation of the Catholic faith, and condemnation of heretics pleased me very well. The Emperor required the Pope to subscribe, and he did so cheerfully, protesting that for his part, he must by all means obey the Princes will in these cases. Now tell me, whether the Pope did not acknowledge the Emperor, and the Emperor show himself to be supreme Governor over all persons, even in causes ecclesiastical?  
Neither th'one nor tother can be probably gathered, much less clearly proved out of these testimonies. For the first is only a fatherly, or pastorlie admonition to the Emperor, exhorting him in sweet manner to maintain the decrees, of the pastors of God's church, which as a Catholic Prince he was bound to do, and which he practised precisely, according to the Pope's direction, and not as having supreme power therein, forbidding that any thing should be affirmed, of the birth of our Saviour Christ, otherwise then was contained in the Nicene council, and in the epistle of the most holy Bishop of Rome S. Leo unto Flavianus: 
Concil. Chalcedon. apud Bin. to. 2. pag. 4.  which latter words M. Mason maliciously leaveth out, lest the reader should see, what respect the Emperor bore unto the Bishop of Rome, proposing his doctrine to the council, as a rule of truth.  
The second allegation is as little to the purpose: for these words because I must by all means obey your piety, and religious will (wherein consisteth the force of M. Mason's illation) do not import any bond, or obligation of duty, which the Pope had to the Emperor in that matter, as an inferior to his superior, but a prompt and ready fulfilling of his reasonable, and religious request, as evidently appeareth by the Epistle following, written at the same time, and of the same matter to Pulcheria the Empress, where the Pope writeth thus. And for as much as the most Godly Emperor would, that I should writ to all the Bishops, that were present in the council of Chalcedon, whereby I might confirm the things, that were defined there touching the rule of faith, I willingly performed it: lest the crafty dissimulation of some should make my judgement doubtful. Where M. Mason may see, that the Emperor did not desire the Pope, to subscribe to the council, as other Bishops had done, but to confirm that, which they had decreed, neither did he command him to do it, but willed him only, as a thing profitable, and convenient, to make clear his opinion in those points, which some craftily would have called into doubt, as the Pope himself in the former words declareth. Whereby it evidently appeareth, of what force the judgement of the see apostolic was then, for the deciding of controversies in faith.  
But if M. Mason stand yet in doubt of S. Leo his judgement in this point of supremacy, let him take the pains to read (amongst others of his epistles written in the cause of Eutiches) his 7. epistle to Theodosius Emperor, where he shall see, that he esteemeth himself, (as Bishop of the see apostolic) to be supreme judge in matters pertaining to faith, and religion, which he also showeth plainly in the epistle immediately following.  
4. As the Emporour Marcian (saith M Mason) did practise this supremacy, so the Emperor Basill did challenge the title, 
Concil. 8. act. 1. Bin. to. 3. Pag 880.  when he said in the council of Constantinople: that the government of the universal Ecclesiastical-ship, was committed unto him by the divine providence.  
But because Surius readeth this sentence in the person of Basill, thus: When the divine, and most benign providence had committed unto us the government of the universal ship. And Binnius thus: The divine and gracious providence of God, committing unto you (the Bishops) the government of the ecclesiastical ship: out of neither of which readings he cannot draw any argument for his purpose, he saith, that neither of them read it truly: th'one leaving out the word (ecclesiastical) and tother putting in (you) for (us) so that he would have it read thus. The divine providence of God having committed unto us, the government of the universal ecclesiastical ship. Whereby (saith he) it is evident, that the Emperor Basill did challenge the government of the universallship, both ecclesiastical and civil, and that in a general council, no man resisting him. What doth this differ from supreme governor, as it is used in the church of England?  
But first who would not rather think, that M. Mason corrupteth the reading, either putting in the word (ecclesiastical) or changing the word (you) into (us) seeing he citeth no copy, or author for this reading, whereas either of the other readings hath at lest one grave author. He bringeth some conjectures for the proof of his reading, which prove nothing at all. But because I will not bestow many words in this matter, I will give him that which he cannot prove, and will suppose his reading to be true: and yet if he dare stand to the judgement of the Emperor Basill, will evicte my cause against him, or else I willbe content to lose it for ever. Neither will I repeat all he saith to this purpose in the whole 8. general council, for that would be over tedious, I will therefore relate only a few periods of his speech, made in the end of the council. Where first he avoucheth in express words, 
Binn. to. 3. Pag 861.  that to lay men it is not granted by the rule of the church, to speak any thing at all (in council or by way of judgement) in ecclesiastical matters, which (saith he) is the work of Bishops, and priests. And after his speech to the Bishops, he saith thus to the nobility, with the rest of the laity.  
But as concerning you, that are of the late sort, as well you that bear offices, as private persons, I have no more to say, but that it is not lawful for you by any means, to move talk of ecclesiastical matters, neither to resist in any point the integrity of the church or the universal Synod. For to search and seek out these matters, belongeth to patriarchs, Bishops, and Priests, which are governors by office: who have power to sanctify, to bind, and to lose: who have the keys of heaven, and of the church. It belongeth not unto us, who aught to be fed, who have need to be sanctified, to be bound, and to be loosed from bonds. For of whatsoever religion, or wisdom the lay man be, yea though endued with all internal virtues, so long as he is a lay man, he shall not cease to be called a sheep. Again a Bishop howsoever unvenged he be, and naked of all virtue, so long as he is a Bishop, and preacheth duly the word of truth, he suffereth not the loss of his Pastoral vocation, and dignity. What then have we to do being yet sheep? The Pastors have power to discuss the subtlety of words, and to seek and found out such things as are above us. We must therefore in fear, and sincere faith hearken unto them, and reverence their contenances, as being the ministers of almighty God, and bearing his form: and not seek any more than that, which belongeth to our degree and vocation. Thus far the Emperor Basill.  
And now dare I remit the matter to M. Masons own judgement, whether this Emperor challenged unto himself, the supremacy in ecclesiastical causes, as he would have him, upon an argument patched together of divers pieces, as we have seen before. But peradventure he was persuaded to use this argument, by the authority of Tortura Torti, to whom in the margin he referreth the reader with this note: vide Torturam Torti pag. 349. Where indeed he hath it, but with how small reason, may appear by that, which is already said.  
5. As Basill (saith M. Mason) did challenge this government, no man resisting him, so sundry Synods have given the like to Princes refusing it. There was a council holden at Mentz ie Germany, the year 814. in the time of the Emperor Charles the great, and Pope Leo the third, the Synodical acts whereof Bennius professeth to have compared with a manuscript sent him out of the emperors library at Vienna. Now the Bishops assembled in this Synod began thus: In the name of the Father, of the son, and of the holy ghost. To the most glorious and most Christian Emperor, Carolus Augustus governor of the true religion, and defender of the holy church of God etc. And a little after. We give thanks to God the Father almighty, because he hath granted to his holy church, a governor so Godly etc. And again. About all these points we greatly need your aid, and sound doctrine, which may both admonish us continually, and instruct ut courteously, so far, that such things, which we have briefly touched beneath in a few chapters, may receive strength from your authority, if so be, that your piety shall so judge it worthy, whatsoever is found in them worthy to be amended, let your magnificent, and imperial dignity command it to be amended.  
In the years 847. there was holden another Synod at Mentz, 
Binn to. 3. Pag. 631.  in the time of Leo the 4. and Lotharius the Emperor, where the Bishops in like manner. 
Binn. tom. 2. Pag. 1183.  To our most gracious Lord and Christian King Lodowick, the most puissant governor of true religion. The like was ascribed to King Recesuinthus, in a council holden at Emerita in Portugal, about the year 705. in these words. Whose vigilance doth govern both secular things with greatest piety, and Ecclesiastical by his wisdom plentifully given him by God. So they acknowledged him governor both in causes secular, and Ecclesiastical. 
Garsias in notis in Concilium Emeritan  This council of Emerita received much strength, and authority from Pope Innocent the 3. in his epistle to Peter Archb: of Compostella, as witnesseth Garsias Thus you see most famous Bishops assembled in Synods have given unto Pri●es, such titles as are equivalent to the stile annexed, to the Imperial crown of his kingdom.  
It is more than false, that ever any Synod gave to any temporal Prince, any title equivalent to supreme head, or governor of the church, in all causes aswell Spiritual or ecclesiastical, as temporal. Which is now unlawfully, and sacrilegiously annexed to the crown of England Neither do these authorities alleged import any such thing.  
For omitting that these Synods here alleged were neither general, nor with in the first Four, Five, or Six hundredth years after Christ (which conditions the Protestants exact in our proofs, and therefore by the law of equity aught to be tied thereunto themselves) they give unto the Emperors no other titles, than rectors of religion, which with due proportion may be given unto men of far meaner condition, and degree, as to Church wardens, officials, and the like, who may be called rectors of religion, (that is of matters pertaining to religion) in their degree. Emperors and Princes are in very deed governors of religion in the highest degree, that any secular or lay persons can be, that is, to command that the decrees, and ordinances of their pastors, and prelate's be observed, and to punish the transgressors thereof, and the like, but that they have any power, or authority to determine, judge, or decide any thing in ecclesiastical matters of themselves, without the sentence of the ecclesiastical judges, to wit the Bishops, and prelate's of God's church, is a mere paradox, novelty, and heresy, never taught, or practised in the Christian world before Henry the 8. of England. And this is irreproovably convinced by the testimonies, both of holy scripture, Fathers, and Emperors, of the first Four, and Five hundredth years before alleged, which M. Mason wittingly dissembleth, because they can receive no answer, as his majesties words before related evidently show: yea these very counsels of Mentz, which seem most to favour his purpose▪ do expressly teach the contrary, not in the epistle or preface to the Emperor, where a precise form of words is not always observed, but in the Canon itself, whence the sense of all counsels is to be taken. The first Maguntine council here cited by M. Mason hath this Canon. 
Can. 8,  We will that Bishops have power to provide, rule, govern and dispose of Ecclesiastical things, according to the authority of Canons: and that the laity in their offices obey the Bishops, to the government of the churches, defence of widows, and orphans: and that they be obedient unto them, to the conservation of their Christianity. Which Canon is repeated word by word, in the second council of Mentz here cited, but there it is in the seventh place.  
Now let M. Mason himself judge, whether these counsels gave, or intended to give to the Emperor, the title of supreme head, or governor of the church in Ecclesiastical causes.  
That which he bringeth of the council of Emerita, is altogether impertinent. For it is not denied, that Kings may govern Ecclesiastical affairs, in their rank and order, that is under their Pastors, and Prelates, and by their direction (as persons of meaner quality do) for which this King is commended by the council. But it is denied, that Kings have supreme power, and government in Ecclesiastical causes. And this doth the same council teach in these words. 
Concil. Emerit. can. 17. Bin. tom. 2. Pag. 1182.  Because Episcopal power is by God's divine grace ordained, in his holy church, it is seeming that as he is chief in honour, and bounty in his life time, so after his death he be not wronged by detraction. And because M. Mason for the strengthening of his purpose doth add, that this council received great force, by the epistle of Innocentius the 3. (to show him that all his arguments to this purpose are like unto the sting of a Scorpion, which though most poisonful, yet never hurreth where the Scorpion herself is bruised upon the place) I will relate here the beginning of that epistle, that M. Mason may see, that if this apistle be of any force with him, as it is most worthy to be▪ his doctrine of the supremacy is most false: thus therefore writeth that learnep Pope.  
Although the body of the church, whereof Christ is head be one, and all the faithful are members, yet he which of Christ the rock is called a Peter (that is a rock) and of Christ the head, is called the head, he being witness that said, thou shalt be called Cephas, which according to one interpretation is expoundod the head: because as the fullness of the sense aboundeth in the head, and some part of that fullness is derived to the rest of the members: so the rest (of the Apostles) are called to part of the care. Only Peter is assumed to the fullness of power, to whom as to the head, the more weighty causes of the church are worthily remitted, not so much by constitution of Canons, as by divine ordination. Let M. Mason, or any other though more partial, judge, what force or strength this epistle giveth, to the supremacy of temporal Princes in Ecclesiastical causes.  

Ad Scapulan. Con. Parmen, l. 5.  6. We might (saith M. Mason) add hereunto the judgement of other fathers. Tertullian: we reverence the Emperor as a man next unto God, and inferior only to God. Optatus: Above the Emperor is none but only God, who made the Emperor. So S. Chrisostome saith, that the Emperor hath no peer upon each, and calleth him the head, and crown of men upon earth. If he be next unto God, and inferior only to God, if none be above him but God only: if he have no peer upon earth, as being the head, and crown of all men upon earth, then must he needs be supreme head, and governor upon earth, according to the judgement of the fathers.  
True Sir, so he is in matters merely pertaining to civil, and politic government, which properly are earthly, or upon the earth: But what is this to your purpose, to prove him supreme head, judge, and governor of spiritual matters which are from heaven, and above the earth? and whither his power reacheth not, as not having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which our Saviour left to S. Peter, and not unto Cesar. Therefore all these words of yours are but wind, and quite besides the question: as also are those that follow in this sort.  
4. This is agreeable to the scripture, which testifieth that most godly Kings commanded both Priests, and high Priests, even in cases of religion, as was before declared.  
You bring not one instance of any good King, commanding by his Kingly power any thing pertaining to religion, which was new, doubtful, or in controversy, but only to execute such things, as were evident by the law, according to the interpretation and practice of the church in those times; As for example, that the Priests and levites should instruct the people, offer sacrifice, sing in the church, purge the temple of things pertaining, to the worship of false Gods, and the like: which, or the like things are practised by Christian Kings, not only without blame, but with greatest praise. But what is this to the purpose? is this to judge, or determine in matters of faith, and religion, as supreme head thereof? and not rather evidently to follow the judgement of the church, and her Pastors in these things? If you do not know, that the government of the church in matters of faith, and religion, did not appertain to the Kings, but to the Priests, even in the old law of the jews, you may learn both of the Prophet Malachi, saying: 
Malachi 2.  the lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and from his mouth shalt thou take the law, for be is the Angel, or messenger of the God of hosts: and also of the law itself commanding, that in all difficult cases, even in civil matters, and therefore much more in matters of religion, men should recurre to the judgement of the Priests. If thou perceive (saith God by Moses) that the judgement with thee be hard and doubtful between blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy: and that thou see that the words of the judges within thy gates (that is the particular judges) do vary: 
Denteron. 17.8 etc.  arise and go up to the place, which thy Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come to the Priests of the levitical stock, and to the judge, that shallbe at that time, and thou shalt ask of them: who shall show thee the truth of the judgement. And thou shalt do, whatsoever they, that are precedents of the place, which our Lord shall choose, shall say, and teach thee according to his law: and thou shalt follow their sentence: Neither shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the left hand. But he that shallbe proud, refusing to abay the commandment of the Priest, which at that time ministereth to our Lord thy God, and decree of the judge, that man shall dye.  
8. Neither is this authority (saith M. Mason) taken away in the new testament, but continueth the very same: as may appear by S. Paul, 
M. Mason.  who lifteth up his voice like a trumpet, proclaiming: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, which words (every soul) comprehend all persons both Ecclesiastical, and temporal, yea though they were Evangelists, Prophets, or Apostles, as S. Chrisostome doth truly expound them. If every soul be subject unto higher powers, than the Prince is superior to all, and consequently supreme within his own dominions.  
I will not ascribe it to want of judgement in M. Mason, that he bringeth always arguments against himself: but to the nature of the cause he maintaineth, which being nought, can have no good grounds to be sustained by He bringeth and with good reason S. Paul's commandment, for the subjection of all men to higher power.  
But what will he infer hereupon for the Prince's supremacy? Marry that the Prince is supreme superior within his own dominions. But what in spiritual causes? Surely he must mean so, or else his argument concludeth nothing against any one, unless it be against some of his holy, and hot spirited brotherhood, that hold themselves to be made free by Christ, from all such subjection as S. Paul speaketh of here. But he disputeth not here against them, but against Catholics, who, as he knoweth, teach obedience, and subjection to temporal Princes, in all civil and temporal causes: therefore must he needs mean superiority in spiritual causes. In which sense it is evidently concluded, out of this authority of S. Paul, that temporal Princes are not supreme heads, or governors of the church, by this argument.  
The Princes, whom S. Paul commandeth the Christians of his time to obey, had the same, or as great authority over their Christian subjects, as Christian Princes now have over their subjects, considered only as they are temporal Princes: But those Princes being pagan had no authority over their Christian subjects, in matter of faith, and religion. Therefore Christian Princes now, for so much only as they are temporal Princes, have no such authority over their subjects.  
What M. Mason. will say to this argument, whereof he himself furnished the matter, I know not; but well I wots that he will not easily shape any probable answer to it. Which difficulty besides many others, he either did not, or would not see, when he concluded his paragraph in this braving manner.  
But why do I stay so long upon this point, which hath been of late so learnedly, and plentifully handled, that to say any more, were to cast water into the sea, or to light a candle at noon day.  
Where, or by whom this point hath been either more largely, or learnedly handled, then by M. Horn sometime pretended Bishop of Winchester; I know not: who notwithstanding was so encountered by D. Stapleton in his counterblast, that neither he himself, nor any other for him, that I know, have since appeared in maintenance of that quarrel, but have left the field to their conquering adversary. And if any one since have said any thing in this point, it hath not been by way of reply, but a repetition of some of these arguments, which were before answer, upon assurance that the book being printed well-nigh 50. years agone, and neither there publicly sold, but as other Catholic books in the vulgar tongue are, is long since laid out of men's hands, and now either not known, or not found. And therefore M. Mason thinking himself in this dispute to be sailing at main seas, when he is but wading in a brook not ankle deep, is no less deceived than he was, that coming in the night time out of a dark lane into Cheapside, where he saw the moon shine bright, thought he had been near upon Thames, and called hard, oars, oars.  
9 Having thus far brought such proofs, for the temporal Prince's supremacy, as he thinketh to add any more thereunto, should be to cast water into the sea: (all which notwithstanding do either make against him, or nothing for him, as appeareth by the answers thereunto) he beginneth to answer such objections, as he maketh against himself, 
Pag. 117.  wherein he showeth no less the weakness of his cause, than he did in arguing for it. For he neither bringeth the most pressing arguments, which make for the Catholic doctrine in this point, (some part whereof have been touched before) neither doth he propose those he bringeth, to their most advantage, neither doth he (which is worst of all) satisfy them as they are proposed. The first objection he maketh thus.  
If the Prince be supreme governor in causes spiritual, he may command what religion he list, and we must obey him.  
This argument should be thus proposed. If the temporal Prince be supreme governor in spiritual causes, his subjects are bound to obey his commandments therein, for every subject is bound to obey his superior in that, wherein he is his superior according to S. Paul: Let every soul be subject to superior powers. But he may command that, which is false and pernicious, as many temporal Princes are known to have done, and no marvel for all men of themselves are subject to error, as the scripture testifieth, saying that all men are liars, unless they be freed from that defect, 
Psalm. 115.11. Rom. 3.4:  by the special assistance of the holy Ghost, which in the government of spiritual causes, is no where promised to temporal Princes. Therefore if the Prince be supreme governor in spiritual causes, his subjects may be bound to do that, which is false and pernicious. Which notwithstanding is most absurd. To this argument thus proposed, I do not see what probable answer M. Mason would frame, but let us see how he answereth it, as he himself proposeth it.  
Not so (saith he) for he is supreme governor in causes temporal, yet in may not command a man to bear false witness, or to condemn the innocent 〈◊〉 jesabel did: or if he should, we must rather obey God then man: so in cases of religion: Nabuchodonozor had no warrant to erect his image, not jeroboam to set up his golden calves. For the King as King, is supreme under God, not against God; to command for truth, not against truth. And if he shall command ungodly things, we may not perform obedience, but submit ourselves to his punishment with patience.  
You do not satisfy M. Mason. For you give no rule, nor can you give any, how to know, when the King in matter of doubt, and controversy commandeth for God, or for the truth, and when he commandeth against God, and the truth. For example, the King of England forbiddeth in his kingdom the Mass, and all other rites and articles of religion, wherein the Protestants differ from the Catholics: the King of France commandeth, and alloweth them all in his kingdom. I would now understand of you M. Mason, how either English or French men may in your doctrine know, whether of these two Kings commandeth for God and the truth, and whether of them commandeth against God and the truth. For seeing they command contrary things, th'one of them at lest must necessarily command against God or how he knoweth that K. Henry the 8. commandeth against God and their truth in commanding the observance of the six articles. So directly opposite to their religion: but for the truth when he commanded himself to be called supreme head of the church contrary to all Catholic doctrine. You will I doubt not according to your accustomed manner, recurre to the written word and say, that he that commandeth according to the word, commandeth for God and the truth. But this is but loss of time, for we are no nearer to know the truth then before; the question and doubt yet remaining, whether of these Kings command according to the written word, which how to know I would Learn some rule of you. For seeing that in your doctrine, they are both supreme governors in these matters, within their own dominions, and both of them prentend to command according to God's word, it seemeth to me, that in your doctrine both their subjects are bound to obey them, and yet this is manifestly absurd, seeing that th'one of them at the lest commandeth against God and his truth. I will attend your satisfaction M. Mason in this point, which until you give, I shall promise' you to esteem your doctrine, of the supremacy of temporal Princes in spiritual matters, not only an heresy in matter of faith, but an absurd Paradox even in politic principles, as dividing Princes one from tother in religion, wherein they aught most to agreed, and tying their subjects either to obey them in matters hurtful to their souls, or for fear of that to disobey them, in matters pertaining to their duty: And to give them power to judge when their Prince commandeth for God or against God and thereby to open the door to all rebellion and sedition.  
10. The second objection M. Mason proposeth in this sort. If the supreme government in spiritual causes be due to the imperial crown, it skilleth not, whether the Prince be man or woman, woman or child, nor of what religion. For the princely power was no less in Trajan, then in Theodosius, in King Henry, then Q. Marry, in Queen Mary the enemy of the new Gospelers, then in Q. Elizabeth their protectrix: Yea it was no less in King Lucius before he was baptized, then after. And consequently the Emperor of the Turks may be called supreme governor, in causes Ecclesiastical within his own dominions.  
The force of this argument would more evidently appear, if M. Mason had thus proposed it If it belong to the Imperial crown, to be supreme governor of the church of Christ, even in spiritual causes, it will necessarily follow, that Turkish and Pagan princes are so also. But this is very false and absurd. For no man can be head of that body, whereof he is not a member: But Turks and pagan are not members of Christ his church, as is evident; they therefore cannot be heads, nor supreme governors thereof in these cause, which, as it is Christ's church, doth appertain unto it. But let us see his answer to it, as it is proposed by himself.  
here are two things (saith he) to be considered, First, the princely power and authority: Secondly the ability, rightly to exercise the same. The princely power is given immediately from God, both unto Christian Princes, and also unto ethnics, which are guided only by the light, and law of nature, and by constitutions thence deduced by the wit of man. For this is true in all: by me Kings reign. And Daniel said unto Nabuchodonosor. O King thou art a King of Kings, 
Proverb▪ 8.15 Dan. 2.37.  for the God of heaven hath given unto thee a kingdom and power, and strength, and glory. But the ability rightly to use and exercise this authority, by referring it unto the true end, that is the glory of God, (for all our rivers aught to run into that Ocean) and the eternal good of the subjects, is communicated from the Lord only to such, as know him in Christ jesus, and are guided by his grace.  
Note diligent reader, that M. Mason putteth here a distinction between the princely power, and the ability rightly to use it: and therefore cannot deny the same distinction in Episcopal power, whereupon it followeth that a man may be a true Bishop, and yet cannot make a lawful Bishop, because he wanteth ability to exercise his power, as it happeneth in heretics, schismatics, and excommunicate persons. Which distinction observed, will show the Bishop● now in England to be no lawful Bishops, (though they did descend from Cranmer by true consecration as they do not) for want of ability in him, that did consecrated them, to exercise rightly that power, as is before mentioned. 
Rom. 13.1. De civit. l. 5. c. 21. So the domination and power that man's reasons hath over his senses and gifts either of nature or fortune is of nature, but the right use thereof is from ground. But what then? will follow hereupon that human hath supreme power in matters of faith and religion? Isay. 45.2.3. Epist. 50. Epist. 50.   
The fountain therefore of all power is God himself: as the Apostle witnesseth, saying: there is no power but of God, To which purpose it is well said of S. Austin. He that gave it to Mark, gave it to Cesar, he that gave it to Augustus, gave it to Nero: he that gave it to Vespasian father, or his son most sweet Emperors, gave it also to Domitian the most cruel. And that I may not reckon up the rest in particular, he that gave it to Constantine the Christian, gave it also to julian the Apostata. But though domination, and power were from the law of nature, yet the right use of it is not from nature, but from grace. A Prince as a Prince be he good or bad, in respect of princely calling hath sufficient power, and authority to govern his people, according to the will of God. And it is his duty so to do. The Lord said unto Cyrus. I will go before thee, and make the crooked straight. I will break the brazen doors, and burst the iron bars. And I will give thee treasures of darkness, and the things hid in secret places, that thou mayst know that I am the Lord. Upon which words S. Hierome noveth, that God giveth kingdoms unto wicked men, not that they should abuse them, but as for other reasons, so for this, that being invited by his bounty they should be converted from their sins. So it is their duty to serve God, not only as they are men, but as they are Kings. And Kings (saith S. Austin) do in this serve God as Kings, when they do those things to serve him, which none but Kings can do. But what is that? It may appear by these words. Let the Kings of the earth serve Christ, even by making laws for Christ. For though the immediate end of human societies be peace, and prosperity, yet the last end of all, 
So the last end of all human actions as God's glory. But what will follow hereupon for the supremacy. 1. ad Timoth. 22, So every artificer in that he is such an one, hath power to serve God as such an one yet for the due execution of it, grace is required and yet by his art is not he supreme head of the church I hope which notwithstand would follow in M. Masons doctrine.  and west principally to be respected is the glory of God, and eternal happiness. For which purpose it is the duty of all subjects, to pray for their Prince, though he be a pagan, that under him they may live a Godly, and peaceable life, in all Godliness and honesty. But though every Prince, in that he is a Prince, hath authority to serve God as a Prince, yet for the due execution of it, there is required grace. Authority is in a Pagan: the due execution requireth a Christian. The King of Ninive had authority long before, to proclaim a fast: Nabuchodonosor had authority to command, that all nations should worship the God of Daniel: but they put it not in execution, till God touched their hearts: and when they put it in execution, it was not by any new authority, but by virtue of their former Princely power heretofore abused, but now used rightly by direction of God's spirit and assistance of his grace.  
I confess it was very irksome unto me, to make relation of all this long and lose discourse, containing nothing to the purpose for the matter in hand. For the most that is here said, is that Kings as Kings, have power to make laws for the service of Christ, which is not denied (supposing they do it according to the judgement, of the pastors of God's church.) But this is far from that, which M. Mason hath here to show, which is to prove that Kings as Kings, and therefore aswell Pagan and infidel, as Christian Kings, have supreme and sovereign authority, in ecclesiastical and Spiritual matters and causes. A proposition, which (as I think) hath no author but M Mason, nor any other ground but his fancy, straightened by the force of the objection, made against his doctrine of the supremacy of temporal Princes, which he, finding no other mean to maintain, is forced to set abroach this palpable absurdity. When M. Mason shall have proved this paradox, of the sovereign power of Pagan Princes over Christ's church, by some other ground then his own senseless assertion, we will dispute with him, whether the distinction of the power itself, and the means to exercise it, be appliable to that purpose, for which he useth it, or no.  
In the mean while I will let him see, how dangerous this his doctrine, and distinction is to all estates, and how it openeth the way to all sedition. For by it may he, or any other, maintain himself to be King of England, or any other Kingdom, Saying that as he is the son of his Father (be he whom he will (he hath power from God to govern the Kingdom, and wanteth only ability to exercise that power, and to rule as King, and therefore if he should now begin to reign, he should not do it by virtue of any new power granted him, but by virtue of the same power he had before. If he, or any man else should argue in this sort, he would (I doubt not) be quickly lodged in the place appointed for cracked wits, till he should grow more wise. The fault that M. Mason would found in this discourse will let him see the like in his own, that he may mend it, if he william.  
And seeing he giveth us no kind of proof of this new paradox: that Pagan Princes have sovereign authority over Christ's church, in Spiritual matters, and want only means to execute it, but will have us to believe it upon his bore word, though he exact of us, 
we build not our saith upon Popes, counsels, nor Fathers, but only upon the sacred Word of God registered in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets saith he pa. 101. Cap 15. n. 7. 1. Cor. 5.12.  for proof of whatsoever we affirm, express scripture, and thinketh he is not well dealt with, if we give him the testimonies of Fathers, and counsels, of which unequal dealing I more often, and willingly put him in mind, because I see it often used both by himself, and his reforming brethren. Seeing (I say) he will give us no proof for this his assertion, I will (to the proofs of the contrary before alleged, aswell out of scripture, antiquity, and reason) add one other deduced out of the doctrine of S. Paul, who saith expressly, that he hath no power to judge of those, that are without (that is) that are not any way within the church, which is the house of God, and body of Christ. Whereupon it followeth and by greater reason, that those that are without the church, as all pagan evidently are, have no power to judge, either those persons or causes, that are within the church. But M. Mason to make his new doctrine more currant explicateth the same in this sort. 
Mala. 2.7. How he argueth against himself? For if God hath made priests the mesengers of his truth he, hath not given the same authority to Princes.   
The truth of this answer, that thou mayst see in another glass, let us a little remove our speech from the Prince to the priest: I demand therefore if the Priests, the sons of Aaron were not the messengers of the Lord of hastes. Yes verily as saith Malachy. But he may be a false prophet, an idolater, an Apostata, he may turn Pagan, or Atheist. Is such a Priest the messenger of the Lord of hosts? A priest as a priest, be he good or bad, in respect of his priestly calling, and authority, is the messenger of the Lord of hosts: he aught to leave his impieties in seducing the people, and to serve God in teaching the truth. In that he is a priest, God hath armed him with a calling to deliver his message, for performance whereof, he needeth no new calling, but grace to use that well, which before he abused. Apply this to the present point, and it will satisfy.  
Good God, how blind and perverse is heresy, which being to maintain itself without the grounds of Catholic doctrine, doth notwithstanding obstinately impugn the same? This I say because, unless M. Mason suppose as true, the Catholic doctrine of an indelible character in Christian preiesthood, whereby the power of order once received doth always remain, this his discourse is altogether vain and idle (I speak here of Christian preiesthood, and not of that of Aaron, which descended by the line of generation.) For without some such means to conserve the power of order, it is not possible to conceive how the lawfull●y thereof being lost by excommunication, heresy, apostasy, or the like, it can any ways be renewed or repaired without a new ordination, which M. Mason approveth not. And therefore this example of priesthood, unless he suppose the Catholic doctrine, doth make nothing for his purpose, which is to show how temporal Princes may have supreme power, in Spiritual affairs, though they have not the true or lawful use thereof.  
Secondly, though M. 
It is a different thing to say, that temporal Princes are suorean heads in all Spiritual causes and things: and to say that they aught to refer all their Princely actions to God's glory the first is that M. Mason should prove the later noe man denieth, Mason.  Mason should be permitted to make use for his own advantage of the Catholic doctrine in this particular, yet will it not any way help him, unless he can first show, that temporal Princes, eo ipso, that they are Princes, have sovereign power in Spiritual causes, and then that they have some character, or some other thing, by means whereof the same power is conserved in them, though they have not the lawful use thereof. But how M. Mason can make any probable proof of either of these points, it surpasseth my small capacity to conceive He doth therefore in this whole lose discourse of his, miserably and unlearnedly beg the grant of that, which is in question: to wit, that temporal Princes have from God supreme authority in Spiritual things: Which unless it be granted him (and yet it is that whereupon we dispute) all these words of his are but wind, and may serve him as a glass, to see the impertinency of his former answerein.  
The third objection M. Mason setteth down thus. To make the Prince supreme head, or governor of the church is unnatural, for s●●l the sheep feed the flock? he would have said I think the shepherd at lest so he should have said) or the son guide the Father? His answer is this.  

Psal. 78.70.  As the Priest is Father, and shepherd in respect of the Prince, so the Prince is a shepherd and Father, in respect of the priest. The Lord chose David his servant, and took him from the sheepfoldes, to seed his people in jacob, and his inheritance in Israel. So he fed them in the simplicity of his heart, and guided them by the discretion of his hands And Ezechias called the priests his sons: 
2. Chron. 29.11.  If the Prince be their shepherd, than he must feed them, if he be their Father, than he must guide them, this is natural.  
The force of truth is great, and always victorious M. Mason after all his wrangling, is at last constrained to confess that Princes are sheep, and children in respect of priests, and therefore by the very order of nature, to be fed and guided by them: not in temporal matters (for in those he saith the Princes are their shepherds, and Fathers) therefore in Spiritual things, unless he will that one and the same person may be sheep, and shepherd, superior and subject to another, in respect of one and the same matter, which no man of common sense will think. Is it not therefore even by his own conclusion most clear, that by the course of nature Princes are to be fed, and guided by the priests in Spiritual things? and consequently, that Princes are not, nor can be supreme governors, or heads of the church in the same.  
12. Hitherto have I deferred to answer that main argument of M. Masons, in urging whereof he emploieth Six, or seven whole pages of his book in folio, thinking it of principal force, for the concluding of his purpose, which is to prove the deposition, of the Catholic Bishops by Q. Elizabeah to have been just and lawful. I have (I say) hitherto differed to answer it, because though it appear to M. Mason of great force, yet is it indeed altogether impertinent to his purpose, as shall appear by the answer.  

3. Reg. 2.27.  The argument in brief is this. King Solomon deposed Abiathar being high priest, and put another in his place. Therefore Q. Elizabeth might do the like by the Bishops of her kingdom.  
Whereunto I answer, that though it should be granted, that Solomon as King only and not as a prophet and therefore by special revelation deposed Abiathar: and Farther that his fact was just, and lawful (which too things M. Mason cannot easily prove) yet doth not this argument conclude any thing for M. Masons purpose. For though it were also granted, that the priests of the old law were subject, in all temporal causes to the judgement of their Kings, yet it doth not follow thereupon, that the priest of the new law are in like manner subject to their Kings. For no true Christian can deny, but that the preiesthood of the new law, is both different, and also more perfect, then that of the old, whereas the power of the Kings is the same in both. And this is more than sufficient, to hinder the necessary sequel of the argument proposed, in the judgement of any one that hath any judgement.  
But yet Farther, be it that the priests of the new, and old law are equal in this respect, (which M. Mason will never be able to prove) yet doth M. Masons argument conclude nothing at all for his purpose. For abiather's case was far different from that of our Catholic Bishops his cause being merely temporal, to wit his conspiring against Solomon in favour of his brother Adonias, which cause had it not been in the person of a priest, should without all question have belonged to the temporal tribunal to be judged. But theirs was a matter of faith, and religion, which though it had not been in the person of priests, yet could it not have been judged by a temporal judge. And so M. Masons main argument is showed to be most impertinent for his purpose, yea it may be retorted against him in this sort. Neither Solomon, nor any other good King ever judged, the priests of the old law in matters of faith and religion, but were subject to their judgement therein, as is manifest by the example of Saul and Ozias: therefore much less can temporal Kings judge, the priests of the new law in the like matters. And this whole matter I will prove by the inevitable testimony of his Majesty, to whose authority M. Mason, I suppose, will readily submit his judgement: thus therefore his Majesty writeth.  
13. I confess, 
In his declaration against Cardinal de peron page 70. impression of paru.  that when a Prince commandeth any thing directly against the word of God, and which tendeth to the subversion of religion, that the clergy in this case aught not only to dispense with his subjects in their obedience to him, but aught expressly to forbidden them to obey him, because we aught rather to obey God, than men.  
And because there may be difficulty to know when the Prince commandeth any thing directly against God's word, and to the subversion of religion, no Prince being so maliciously wicked, as to command any thing that he knoweth, and confesseth to be such, his Majesty declareth how this may be known, and who aught to judge thereof, denying first that this judgement pertaineth to Princes in these words.  
It is true, that the Emperors never vaunted themselves to be sovereign judges in points of saith, and doctrine. And then he telleth who are competent judges in these matters, saying. I confess that it is a point of divinity to judge, how far the keys doth reach, and that the clergy may, and aught give their censures against Princes, that contrary to their oath make war against jesus Christ, without making lay men judges thereof,  
By all which it is plain, that in his majesties judgement, the clergy hath sovereign power over Princes, in points of faith, doctrine, and divinity, and that they may judge and censure them therein independently of the laity: even so far as expressly to forbidden their subjects to obey them, in case they command any thing contrary to God's word, and to the subversion of religion, which, when it happeneth, belongeth unto the clergy to judge, as a matter of faith, and doctrine, and not to the temporal Princes, who are not judges in those points. 
How the oath of supremacy doth agree with the protestants doctrine see the last capt of this treatise.  Whereby M. Mason may see, how far he differeth from his Majesty, in this point of temporal Prince's supremacy, in Spiritual matters, and causes.  
Therefore to conclude this point, I say that the oath of supremacy, whereby the title of supreme head, or governor of the church in all Spiritual causes, and things is given to temporal Princes, being Sacrilegious and wicked, as contrary to holy Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, and the practice of all Christian Princes, since the first foundation of Christianity, as hath been already showed, and therefore such (as his majesty saith) as being commanded by the Prince may and aught to be expressly forbidden by the clergy, who in that case is to be obeyed by all the Prince's subjects, the refusal thereof by the Catholic Bishops could not be any act of disloyalty, nor any just cause of their deposition, or deprivation, and consequently they who upon this only cause were thrust into their places could not be lawfully invested therein, but must necessarily be unlawful usurpers, and intruders, and therefore no lawful Bishops.   

The seventeenth Chapter. Those that succeeded M. Parker, and the rest in the places of Bishops, down to this present day, neither were nor are true, and lawful Bishops.  
I Comprehend all those that succeeded M. Parker, and the rest that were first intruded into the places of the Catholic Bishops, even till this day in one question, because their case is not different. Wherein it is clear, that the same defects, which have been found in any of their predecessors since M. Cranmer (except that of intrusion specified in the chapter going before) are also in the same degree in these, of whom the present question is proposed: and therefore the difficulty here is not of those defects: but whether there be not some other in these, which was not in thothers.  
1. The resolution is, that they have a defect so essential, or material (more than thothers had) that it alone is sufficient to make them no Bishops. And this is that they were not, or are not priests. So that their calling is defective, not only in respect of the callers, and calling; as that of the others was, but also in respect of the persons.  
That preiesthood is necessarily, 
No man can be Bishop, that is high priest unless he be priest.  and essentially presupposed to episcopal order, and power in such sort, as he that is not priest cannot be Bishop, I found it not doubted of by any of our adversaries, neither can there be any doubt thereof. For it is no where found either in holy scripture, or ecclesiastical history, that any one was Bishop, that was not also priest, and therefore Bishops are ordinarily called priests, because all Bishops are indeed priests; though all priests be not Bishops, as hath been showed before.  
The Catholic council of Sardis doth admire and withal condemn the impudence of the Arrians, accusers of S. Athanasius, for using the testimony of one as a Bishop, who was not so much as a priest. They gave to him (saith the council) the title of Bishop, 
Athanas. Apol. 2. in epi. council. Sardic. ant med. Theod. l. 2. cap 8. aunt med. D. Field of the church l. 3. c. 39 ante med.  that was not so much as priest. And again, They brought forth him for witness as Bishop, which was not priest. And yet again. They named him Bishop, which was not as yet made priest. This is so certain with M. Field, that hereupon he would prove every priest, or presbyter (as he calleth them, to avoid the consequence which the very word inferreth) to have the same authority with Bishops, and that only for order's sake, the distinction is made betwixt them, which doctrine although false in itself, as hath been showed before, yet doth it manifestly suppose, that preiesthood is so necessarily required to episcopal order, or power, that none can be Bishop unless he be Priest.  

The state of the question.  This ground therefore being agreed upon by all parties: the present controversy resteth in this only point: Whether the preiesthood of the new law doth include in it the power to offer sacrifice unto God, not only of prayer, praise, or trankesgiving. but a true, proper, and external sacrifice, as the priests of the old law, or rather as our saviour Christ offered to his Father, or no. If it be proved, that the priesthood of the new law essentially includeth in it such a power, it will invincibly follow, first, that the new ministry of the pretended reformation, as well in England, as elsewhere, (disclaiming from all such power, as from Antichristian idolatry) hath no true priesthood: and thence will it as evidently follow that they have no true Bishops and pastors, which is that I intent here to prove.  
That this disputation may proceed with some order, I will first prove by the testimony of holy scriptures, interpreted by the Fathers of the first five hundredth years, that there is in the church of Christ a sacrificing priesthood, or a power to offer external, and sensible sacrifice to God, no less truly and properly, then in the law of Moses. Secondly, I will answer the chiefest objections against the same. thirdly, I will infer thereupon that, which is chiefly intended in this dispute. In the first point I will not multiply many testimonies of holy scriptures, but will bring only two, or three at the most, with the ancient Father's interpretations, which shallbe sufficient to persuade any understanding not wilfullid tied to his own error, of which Kind of persons it was said long since, and most truly, 
S Hierom. contra Luciferianos in fine. Luke 22.19. 1. Corinth. 11.25.  that they may be overcome, but they can never be persuaded.  
2. The first testimony shallbe our Saviour Christ his own fact, and institution recorded by S. Luke, and S. Paul in these words. This is my body which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye as often as ye shall drink: for the commemoration of me. here our Saviour gave unto his Apostles, (and to all those that succeed them in the office of priesthood) charge, and withal authority, and power to do the same thing that he then did, as is manifest by these words do ye this. And thrrfore (to prove, that he instituted, and ordained in his church a sacrificing power of priesthood) it remaineth only to prove, that he did then offer sacrifice himself. Which I prove in this sort. Our Saviour Christ was Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, 
Psal. 109.4. Hebre. 5.6.  God himself having sworn so: and therefore was he at some time to offer sacrifice (the proper action of priesthood) in the same form and rite, that Melchisedech offered in, for otherways he neither could have been said, or known to have been so particularly a Priest of that order. But unless he sacrificed in his last supper, when he gave his body and blood to his disciples, under the form of bread and wine, he never sacrificed in that form and rite, that Melchisedech sacrificed in, (for his sacrifice was in bread, and wine) Therefore is it necessary that he then did truly sacrifice. The whole difficulty of this argument is reduced to this point; whether Melchisedech offered in bread and wine, as the peculiar offering of his order and priesthood, or no: for this being proved, the rest is clear.  
And that the proper, and peculiar offering of Melchisedech his priesthood, was in bread and wine: no man that believeth the holy scriptures, interpreted by uncorrupt antiquity, can make doubt. 
Gen. 14.18.  The scripture saith thus But Melchisedech bringing forth bread and wine, for he was Priest of God most high. Whereupon the most ancient fathers do teach without controlment, or contradiction, that Melchisedech being the Priest of God, did there offer sacrifice of bread and wine, in figure of that, which our Saviour in his last supper offered.  


Epist. 63. ad Cecilianum.  Item in sacerdote Melchisedech sacrificij Dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus, secundum quod scriptura divina testatur & dicit: Et Melchisedech rex Salem protulit panem & vinum. Fuit autem sacerdos Dei summi & benedixit Abraham. Quod autem Melchisedech typum Christi portaret: declarat in Psalmis Spiritus Sanctus expersona Patris ad Filium dicens: Ante Luciferum genui te: tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Qui ordo utique hic est de sacrificio illo veniens & inde descendens; quod Melchisedech sacerdos Dei summi fuit, quod panem & vinum obtulit, quod Abraham benedixit. Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei summi, quam Dominus noster jesus Christus? qui sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit, & obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus, & sanguinem.  
 ergo in Genesi per Melchisedech sacerdotem benedictio circa Abraham posset ritè celebrari, praecedit antè imago sacrificij Christi in pane & vino scilicet constituta, quam rem perficiens & adimplens Dominus panem & Calicem mixtum vino obtulit, & qui est plenitudo, veritatem praefiguratae imaginis adimplenit.   

S. Cyprian that holy Bishop and martyr, who lived in the third hundredth year after Christ that is above thirteen hundredth years ago, saith thus. We see the mystery of our Lords sacrifice, prefigured by Melchisedech the priest, as the holy scripture witnesseth, & saith. And Melchisedech the King of Salem brought forth bread and wine, for he was priest of God most high, and blessed Abraham. And that Melchisedech bore the figure of Christ, the holy Ghost declareth in the Psalms, saying in the person of the father to the son: I have begot thee before the day star: Our Lord hath sworn and it shall not repent him: Thou art a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech: which order doubtless hath it beginning from that sacrifice, and thence descended, that Melchisedech was the priest of the most high God, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham. For who is rather the priest of God most high, than our Lord jesus Christ, who offered sacrifice to God the father? and offered the same that Melchisedech had offered, that is bread and wine, to wit his body and blood. 
Ibidem.  And he addeth. Therefore as the figure of the sacrifice in bread, and wine went before in Genesis, that the blessing of Abraham might be rightly performed by Melchisedech the priest, which thing our Lord perfecting, and fulfilling offered bread, and the Chalice mixed with wine, and he who is the fullness, and perfection, fulfilled the truth of the prefigured sign or image.   
What can our new masters say to this? Surely nothing but that S. Cyprian was a papist, teaching the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, under the forms of bread and wine, wherein the sacrifice and order of Melchisedech, consisted according to whose order our Saviour was priest, differing in this notwithstanding, that Christ and his sacrifice was the truth prefigured, Melchisedech and his sacrifice the figure.  

juravit Dominus, & non paenitebit eum: quibus verbis immutabile futurum esse significat, quod adiungit, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech: ex eo quod iam nusquam est sacerdotium & sacrificium secundum ordinem Aaron, & ubique offertur sub sacerdote Christo, quod protulit Melchisedech, quando benedixit Abraham, quis ambigere permittitur, de quo ista dicantur?   

S. 
De civitat. Dei l. 17. cap. 17.  Augustin another African Doctor teacheth the same saying. By these words, our Lord hath sworn, and it shall not repent him, is signified that, that which followeth is immutable; thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech: for that the priesthood and sacrifice according to the order of Aaron, is now nowhere; and every where under the priest Christ is offered that, which Melchisedech brought forth when he blessed Abraham: who can doubt of whom these things are spooken?   
Of this same subject he hath a large discourse upon the Psal. 33. conci. 1. which is over prolix to be related here S. Ambrose is as plain, saying.  


In cap. 5. ad Hebraeos.  Huius ordinem sacrificij per mysticam similitudinem Melchisedech iustissimus rex instituit, quando Domino panis & vini fructus obtulit. Constat enim pecudum victimas perijsse, quae fuerunt ordinis Aaron, non Melchisedech: sed hoc manere potiùs institutum, quod toto orb in sacramentorum erogatione celebratur.  
Melchisedech rex Salem sacerdos Dei altissimi, qui panem & vinum sanctificatum dedit nutrimentum, in typum Eucharistiae.   

The most just King Melchisedech did begin the order of this sacrifice by a mystical similitude, when he offered to our Lord the fruits of bread and wine. For it is evident, that the sacrifices of beasts, which were of the order of Aaron, are ceased, not that of Melchisedech; but that this institution doth rather remain, which is celebrated in the whole world, in the nimistring of the sacraments. Clemens of Alexandria who lived 1400. years ago hath the same doctrine in these few, but plain words. Melchisedech King of Salem priest of God most high who gave bread and wine, sanctified food, in figure of the Eucharist.   
And Theodoret who lived 1200. years ago testifieth the same yet more clearly.  


4. Stromat. ad finem.  Caeterùm Melchisedech non judaeorum, sed gentium est sacerdos. Sic & Dominus Christus non pro judaeis tantùm, sed pro omnibus hominibus semetipsum obtulit Deo. Exorditur autem sacerdotium in nocte, qua crucem subivit, cùm accepit panem, & gratias egit, fregit, & dixit. Accipite & comedite ex ipso, Hoc est corpus meum. Similitèr & Calicem cùm temperasset, dedit discipulis suis, dicens, Bibite ex hoc omnes, Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Inueniens autem Melchisedech sacerdotem, & regem esse, (figura igitur erat veri sacerdotis, & regis) & offerentem Deo non sacrifiiia ratione carentia, sed panem & vinum.   

Nelchisedech (saith he) is not priest of the jews, but of the gentiles, as also our Saviour Christ offered himself to God, not for the jews only, but for all men. And he began his priesthood the night, when he underwent the cross, when he took bread, gave thanks, brake, and said, take and eat ye of this: For this is my body. In like manner when he had mingled the Chalice, he gave to his disciples, saying, drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shallbe shed for many for remission of sins. For we found that Melchisedech was priest, and King (and therefore a figure of the true priest and King) offering to God not unreasonable sacrifices, but bread and wine.   
But the testimony of S Hierome setting down not only his own doctrine, but that also of his ancestors Hippolytus, Irenaeus, two Eusebiuses and Eustachius, is worthy of more special note. 
Epist. 126.   

Neque ille (Melchisedech) carnis & sanguinis victimas immolaverit, & brutorum animalium sanguinem dextera susceperit, sed pane & vino simplici puroque sacrificio, Christi dedicaverit sacramentum.   

Neither did he (Melchisedech) offer sacrifice of the flesh and blood of brute beasts, but with bread and wine, a simple and pure sacrifice, did he dedicated the sacrament or mystery of Christ.   
3. Notwithstanding all these clear testimonies of uncorrupt, and unpartial antiquity, whereunto might be added many more, 
Lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 609.  if necessity required, for the proof of Melchisedech his offering of bread and wine, in sacrifice M. Mason in the name of all his brethren reform stoutly denieth, that ever he offered in these kinds, or that our Saviour Christ ever offered in the like. But upon what ground think you, doth he so peremptorily contradict such evident testimonies of venerable antiquity? Surely upon no other, than his own wilful obstinacy, that will not permit him to acknowledge the truth. For if all were true, that M. Mason saith for his negative, yet would it nothing hinder the truth of that we affirm, as shall appear in every particular of his discourse, which is this.  

Genes. 14 18  It cannot be gathered out of this text: (And Melchisedech King of Salem brought forth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the most high God) that he sacrificed to God in bread and wine. 
a Antiquit. li 1. c. 11.  josephus saith, that he gave entertainment to the soldiers of Abraham: 
b Con judaeos cap. 14.  Tertullian saith, that he offered bread and wine to Abraham, returning from the battle. 
c Lib. 4. de sacramentis cap. 3.  S Ambrose saith likewise, that Melchisedech did offer it unto Abraham. 
d De vulgari editisne Lati. lib. 4. Defence. pag. 636.  Your own Andradius saith, I willbe of their opinion which say, that Melchisedech refreshed with bread, and wine the soldiers of Abraham, being weary and tired with a long battle. 
e In Genes 14  And Cardinal Caietan: Here is nothing spoken of the oblation or sacrifice, but of the prolation and bringing it out, which josephus saith was done to refresh the conquerors.  
Be it so; what repugnance hath any part of all this, with Melchisedech his offering of bread, and wine to God in sacrifice, that M. Mason should so confidently or (truer) impudently deny it, contrary to the clear testimonies of so many, and so great fathers, positively affirming it as expressed in holy scripture? none at all: For he having brought forth bread and wine, what might hinder him to offer it first to God in sacrifice, and that done divide it to Abraham and his soldiers for their refreshing? was it ever a whit less fit for their refreshing and nurture, for being offered to God, and thereby sanctified, or not rather much more fit? The custom and manner aswell of jews as Gentiles, feasting and banqueting with the same meat that was offered in sacrifice, (whereof I suppose M. Mason is not ignorant) doth show, that there is no repugnance betwixt Melchisedech his offering to God of bread and wine in sacrifice, and his entertaining, feasting, or refreshing Abraham, and his army with the same. And that the feasting or entertainment, which Melchisedech made to Abraham, was not of mere friendship or hospitality, but a sanctified and holy feast, it is plain even by josephus the jew, whom M. Mason citeth, who saith that Melchisedech made unto Abraham a holy banquet, as the Greek word will without any force bear. But seeing M. Mason maketh force of a jews authority, against the most ancient Christian Doctors, in a matter pertaining to God's worship, and true sense or understanding of holy scripture (which to any good Christian may seem justly absurd) I will remit him in this point to Philo the jew, who was not only josephus his ancient, but also esteemed of more authority by many degrees, aswell for his judgement, and learning, as for his sincerity in his religion. His words are these. When that great, 
Philo lib. de Abrahamo.  and principal Bishop of God most mighty saw Abraham returned in safety, with victory, his company all whole, (for he had lost never a man) admiring the great prosperous success, and thinking (as it was true) that by God's special providence, and help, he had carried himself so prosperously, holding up his hands to heaven blessed him, and sacrificed a victorius banquet, and richly feasted all his company. Whereby M. Mason may learn, that Melchisedech his banquet prepared for Abraham was not a profane feast, or a mere civil entertainment, but such a religious banquet, as was wont to be made both by jews and Gentiles, in such occasions of joy, and exultation, accompanied with sacrifice to God. And therefore without all show of reason doth he deny, that Melchisedech offered sacrifice of bread and wine, seeing so many, and so grave fathers do in most express words testify the same, and no one good author doth deny, or contradict it.  
Farther M. Mason dealeth most injuriously with his authors. For both S. Ambrose and Andradius in the very same places by himself cited, do most expressly teach Melchisedech his sacrifice, which M. Mason so peremptorily denieth. Melchisedech (saith S. Ambrose offered bread and wine. 
Lib 4. de Sacram. cap. 3.  And commenting upon the 5. chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews he saith thus. Melchisedech was not priest according to the law (of Moses') but according to the dignity of a singular priesthood, offering to God bread and wine, not the blood of brute beasts, in the order of whose priesthood Christ is made eternal priest.  
Andradius disputing with Kemnitius hath a large and learned discourse, wherein he maintaineth against his adversary, the truth of the vulgar Latin translation: reading the text of Genesis thus: Melchisedech bringing forth bread and wine for he was priest of the most high God: and thereby proving the Catholic doctrine of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, doth most expressly mention the sacrifice of Melchisedech in bread and wine. Thou mayst see him if thou please diligent reader, and detest M. Masons bad dealing with him. But because every one can neither have, nor understand the book being in Latin: I will out of his long discourse set down here one period only of his in these words. 
In the place cited above by M. Mason.  As in other things Melchisedech bore the person of Christ, so did he represent his priesthood, in that he first after the accustomed manner, offered to God as to the author of a most glorious victoire, the bread and wine, which he gave for the nourishing of Abraham his army.  
As for Cardinal Caietan, whose singular interpretation of holy scripture is often worthily reproved, though otherwise a great and learned Doctor I appeal to M. Mason himself, whether his authority be of such weight as for it alone, any prudent man may follow it in a matter of moment, against the judgement of all the other Orthodox writers, aswell modern as ancient. Thaugh he also speaketh rather according to the opinion of josephus then his own as appeareth by his words cited by M. Mason seeing well that in the expositors of this passage, neither old nor new, he can have any help for the overtrowing of Melchisedech his sacrifice in bread and wine, he recurreth to the text itself, and to make it seem to serve his turn somewhat, he boldly condemneth the ancient vulgar translation of error, 
Pag 210.  and saith.  
4. The vulgar translation, which you follow is erroneours: for according to the Hebrew it is not (for he was a priest) but (and he was a priest) as Arius Montanus translateth it, and Ballarmine confesseth. So the clauses are not joined together with a conjunction causal, but with a copulative: therefore your argument drawn from the causal vanisheth away.  
But he himself easeth me of the labour in answering this objection: for in the lines immediately following, he bringeth divers examples of the like reading by the copulative in the Hebrew, and Greek, which themselves read by the causal: as Behold thou art angry, 
Esay 64.2.  and we have sinned: which they turn. Behold thou art angry, for we have sinned. And blessed art thou among women, 
Luke. 1.42.  and the fruit of thy womb is blessed. Which they turn: because the fruit of thy womb is blessed. These are M. Masons examples, 
Gen. 20.3.  whereunto I will add other two: Genesis 20. where the Hebrew is: behold thou shalt die because of the woman, which thou hast taken: and she hath a husband. they read with the vulgar translation, for she hath a husband. And Genesis 24. the Hebrew hath: And he dwelled in the south. 
Gen. 24.62.  Which they turn with the vulgar. For he dwelled in the south. Seeing therefore M. Mason and all his reformed brethren confess, that the Hebrew copulative is often most truly turned by the causal, and seeing it hath ever been so turned in this place (which we now speak of) by the most learned and ancient Fathers, as appeareth aswell by their own testimonies, as by the vulgar Latin translation, which is most ancient, and cannot be suspected of partiality, being extant many hundredth years before this controversy began, is not he more than impudent, that dare condemn the reading of error? Especially having seen this self same objection made before by Kemnitius, so fully satisfied by Andradius, in the place by himself alleged, as he neither can, nor dare say any thing against it, but wittingly dissembling the answer, wilfully repeateth the objection, as though it had never been answered. Is this sincere dealing, and worthy a reformer of God's church? Not having much confidence in this shift, he thinketh to elude the force of this testimony, another way and saith.  
5. Melchisedech gave entertainment to Abraham, moved thereunto by consideration of his own office, even because he was not only a professor of the true religion, but also a priest; For as it becometh all that embrace religion, to love one another, and rejoice at their good, so this duty specially belongeth to the priest. And your learned jesuite Andradius, 
The learned Andradius was no jesuit.  hence observeth the great link of religion. Therefore is there no necessity to say, that he sacrificed bread and wine: for the text, even read and pointed as you would have it, may in the judgement of some of your learned divines, admit an excellent sense without any sacrifice.  
But this is wholly besides the purpose. For first Melchisedech is not said to have sacrificed in bread and wime, because there appeareth no other occasion, why he should bring forth bread and wine to Abraham, but only to sacrifice: for none that I know ever dreamt of such a reason. But because the scripture interpreted by the Doctors, and Pastors of God's church, to whom he hath given the key of knowledge, to interpret his law unto his people, doth teach, that he did sacrifice in bread and wine, when he met Abraham. Secondly, the words of the scripture as they have ever been read, since they were turned into Latin, cannot have any convenient, or probable sense, without his Sacrifice be understood. For though the Profession of the true religion might be a motive, why Melchisedech should rejoice at Abraham's victory, and consequently entertain him with a civil, and friendly banquett, yet the holy Ghost giving for the reason of his bringing out of bread and wine, that he was the priest of God, must in any reasonable man's understanding be thought to express something done by Melchisedech, bringing forth bread and wine that was proper only to a priest to do which could be nothing but Sacrifice. For the other friendly entertainment beseemed him rather as a King, agreeing with Abraham in the worship of the true God, then as a priest. And therefore if there had been no other matter in Melchisedech his bringing forth of bread and wine, than a friendly act of Hospitality, the holy Ghost giving the reason thereof would doubtless have said. For he was King of that country; and not: for he was priest of God most high. Again seeing the link of religion, as M. Mason saith (after Andradius) might move Melchisedech to congratulate with Abraham a stranger for his victory, and to entertain him with a civil banquett, rather than to condole with his neighbour Kings for their overthrow: the same link of religion might with greater reason also move him being a priest, to offer to God Sacrifice of thanksgiving for his victory, and to receive him with a religious, and sanctified feast, especially the ancient custom being, that solemn banquets were never made, without sacrificing first to God. Neither doth Andradius admit any probable sense of those words of Genesis, wherein Sacrifice is not expressed, as M. Mason falsely fathereth upon him.  
6. M. Mason cometh now to cast his shot anchor, and saith. Though it be imagined, that Melchisedech offered bread and wine, yet will it be nothing to our purpose. For our Saviour Christ never offered bread and wine in our doctrine, but his body and blood, and therefore from Melchisedech his offering of bread, and wine, can we infer nothing for the proof of that sacrificing priesthood, which we pretend to have been instituted by our Saviour Christ in his last supper. This is the full sense of that he would say, for his words are too many, and too empty of matter, to make rehearsal thereof all at large.  
This mean objection which is M. jewels, or M. Hoopers', S. Cyprian prevented, and answered 1300. years ago and more. And therefore my labour in answering the same, shallbe only to relate his words: that if M. Mason disdain to learn his faith, of the present Catholic church, yet he may not refuse to learn it of the same church, teaching the same doctrine in S. Cyprians days. Thus therefore writeth that ancient prelate, and glorious martyr. Who is rather the priest of the most high God, than our lord jesus Christ, who offered sacrifice to God the Father, 
Epist. ad Cecilianum.  and offered the same thing that Melchisedech offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and blood?  
How can it be, will M. Mason ask, that our Saviour Christ offered his body and blood, as S. Cyprian with the Catholic church doth teach, and yet offered the same thing which Melchisedech offered, who offered only bread and wine? This question in M. Masons belief, or rather misbelief, is not easily answered, but in S. Cyprians doctrine, which is that of the Catholic church, it hath small difficulty. For S. Cyprian doth in the same place explicate, how both these are true, of whom if M. Mason will learn, he will found this hard question easily, and clearly solved. Thus he writeth. Therefore that the blessing of Abraham in Genesis might be rightly performed by Melchisedech the priest, the image of Christ's sacrifice constituted in bread and wine went before, which thing our lord perfecting, and fulfilling offered bread and the chalice mixed with wine, and he which is the fullness (or perfection) did fulfil the truth of the prefigured image. So that the clear doctrine of this holy Father is, that our Saviour Christ, who was prefigured by Melchisedech, offered his body and blood, the truth or thing itself of that, whereof Melchisedech offered the figure in bread and wine, and therefore may truly be said to have offered the same thing, that Melchisedech did. Which is also in another respect, to wit, in that the sacrifice of our Saviour Christ did not differ in external form and appearance, from that of Melchisedech, both of them being in form of bread and wine, which is a sufficient reason, why our Saviour may be said to have offered in bread and wine, though not in substance of bread and wine. For it is no unusual matter in holy scripture, 
Acts. 1.10. Acts. 10.30.  to call things by that name which they appear outwardly to be, as for example. Behold two men stood by them in white garments. And again. A man stood before me in white apparel: and elsewhere often.  
7. Having thus showed (sufficiently as I suppose) all M. Mason's evasions and shifts, against Melchisedech his offering of bread, and wine, to be of no moment, in comparison of the weighty authority brought for it, wherein I have been defendant only: he shall now give me leave as opponent, to ask him one question, which shallbe this. Wherein he will make the peculiar priesthood of Melchisedech to stand? which question is neither impertinent, nor unprofitable. For seeing it is evident first, that he was a priest. Secondly, that he was priest of an order distinct from that of Aaron, and peculiar to himself.  
Thirdly, that our Saviour Christ was priest of his order. Fourthly, that it aught chief to be honoured of all Christians, as appeareth as well by that, that God himself would so highly honour it, as to make his own only son priest of that order for our sakes, and thereby obliged us peculiarly, to honour both him and his priesthood, as also by the high, and majestical stile, wherewith the holy ghost doth proclaim his order in this manner, 
Psal. 109.  Our lord hath sworn, and it shall not repent him; thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech. All this I say being evident, it is most necessary for us to know, wherein this highly honoured priesthood doth consist, which I would learn of M. Mason. But unless he can show out of holy scripture some particularity, proper only to this order, (which seeing he rejecteth the Sacrifice of bread and wine, he is no more able to perform, then to pull the sun out of heaven with his fingers) he can never satisfy this demand. For three things only are mentioned in holy scripture, which Melchisedech did as priest: First that he brought forth bread and wine. 
Genes. 14.  Secondly, that he blessed Abraham.  
Thirdly, that he took tithes of him, whereof the two last are common to the priesthood of Aaron, 
Numbers. 6.23. Hebrews 7.5.  as is manifest by the places cited in the margin, so the first only remaineth as proper to Melchisedech.  
Are not our new masters more than perverse, to forsake in a matter of principal moment, the testimony of holy scripture, interpreted by so many faithful, and unpartial pastors, and to grope after uncertain fancies, and vain conjectures of their own wavering, and wandering brain? But such is the impotent malice of heresy, that it esteemeth not into what evident absurdities it falleth so that the Catholic truth may be obscured, and drawn into question. When M. Mason shall set down out of holy scripture, the proper function of Melchisedech his order, that thereby we may come to know the high priesthood of our Saviour Christ, so extraordinarily established by the immutable oath of his eternal Father, and shall prove it as firmly, as his Sacrificing of bread and wine is proved, he shall say something to the purpose; till than he must not think much, if following his own singular fancies, he be esteemed, as all other sectaries are, a seducer of God's people. Unless he think better, as it is indeed, to turn back, and follow the trodden path of God's Catholic church. And that I say to M. Mason, I understand as said to all those, that deny a Sacrificing priesthood in the church of Christ.  
8. He cometh next to declare the eternity, or continual exercise of our Saviour his priesthood, wherein though he do foully err as he doth in other points, yet because mine intent is not to handle here all matters of controversy, but only such as are necessary for the proving of a Sacrificing priesthood in the evangelical law, which is proved by the priesthood itself of Melchisedech (as we shall see in the end) without disputing this pointt of the eternity of our Saviour priesthood, though by this it be also proved, I will not stand here to refute his error touching the same. But I will only bring one authority of Theodoretus for this purpose, which I make not choice of amongst many others of the ancient Fathers, because I esteem it the most formal of all others, but because it is brought by M. Fulke for the contrary end; Yet do I not so much intent hereby to tax M. Fulke of want of judgement, in bringing a testimony so clearly against himself, as thereby to show the poverty of the cause he would maintain, seeing it is forced to seek support from them, that bear testimony against it, and the force of truth. Which he would impugn, which is so evidently strengthened by the arguments brought for the contrary. 
Fulke Hebre. 7. sect. 8. ad medium.  These are Theodoretus his words upon the 109. Psalm, as M. Fulke relateth them. Christ is now a priest, which is sprung of juda according to the flesh, not offering any thing himself, but is called the head of those that offer, seeing he calleth the church his body, and therefore he exerciseth the priesthood as man, but he receiveth those things that are offered, as God. And the church offereth the tokens of his body and blood, sanctifying all the leaven by the first fruits. Theodoret saith here three things, out of which is manifestly concluded, the continual exercise of Christ his priesthood, to consist in the visible Sacrifice of the church, to wit the holy Eucharist. First he saith, that Christ is now a priest. Secondly, that though he offereth nothing himself, yet is he the head of those that offer, and consequently doth offer by them. Thirdly that as man he exerciseth even now his priesthood, to wit concurring as head with those, that offer as his members or ministers. Whereby it is manifest, that in Theodoret's doctrine, the continual exercise of Christ his priesthood consisteth in the visible Sacrifice of the church. Which Sacrifice whether it be the true body and blood of Christ, as the Catholic church teacheth and believeth, or not, it pertaineth not to this place to examine, being a distinct question from that, which we have here in hand. Now to return to the question in hand of Melchisedeches Sacrifice, M. Mason confirmeth his doctrine touching the same in this sort.  
9 The Apostle to the Hebrews speaking very particularly of this ripe (of Melchisedech in respect of Christ) saith not one word concerning his Sacrifice, but unfoldeth it in these branches following. First that he was King of justice. Secondly that he was King of peace. Thirdly that he was both King and priest. Fourthly that he blessed Abraham. Fiftly that he received titles of Abraham. Sixtly that he was without Father and neither. seventhly, that he had neither beginning of his days, nor end of his life. Thus the scripture unfoldeth the type of Melchisedech, plentifully and particularly and yet saith not one word concerning his sacrificing, which is an evident argument, that it is a mere devise and imagination of man's brain.  
It is true that our Saviour Christ was prefigured in all these things by Melchisedech: but not only in these for he was also prefigured by him as priest as the holy scripture testifieth psal. 109. And that the Apostle saith nothing of his (Melchisedeches) Sacrifice it is more than false. For in this 7. chapter to the Hebrews, doth he insist specially in the inculcating of our saviours priesthood, according to the order of Melchisedech, as is chief drift in that chapter (as any man that will read it shall plainly see.) How can therefore any man (that is not blind either with malice, or ignorance) say, that the scripture speaketh not one word concerning Melchisedeches Sacrifice, seeing priesthood, and Sacrifice are no less conjoined together, then are fatherhood and generation? Tell me I pray you good Sir, if one should say that M. Mason is a husband or a Father, according to the ordinary manner of other husbands and Fathers: should he say nothing concerning those actions, without which all men know you can neither be husband, nor Father? You will not I suppose deny, but that he should make such mention of them, as that all men might understand them to be in you.  
How therefore can you so confidently say, that S. Paul saith nothing concerning Melchisedeches Sacrifice, seeing he saith so much of his priesthood? unless peradventure you can found out some priesthood without Sacrifice, which was yet never heard of.  
10. There is not one word (saith M. Mason) in the whole Bible to declare, that Melchisedech was a type of Christ in offering such unbloody Sacrifice in the forms of bread and wine; And this very silence is like the voice of a trumpet proclaiming unto the world, that popery is the mere invention of man, and shall whither in the root from whence it sprung.  
Your threating prophecies Sir, are heretical vanities like those of your Father Luther, who threatened to be the ruin of the Pope; But he is dead and rotten, and the Pope is where he was before he was borne, and so shall popery (as you scornfully term the Catholic truth) be, when you and all your fellows shallbe gone, to give account of your heresy, and rebellion against God and his church, with the rest of all those, that have impugned the Catholic verity, ever since the first founding of the same. God give you his holy grace to prevent it by true repentance, I do not greatly marvel, that you cannot found any word in the whole Bible, declaring Melchisedeches Sacrifice in bread and wine, in figure of Christ unbloody Sacrifice. For never any heretic could found any word in the Bible (or that which he took for the Bible) against his heresy. Arrius could found nothing for the consubstantiality of the son with the Father, nor Eunonius or Macedonius, for the divinity, or godhead of the holy Ghost; Nestorius, Eutiches, Pelagius, and the rest in like manner, could not found one word in holy scripture, for the proof of the Catholic truth by them impugned. But what then? Shall we therefore say, that the holy Bible contained no one word of all these truths? M. Mason I am sure will not say so. For though those wretches blinded, with heretical pride and obstinacy, could see nothing of all this in the holy scripture, yet the Catholic Pastors, who defended against them the Catholic truth, did found them all contained therein, as also their Catholic successors now do this truth, which M. Mason here impugneth, whose judgements if he will not yield unto, as either suspected of partiality, and moved with passion against his error: or that he esteemeth his own judgement as good as theirs: yet if he have either but any one spark of the light of reason, or dram of modesty in him he cannot appeal from the judgements, of those great lights of the world, the Fathers of the primitive church, against whom neither of these exceptions can be made, who found in holy scripture the Sacrifice of Melchisedech in bread and wine, in figure of Christ's unbloody Sacrifice, as hath already been showed, and M. Mason himself is at last forced to confess in these words.  

Ibidem.  11. First, Some of the Fathers say not, that Melchisedech offered bread and wine to God, but to Abraham who are these Fathers? why are they not named? but be it so: this doth not for all that exclude the offering thereof to God, but rather include it, as is already seen. Secondly, (saith he) those which say it was offered unto God as a Sacrifice (as all do that writ either upon the 14. cap. of Genesis, or the psalm 109 or by other occasion handle this martyr) may mean an Eucharistical Sacrifice, and not a propitiatory. So may they mean both, as they do in deed. Thirdly if any of the Fathers say, that he offered a propitiatory Sacrifice, yet it followeth not, that because they make the oblation of Melchisedech a type of the Eucharist, that therefore in the Eucharist, there is a propitiatory Sacrifice. And why Sir I pray you doth it not follow? If you consider that the condition of a type, or figure is always to be less perfect, than the thing itself which is figured by it, you will found it to follow a fortiori, or with greater reason.  
But you say, that those which hold so (to wit that Melchisedech offered a propitiatory sacrifice) must make a double oblation of this bread and wine, the first to God by way of sacrifice: the second to Abraham, and the army in the manner of a banquet: the first might have relation to Christ upon the crass: the second to the Eucharist. There is no doubt, but the fathers understood this double oblation you speak of, th'one to God in sacrifice, tother to Abraham and his army for their refreshing but whether the first offering in the father's meaning had relation to Christ upon the cross, and not to him as offered under the form of bread and wine in his last supper, the father's clear testimonies before alleged for this purpose, yea and M. Caluin, and the Centurists sayings hereafter cited, (whose authority I hope will sway something with you) shall witness, you add.  
Fourthly, your popish massing sacrifice presupposeth transubstantiation, which is contrary to Christ's institution of the Eucharist, as in due place shallbe declared. Wherefore those fathers, which understand the Eucharist according to Christ's institution, cannot refer the type of Melchisedech to any transubstantiate sacrifice.  
You flinch M. Mason, you flinch; what have you here to do with transubstantiation? Our question was whether in the judgement of the ancient fathers, there be any mention in holy scripture of Melchisedech offering bread and wine, in figure of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Why do you therefore run to the question of transubstantiation? I know the reason as well as if I were in your bosom. Your own eyes convince you of the question in hand, and because your obstinacy will not permit you to yield to the manifest truth, you run to that other question of transubstantiation, which cannot orderly be spoken of, before tother be decided, as you saw yourself, when you deferred it to another place.  
But to let this pass, and to take that only, which victorious truth hath drawn from you, I will only ask of you, what you think of the doctrine of those fathers, who you confess to have taught Melchisedeches sacrifice in bread and wine, (be it Eucharistical or propitiatory, it shall not much import for the present) whether it be conformable to scripture or no? If you say no: you will not be believed of any man, that hath but one dran of true judgement. For who can imagine, that those great lights, and pastors of God's church, whose learning, piety, and other excellent virtues beseeming the pastors of God's church, have made them venerable to all posterity: living many hundredth years before these controversies were hatched, and therefore void of all passion and partiality, were not more like to found out the true sense and meaning of holy scripture, and also to deliver it with more sincerity, then either you M. Mason or any of your reformed brethren, who though you were of equal learning with those ancient fathers (which very few or none at all will believe) and of as great piety and other virtues as they were (which is evidently false) yet you being parties in this cause, as authors of the controversy, your sincerity cannot but most justly be suspected, and therefore your judgement lawfully excepted against as partial. With no show of reason therefore can you say, that the ancient father's doctrine, is not conformable to holy scripture in this point. Wherefore if you will speak with any probability in this matter, you must answer to the question proposed affirmatively, and say that you think the father's doctrine, teaching the sacrifice of Melchisedech in bread and wine, in figure of the holy Eucharist to be according to holy scripture. Whereby you shall found, how far and foully you overlashed, 
Pag. 215.  When you said, that there is not in the whole bible one word to declare, that Melchisedech was a type of Christ in offering such an unbloody sacrifice in the forms of bread and wine. 
Pag. 209.  And yet farther when you dare to say: We deny that Melchisedech did offer any bread and wine, for a sacrifice to God. But I will leave you to advise with yourself (now at your more leisure) whether these propositious have any verity in them, or no: and will conclude of that which hath hitherto been said, that (unless you will deny the evident truth) you must necessarily grant a sacrificing priesthood (truly and properly, as that was of Melchisedech) in the law and church of Christ, in this distinct and brief manner.  
First we have out of holy 
a Genesis 14.18.  scripture Melchisedeches priesthood. 
b Hebrews 7.11.12. etc.  secondly his proper order of priesthood, distinct from that of Aaron. 
c Genes. 14.18.  thirdly we have out of scripture (interpreted by uncorrupt and unsuspected antiquity) Melchisedeches sacrifice in bread and wine, as the proper act of his peculiar priesthood, and order. 
d Psal. 109. Hebr. cap. 7.  fourthly we have out of holy scripture, that our Saviour Christ was, and is priest according to the peculiar order of Melchisedech: whence followeth, that he sacrificed, according to the rite of Melchisedech in bread and wine. 
e Luk, 22.19 What one of all these six verities can M. Mason upon any probable ground deny.  fiftly, that he gave to his Apostles commandment, and power to do the same thing, which he did, when he offered according to that rite. sixthly, that the same power, which he gave then to his Apostles, remaineth still in his church, and consequently, that there is in the church at this day a sacrificing priesthood, no less truly and properly, than was that of Melchisedech, according to whose order, our Saviour Christ was ordained priest for ever, by the immutable oath of his eternal father. Such a clear deduction from holy scripture, interpreted by the ancient church, would I gladly see in proof of the protestāns empty, and naked ministery, which may the more justly be exacted of them, because they pretend neither to teach, nor believe any thing, but that which may be proved by holy scripture: but I will now proceed to the second proof of the Catholic priesthood of holy scriptures.  
The second testimony of holy scripture, 
Malachi cap 1.11.  clearly proving a sacrificing priesthood in the evangelical law, is out of the Prophet Malachi who fortelleth the dignity of the sacrifice of God's church, under the new testament in this sort. I have no will in you saith the Lord of hosts (speaking to the priests of Aaron's order,) nor offering will I receive at your hand. For from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof, my name is great amongst the Gentiles, and in every place is there sacrificing, and a clean oblation is offered to my name.  
The Protestants do not deny, that this prophesy is fulfilled in the church of Christ: but they deny that this clean oblation, which the Prophet here speaketh of, is any sensible or proper sacrifice, but a spiritual or inward oblation: unto which miserable shift they are driven by force. For if they should grant this clean oblation here foretold to be a true, proper, and sensible sacrifice, their pretended church should be convinced to be a Synagogue of Satan, and not the true church of Christ, because it hath no such sacrifice. But if there be any certain means, to found out the true sense and meaning of the holy scripture, either by the sound of the words themselves, or by the circumstance of the place, or the understanding of the ancient church, or agreement and conformity, as well with other places of scripture, as with natural reason and discourse or by all these together, their interpretation of this place is evidently false, and consequently their reformed church heretical.  

The sound of the Words.  First the words sacrificing and clean oblation being without any restriction drawing them to a spiritual sense, are to be understood in their proper signification, and as they sound, without limitation.  

Pag. 220.  M. Mason answereth, that this rule is not generally true▪ for the Prophet Esay saith. They shall bring of their brethren for an offering to the Lord, out of all nations where he useth the same word that Malachy useth, and yet it is not meant that the gentiles should be offered carnally, but spiritually.  
Which example maketh clearly against himself: for who seethe not that this word (brethren) restraineth the word (offering) to a metaphorical signification. Let him found such a restriction in the words of the Prophet Malachi, and then shall his example be to some purpose.  
secondly the Prophet in the whole chapter speaketh of true, and proper sacrifices, and maketh a direct and express antiphesies, or opposition between this pure sacrifice, and the sacrifices of the jews, which were proper and sensible, and hath not one word of improper, or spiritual sacrifice.  

The circumstance of the place.  thirdly the properties ascribed to this sacrifice, cannot agreed with the spiritual offerings of prayer, praise, thanksgiving and the like. For this is said to be one: they are many: this is proper to the church of the gentiles under the law of grace: they are common not only with the jews under the law written: this succeedeth the jews sacrifices; they succeeded none but are joined with all sacrifices of all laws: this is a clean sacrifice, and cannot be polluted by him that offereth it: they (at lest in the Protestants doctrine) are polluted and as a stained cloth: by this oblation God's holy name is said to be greatly glorified, which is proper to external and sensible sacrifices: for spiritual sacrifices having their being and perfection, from the inward intention, which is hidden from all others, but him alone which offereth them, 
Philo. lib. de victimis.  are not fit to make God's name magnified by other men, as is evident. Now of the contrary part it cannot be denied, but all those properties do exactly agreed with the sacrifice, of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ in the holy Eucharist.  
To the first of these properties M. Mason saith. 
Vbi supra.  That albeit the word used by the Prophet be of the singular number, yet by that offering, many offerings may be signified, as when it is said sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not have; where though the word be singular yet the sense and meaning is plural.  
But he marketh not, or at lest will not mark, 
Hebr. 10.8.  that there is as great a difference between this saying of Malachi: In every place a clean oblation is offered to my name: and that of the Apostle. Sacrifice and effering thou wouldst not have; (I mean in respect of the number) as there is between this saying: the King will receive no gift or present: and this, the city will give to the King a gift or a present. Which first saying, though it be of the singular number, yet doth it evidently import, the refusal not of any one gift, but of all gifts: whereas the latter saying importeth one only single gift or present, as every man may plainly see.  
If M. Mason understand not the reason hereof, and be desirous to learn it; let him turn back to his Logic, and see the difference between the nature of an affirmative, and a negative proposition, for here is no place to read him any longer lesson of this matter. In the mean while by this example may he see, how impertinent his instance is for his purpose. But his answer to the second property is not only impertinent, but also most impious.  
13. They (the jews, 
Ibidem.  saith he) might everywhere pray and praise God aswell as we, but this was not a discharge of their duty, unless to these spiritual sacrifices they annexed carnal: to be offered at the time and place appointed: so their spiritual sacrifice were mixed, but ours are merely spiritual, and these are proper to the Gospel.  
O traitor of Christianity: what greater advantage can a jew desire against Christian religion, than this confession? to wit that they have the same oblations, and sacrifices that Christians have (wherein the profession and practice of all religion consists) and that over and above, they have the sensible and external sacrifice of creatures: whereby they offer unto God not only their prayers, and praises of his name by spiritual sacrifice, but also their goods and temporal substance by external oblations: wherein M. Mason freely confesseth their religion to exceed, and surpass ours Such is the obstinate blindness of heresy, that rather than to embrace the Catholic verity expressed in holy scripture, and testified in all antiquity, will make the immaculate spouse of Christ (whereof most glorious things are spoken) inferior in religion, 
Psal. 86.2.  and less perfect than the jews reproved Synagogue. And to make up the measure of his malice, against God's church and Christian religion, he yet runneth on into more gross absurdities. For to the third property of the sacrifice mentioned by Malachi, which was that it succeedeth those of the jews, whereas the spiritual sacrifices are joined with all, and succeed none he saith.  

Ibidem.  Though the spiritual sacrifice of the jews and of the Christians were all one in substance: yet they differed in manner, because as I said theirs were mixedly, ours merely spiritual, and the merely succeed the mixed.  

If the sacrifices of the jews were the same in substance with those of the christians: they should also be the same in substance with that of our Saviour Christ which notwithstanding is more than heretical to affirm.  What other thing is this, then that in substance the Christian religion and worship of God is the same with the jews, and differeth from it only in manner; and that in such a manner, as that of the jews remaineth the more perfect, seeing it containeth the same perfection, that the Christian religion doth, and over and besides something more? But M. Mason thinketh he hath learnedly prevented this absurdity in saying, that their sacrifices were mixedly, and are merely spiritual, whereby (as I suppose) he would say that ours are better, and more perfect than theirs, which yet is more senseless than the rest. For I would ask of him, whether by adding the external, and corporal sacrifices to the spiritual, these are made less spiritual, and consequently less perfect? He cannot say yea. For unless we suppose, that this addition should change the nature of the spiritual sacrifice (which M. Mason will not have, for he saith they are both of one substance) it cannot be imagined, how the adding of the corporal, or external sacrifice may make the internal less spiritual, or less perfect. And he himself will confess the same in this example. If one should give him a purse with twenty pounds of gold in it, and another should give him another with as much gold, and besides with as many pieces of silver more, I think not that he would esteem the latter gift of less value, than the other for the silver added thereunto, but of more worth. So in like manner no man of judgement can esteem the spiritual sacrifices of the jews, (which M. Mason saith are the same with those of Christians) to be either less spiritual or less perfect, but rather of more perfection, by reason of the corporal sacrifices adjoined thereunto. For if it were otherways, God having commanded them to offer such sacrifices, should have commanded a thing both hurtful to them, and displeasing to himself (as impairing and diminishing the valour, and worth of their spiritual sacrifices) which is very absurd to imagine. The jews therefore having the same spiritual offerings that Christians have, as M. Mason confesseth, and over and above other corporal sacrifices commanded, and ordained by God himself, (and therefore cannot be hurtful to tother being good in themselves) it must necessarily follow, that in M. Masons doctrine, the jews offerings and sacrifices are more perfect, than those of the Christians, and consequently their religion also and manner of God's worship more perfect. So that M. Mason, whilst he will be a Protestant in this point, doth prove himself more a jew then a Christian, and yet he goeth forward in most palpable absurdities. For answering to the fourth property, which was that this sacrifice spoken of by Malachi, is so clean of itself, that it cannot be polluted by the priest that offereth it, be he never so wicked; whereas the spiritual sacrifices, being our works are stained, and unclean in the Protestants judgement: answering I say hereunto, he very wittily as he thinketh, retorteth the argument in this sort.  
14. Are all our spiritual offerings unclean? 
Ibidem.  then all our good works are unperfect, and if they be unperfect, they cannot justify, they are not meritorious, nor satisfactory.  
But most ignorantly (by his good leave be it spoken) doth he infer these consequences against the Catholics, upon an antecedent which is his own only and none of theirs. For this antecedent all our good works are stained, unclean, and unperfect, is the doctrine of Protestants, and not of the Catholics, therefore though the Catholics do invincibly infer thereupon against them, that our works cannot in their doctrine be that clean oblation spoken of by Malachi, because one of those propositions both evidently destroy, and contradict tother: yet cannot they upon the same antecedent (which as I said is none of ours) infer against us, that our works are not meritorious or satisfactory. Marry whether upon the contrary proposition, to wit (the good works of men proceeding from God's grace are clean, meritorious, and satisfactory) which we acknowledge to be our doctrine, may be inferred, that they are that clean oblation mentioned by Malachi, is another question, which shall by and by the touched. But we will first see, how M. Mason accordeth these two things together, that our works are unclean, and yet are the clean oblation here spoken of: which two ends if he can well bring together, he shallbe a Master Mason indeed; thus he discourseth.  
They (that is our good works) are clean but unperfectly: that is in plain English they are clean, but they are not clean, which is a plain contradiction: for that which is unperfectly clean, is not clean, as all men know I think. Well let him go for ward, perhaps he will make something of this matter at lest.  
They are clean (saith he) because they proceed from the crystalline fountain of the spirit of grace: they are unperfect) he should have said unperfectly clean, if he had minded what he went about, but pardon him for he is in a maze) because they are wrought by the will of man, which is regenerate only in part, and so the pure water gathereth mud, because it runneth through a muddy channel.  
O more than muddy brain. Mark I pray thee, judicious reader, how grossly he buildeth one absurd error upon another. To prove that man's works, even such as proceed from the crystalline fountain of the spirit of grace, are unpure, or unperfectly clean, he saish that they are wrought by the will of man, which is regenerate only in part. An evident falsity, directly against many clear testimonies of holy scripture, whereof I will briefly point at two or three. 
a Deuteron. 32.4.  The works of God are perfect. 
b Act 22.17  Be baptized and wash away thy sins. 
c 'tis 3.5.  He hath saved us by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of spirit. 
d Ezech. 36.25.  I will power upon you clean water, and you shallbe cleansed from all your contaminations. 
e Psal 50.  Thou shalt wash me, and I shallbe whiter than snow; with many others to the same effect, not necessary here to be specified.  
By all which it is evident, that God's grace being in the soul of man doth purify and cleanse it in such manner, that it is made whiter than snow or wool: how then can any man imagine, that it should leave the soul so impure, or to use M. Masons metaphor so muddy, that it may infect and defile those works, which proceed from the same clear fountain of grace? False therefore is the ground, whereupon M. Mason would infer the impurity, or unperfect cleanness of our works proceeding from the Spirit of God's grace.  
Well then (may M. Mason say) if they be clean, they may the rather be that clean oblation mentioned by Malachi, and so have I made a good argument for him, and against myself: I have argued for the manifest truth, and neither for him, nor against myself, as we shall see by and by, after I have discovered one point more of M. Masons absurd doctrine. Upon his last words he maketh unto himself this objection.  
15. If they be muddy, how can they be called the pure offering in Malachy? Whereunto he answereth in these words.  
Because (say't he) the denomination is of the worthier part, and the graces of God in his children are in like unto the light, which shineth more and more unto the perfect day: 
Proverb. 4.18.  and though the flesh rebelleth against the Spirit yet at length the Spirit shall have the victory, and the flesh shallbe abolished. In mean time though our good works be stained with the flesh, yet God looketh not upon them as an angry judge, but as a loveing Father crowning his own graces in us, and pardoning our offences. Now because they are imperfect, they cannot justify, merit nor satisfy, yet because they are Gods graces, they are the pure offering.  
Here are scarce so many words in this answer, as three are absurdities and impertinencies, and in sum nothing proved either by reason or authority but barely affirmed, and therefore might with good reason, without any Farther refutation as easily be denied: but I will deal more courteously with him, and take some pains to refurt his paradoxes.  
Our good works (saith he) though muddy may be called the pure offering in Malachiy, because the denomination is of the worthier part: to wit of that, which proceedeth from the Spirit of God's grace. Here are two gross absurdities. The one in supposing that our good works have two parts, th'one clean as proceeding from God's grace, tother unclean as proceeding from the will of man regenerate in part-According to which doctrine not only our good works, but our greatest abominations may be called the clean offering in Malachi: because all our works, be they never so bad, proceed from God according to some part (as M. Mason speaketh) For he worketh in us all our works (saith the Prophet) And our Saviour himself: 
Esaie. 26 12. joh. 15.5.  Without me you can do nothing: in respect of which part they may be said to be clean, as proceeding from God: and because the denomination is taken (as he saith) of the worthier part, those very wicked works may be said to be a clean offering. This I suppose M. Mason will not deny to be most wicked doctrine, and yet how he will avoid it according to his grounds I see not.  
If he ask me how this inconvenience may be avoided in the Catholic opinion, 
taught all our works, proceed from God, and necessarily depend of him, yet is he not the cause or auctor of our bad works. For those he only permitteth: giving us strength to work, and leaveing us in our liberty to use it as we william.  which teacheth that all our works proceed from God; or depend of him I answer that it is easily avoided in true divinity, and Philosophy, according to which our whole actions do proceed from God, or depend of him and nevertheless the same whole actions proceed also from us, but after a divers sort and order. For from God they proceed as from the first, universal, indeterminate, and independent source, or agent: from us as from a secondary, dependant, and limited, or determinate cause, from whence they take their nature, quality, valour and denomination: so that they are wholly good, or wholly bad, and not party coloured, as M. Mason would have them. Which point because it is somewhat nice, and subtle, and not easy to be understood of every one, I will make more plain by this example. The actions or operations, whereby the fire bringeth forth heat or fire, an appletree bringeth forth an apple, a horse begetteth a horse, or a man a man, and the actions of all other creatures whatsoever, do proceed from God as from the first and supreme cause, from the heavens or the sun, as from an inferior, or secondary cause or argent (for without the cooperation of these causes, the inferior agents can do nothing) and also from the fire, tree, horse, man, or other creature, as from the lowest, nearest, and most immediate cause. And no action, or operation of these inferior creatures is produced, but by the concourse, and cooperation of all these agents not in part, as if one part were produced by God, another by the sun, and a third by the fire, or other creature, but every one of these agents concur to the producing of the whole action, but in his order and degree, and though all these causes do concur to every one of these actions, yet is it not many actions of divers natures, but one only action and of one nature or quality, and therefore that, which is brought forth by it is one only thing, for example heat, fire, apple, horse, man or the like, and not partly fire or apple, and partly another thing. Farther that, which is brought forth by any one of these actions, 
Our good works though only moral, do otherways proceed from God, them do our bad For our good works God counseleth, and often commandeth▪ and therefore by his inspirations moveth as unto them but our bad works he forbiddeth and by threats of punishment withdraweth us from them, and having given us strength to work, only permitteth us to work ill. Al● this tendeth only to show how our actions are either wholly good, or wholly bad, and not to show that our good actions do not chiefly proceed from God.  proceeding (as is already noted) from all these subordinate causes, taketh it whole nature and quality from the immediate, and nearest cause, for example that which is brought forth by the action of the fire together with the other superior causes, is fire, and not party fire, and party any other substance, and so in the rest.  
And the reason hereof is, because the cooperation of the fire being determined to one effect, doth determine the concurrence, and cooperation of the superior agents, (which of themselves are indifferent, and as fit to bring forth any other thing as fire) to this determinate effect. The fire therefore or apple have not the being, essence, or nature of fire or apple rather than any other, from the cooperation or concurrence of God, or the sun, but from the fire or the tree, from whence they proceed immediately, though they do as truly proceed from the sun and from God, as they do from the fire and from the tree. So in like manner our moral actions do take their whole nature, quality, and moral valour good or bad from us, from whom they immediately proceed, and not from God: though they as truly proceed from him (forasmuch as pertaineth to the substance of the action) as from us. Therefore if they be according to the rule or prescript of right reason (which is the measure of all human actions) they are good, honest, and laudable, not in part but in whole, though they proceed from man as well as from God, as an apple is an apple not in part but in whole, though it proceed as well from the sun and from God, as from the tree. If they be not according to the prescript of right reason, they are vicious, inhonest, and blameworthy, not in part but in the whole, though the whole substance of the action proceed from God as well as from man, because the nature, and quality of the action is taken from the immediate agent, as is noted before. And Farther if they proceed not only from our free will guided by the light of nature, but also from the pure fountain of heavenly grace, they are not only morally good and honest, but meritorious before God of the increase of grace and glory, not in part, but in whole. False therefore and frivolous is M. Masons imaginary mixture of our works, according to divers parts, whereof one should be good and another bad, one clean and another unclean.  
Tother absurdity contained in M. Masons former word is: that our works are denominated of the worthier part. For though it were true, as it is already proved to be most false, that our works had two parts, th'one clean, tother unclean (as M. Mason necessarily supposeth when he saith, that they are nominated of the worthier part) yet would it be false, and absurd to say, that they take their nomination of the worthier part. For the contrary is most true, as appeareth by that evident rule of nature noted first by S. Dennis, 
De divini nominibus. Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. Dion.  and since received of all as well Philosophers, as divines, that that which is good is of a perfect cause, but evil is of every particular defect. So that, that work, or action, which hath in it any defect, is truly said to be evil, and consequently all our works being in part unclean, (according to M. Masons doctrine) must needs be nought, and therefore cannot be that pure offering foretold by Malachi. And this is evident by the common judgement of all men, who esteem a man or woman bad, though they have but one bad quality or condition, so we say a rotten apple or cracked vessel, though the greatest part thereof be good and sound: and we say likewise a lame man and a tearne coat, though he want the use but of one hand or foot, or there be but one hole in the coat: By all which examples and a thousand more it is evident, that M. Mason's proposition is most false, whose ertour in this particular proceedeth of ignorance in natural Philosophy, which teacheth him to distinguish betwixt those things, that so consist of two positive parts, that th'one is the form in respect of the other, in which his proposition of taking denomination from the worthier part is true. And therefore a man is said to be a reasonable creature in respect of his soul, which is the worthier part, and a horse is said to be a living, moving, and sensible thing, for the like reason. And betwixt those things that are composed, or consist to speak as the vulgar sort conceiveth) of one positive, and another negative or privative part, as a man may be said to consist of a whole, and a lame leg, an apple of a sound and rotten side, and the like. In all which the denomination always followeth the defective part, for the reason given before out of S. Dennis: and of this latter kind are our works and actions, which when they want any circumstance, or perfection which is due unto them, and which they aught to have (as all our actions do in M. Masons doctrine) are always said to be evil and nought; and therefore can in no sort be said to be that pure offering mentioned by the Prophet Malachi.  
Having thus refuted M. Mason's shifts, concerning the pure offering so often mentioned, I will now satisfy the objection before insinuated, which may be framed out of the Catholic doctrine in favour of M. Mason in this sort.  
16. The good works of a just man proceeding from God's grace are meritorious, satisfactory, and iustificative, and consequently are pure and clean. Why therefore may they not be that pure offering mentioned in the Prophet Malachi?  
The answer is easy. For though a just man's works, which proceed from God's grace, be pure and clean, yet can they not be that pure offering, whereof the Prophet Malachi speaketh, for divers reasons, whereof some part are already touched. Namely for that the Sacrifice foretold by Malachi is a true and proper Sacrifice, whereas our good works are but metaphorically, and unproperly called a Sacrifice: that is but one; these are many: that is proper to the church of the gentiles: these are common to the jews and gentiles. That succeedeth the Sacrifices of the jews: these are joined with all Sacrifices, and succeed none. Therefore the holy ghost reproving the priesthood and Sacrifice of the jews in respect of that of the gentiles, it must needs be, that he meant some other Sacrifice, than all that which the jews offered: who notwithstanding offered the same Spiritual Sacrifice of prayer, praise, and thanks giving, that the Christian gentiles do. For▪ otherways the Sacrifice of the gentiles, if it were no other than of Prayer, and praise cold not be so preferred before that of the jews as that it should be approved by God, and tother. All these reasons are already touched, and show manifestly, that our good works although never so clean, and pure, cannot be that pure offering mentioned by the Prophet; which will also more evidently appear by that, which shall now be said to prove, that the testimony of Malachy is necessarily to be understood of a proper, sensible, and external Sacrifice. From prosecuting of which point I have been thus far deturned, by occasion of M. Masons odd shifts thrust in to thwart my purpose. To return therefore thither where I left before, I say.  

Conference of places.  27 Fourthly that the pure oblation spoken of by the Prophet Malachi being understood of a true and proper Sacrifice, agreeth rightly with other places of holy scripture; and namely with that of Genesis. 
Gen. 14.  But Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of God most high. And that of S. Luke. This is my body which is given for you, 
Luke 22.19.  do this for a commemoration of me. And of the Psalm. 
Psal. 109. Hebr. 12.10.  Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech. And of S. Paul. We have an altar, whereof they have not power to eat that serve the tabernacle. 
Dan. 11.31. & 12.11.  And of Daniel. They shall take away the daily Sacrifice. Which places cannot literally be understood without a proper and sensible Sacrifice in the new law. Again the prophesy of Malachi being understood, is not repugnant to any other testimony of holy scripture, as shall clearly appear hereafter.  
Fiftly, the testimony of Malachi being understood in the foresaid sense is no less consonant with natural reason, than conformity with true reason are the Sacrifices of the law of nature, and of Moses, yea by so much more conformable to natural reason it is, that we should have a true and proper priesthood, and Sacrifice in the law of grace, then in that either of Moses or of nature, by how much greater tie of gratitude, and thankfulness we have to God our sovereign Lord for greater blessings and benefits received, than they had that lived under the former laws. mark the testimony of S. Ireneus following.  

Interpretation of the ancient church.  sixtly the ancient church of the first two, three, four, and five hundredth years after Christ, the judgement whereof our adversaries dare not refuse, understandeth this oblation to be a true, and proper Sacrifice, and that very same, which our Saviour Christ offered in his lost supper. Which only reason is more than sufficient to persuade any one (well affected either to his own salvation, or to the knowledge of the truth itself) of the true sense and meaning of these words.  
And to begin with most ancient Irenaeus, who lived within the second hundredth year after Christ: that is more than 1400. years ago. thus he writeth.  

Sed & Apostolis suis dans consilium, primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint, cum qui ex creatura Panis est, accepit & gratias egit dicens: Hoc est corpus meum. Et Calicem similiter, qui est ex creatura quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, & novi testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat, primitias suorum munerum in novo testamento, de quo in duodecim prophetis Malachias sic praesignificavit: non est mihi voluntas in vobis, dicit Dominus exercituum, & sacrificium non suscipiam de manu vestra, ab ortu enim solis, usque ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, & in omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo & sacrificium purum, manifestissimè significans per haec, quoniam prior quidem populus cessavit offerre Deo; omni autem loco sacrificium offertur Deo & hoc purum.   

But giving council to his Apostles, to offer to God the first fruits of his creatures, not as if he stood in need, but that they should neither be unfruitful nor ungreatefull, he took bread and gave thanks saying. This is my body: and in like manner the chalice he confessed to be his blood, and taught a new offering of the new testament which the church receiving from the Apostles, offereth through the whole world to God, who giveth us food, the chief of his gifts in the new testament, whereof Malachy one of the twelve prophets foretelleth in this manner. I have no will in you saith our lord of hosts nor offering will I receive at your hand: for from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, my name is great amongst the gentiles, and in every place incense and a pure sacrifice is offered to my name, most manifestly signifying by these words, that the former people (the jews) have ceased to offer to God, and that in all places is offered to God a sacrifice, and that pure.   
Which words judicious reader if thou diligently mark, thou wilt found that if this holy Father had lived in our days, he could not almost have spoken more directly against the Protestants heresy, in this point. First he giveth the reason, why our Saviour taught his Apostles to offer Sacrifice to God, that they should neither be without the Spiritual fruit of God's grace, nor ungrateful to him for his benefits received; as if without Sacrifice they should be both. secondly he teacheth what this Sacrifice is: to wit the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, and how it is offered, in these words: this is my body: this is my blood: thirdly he saith that Christ in this action taught a new Sacrifice of the new testament, and therefore such an one as had not been before, as the Spiritual Sacrifices of our works are. fourthly that this Sacrifice being delivered by the Apostles to the church, is offered to God through the whole world, and therefore cannot be the Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ, as he was offered upon the cross. Fiftly he faith that the prophet Malachi foretold the same in the words related out of him. All which things well weighed, I do not see what could be said more direct for the proof either of the church's Sacrifice, or that it was foretold by Malachi the Prophet.  

Aug. de civit. lib. 18, cap. 35.  S. Augustin teacheth the same verity in as plain terms saying:  

Malachias Prophetans ecclesiam, quam per Christum iam cernimus propagatam judaeis apertissimè dicit ex persona Dei: non est mihi voluntas in vobis: & munus non suscipiam de manu vestra; Ab ortu enim solis usque ad occasum, magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, & in omni loco sacrificabitur, & offeretur nomini meo oblatio munda: quia magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, dicit Dominus. Hoc sacrificium per sacerdotium Christi secundum ordinem Melchisedech, cum in omni loco à solis ortu usque ad occasum Deo iam videamus offerri, sacrificium autem judaeorum, quibus dictum est: non est mihi voluntas in vobis, cessasse negare non possunt: quid adhuc alium Christum, quum hoc quod Prophetatum legunt, & impletum vident impleri non potuerit nisi per ipsum?   

Malachias foretelling the church which we see propagated by Christ doth in the person of God most plainly say unto the jews. I have no will in you, nor offering will I receive at your hand. For from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof my name is great amongst the Gentiles, and in every place is there sacrificing, and a pure oblation is offered to my name. This sacrifice of the priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech, seeing we see offered in all places from the sun rising to the setting thereof: And they cannot deny the sacrifice of the jews (to whom it was said I have no will in you) to be ceased: why do they yet expect another Christ, that being fulfilled, which they read to have been foretold, and could be fulfilled by none but him?   
And what S. Augustin meaneth by the sacrifice of Christ's priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, thou shalt hear (good reader) of himself, who in another place writeth thus.  

Haec quip ecclesia, est israel secundum spiritum, à quo distinguitur ille israel secundum carnem, qui seruiebat in umbris sacrificiorum, quibus significabatur singulare sacrificium, quod nunc offert Israel secundum spiritum; cui dictum atque praedictum est: Audi populus meus & loquar tibi, Israel & testificabor tibi etc. De huius enim domo non accepit vitulos, neque de gregibus eius hircos. Iste immolat Deo sacrificium laudis, non secundum ordinem Aaron, sed secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Noverunt qui legunt quid protulerit Melchisedech quando benedixit Abraham. Et iam participes eius, vident tale sacrificium nunc offerri Deo toto orb terrarum.   

For this church is Israel according to the spirit, 
Lib. 1. con. adverse. legi● & Prophet. c. 20.  from which is distinguished that according to the flesh, which served in the shadows of sacrifices, whereby was signified one singular sacrifice, which the spiritual Israel now offereth; to which it was told and foretold: Hear my people and I will tell thee, Israel and I will testify unto thee I God am thy God, I will not receive calves of thy house, nor goats of thy herds. For from the house of this spiritual Israel he receiveth not calves, nor goats from her herds. This Israel offereth to God a sacrifice of praise, not according to the order of Aaron: but according to the order of Melchisedech. They know that read it, what Melchisedech brought forth when he blessed Abraham, and now they are partakers thereof: and see such a sacrifice offered to God through the whole world.   
Now do I appeal to thy judgement, indifferent reader, whether M. Mason (affirming this testimony of the Prophet Malachi to be understood of spiritual offerings, by the judgement of the fathers, and namely of these two) doth not say either he careth not, 
Pag. 219.  or knoweth not what? But let us see, upon what ground he affirmeth a thing so far from all appearance of truth. Marry because these fathers with S. Hierome, and Eusebius say, that by incense (which according to some readings the Prophet here mentioneth) are understood the prayers of saints, which are spiritual offerings: This is true indeed: but nothing to the purpose. For both the Prophet Malachi, and all these fathers speak expressly of a clean offering, over and above the incense: the text itself as M. Mason turneth it being this: In every place incense shallbe offered up to my name, and a pure offering. Be it therefore that these fathers understand by incense the prayers of saints, yet by the pure offering expressed by the Prophet, they with all the rest that handle this matter, do understand the sacrifice of the holy Eucharist, even by M. Caluins' own confession as we shall see by and by.  
Again though by incense the fathers understand the prayers of saints, yet is there no reason to think, that they should thereby exclude a true, and proper external oblation, and sacrifice, more than the sweet odor, which God smelled from the sacrifice of No, did exclude, 
Gen. 8.21.  or take away the true external oblation of beasts and fowls, which he made to God at his issue out of the Ark. So that M. Mason without the lest show of reason, affirmeth the aforementioned fathers to understand this testimony of Malachi only of spiritual offerings: which is yet farther, most evidently convinced out of S. Augustin, 
August lib. 18. de civitat. cap. 25. Chrisostom. orat. 3. con. judaeos ante finem.  and S. Chrisostome, who use this testimony of the Prophet Malachi against the jews, to prove that the Messiah is already come, by the change of the levitical sacrifice into that, which is foretold by the Prophet. Which argument (the Prophet being understood of spiritual sacrifices) could be of no force at all. For besides that these spiritual sacrifices being principally internal, cannot be unto men, who see not that which is in the heart, any evident sign of another thing whereof they stand in doubt, as the jews do of that point, that the Messiah is already come, and therefore should very impertinently be brought to prove it. Besides this I say, these fathers who use this testimony, if they should understand it only of spiritual offerings, as M. Mason would have them, could not infer thereupon any change of the jews sacrifices into some better, which the Prophet plainly fortelleth, saying in the person of God. I will take no offering at your hands, for in all places is offered to my name a pure offering: but a bore cessation of the jews external sacrifices, without substituting any other in their place, and continuation of the internal, which they wanted not: And consequently the Jews should hereby rather be confirmed in their error, then drawn from it, seeing by this argument their religioni proved to be more perfect, then that of the Christians, as is before clearly deduced.  
And I appeal to M. Masons own judgement, whether if he where at this day to prove unto a jew, that the Messiah whom he expecteth, is already come, he would think this testimony of the Prophet Malachi, understood only of Spiritual Sacrifices, would be a God medium for his purpose? I have not so bad an opinion of his judgement to think, that he would verily take it so to be: for it is evident, that this place so understood could have no show of proof at all against the jew: which seeing it is so, how can he think that S. Augustin, and S. Chrisostome, the latter especially disputing expressly against the jews, should use so impertinent an argument? can he think that they were less judicious, in choosing their testimonies against their adversaries, than he would be? And I would have him observe, that S. Chrisostome doth not only urge the latitude of the place, where the sacrifice of the new law is to be offered, which the Prophet expresseth in these words, from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, and in every place, but also much insisteth upon the sanctity of this sacrifice above that of the jews, declared by the Prophet in these words a pure offering, and that not only in respect of the imperfection which the jews sacrifice might have, from the offerers, but in respect of the very offering itself, whereof he saith thus.  

Si quis ipsum hoc sacrificium conferat cum alio, ingens. immensumque discrimen inveniet, ut juxta comparationis rationem solum hoc purum dici potest.   

If this sacrifice (foretold by Malachi) be compared with that (of Moses' la) so huge and incomparable difference will appear betwixt, then, that in comparison this mentioned by Malachi may only be called pure.   
Whereby it evidently appeareth that S. Chrisostome speaketh of some other sacrifice, then of the spiritual sacrifices of our good works, which cannot so far exceed the sacrifices of the jews, whose spiritual sacrifices were the same with ours, as M. Mason expressly confesseth.  
18. But if all these reasons will not persuade M. Mason to think, that the fathers understood by the pure offering, mentioned by the Prophet Malachi, an external, sensible, and proper sacrifice, and that they taught such a sacrifice to remain in Christ's church, he will (I doubt not) do that honour to his great Master. M. Caluin, as to credit his judgement herein: or if he will decline and disclaim from him, as being the father of the puritan faction, yet in no reason can he refuse the sentence, of those great lights of the Protestant church the Centurists, who will tell him the same: but let us hear the words as well of one as tother.  
M. Caluin writeth thus.  

Cum obijciunt locum Malachiae sic ab Irenaeo exponi (de Sacrificio missae) oblationem Melchisedech sic tractari ab Athanasio, Ambrosio, Augustino, & Arnobio: breviter responsum sit eosdem illos scriptores alibi quoque panem interpretari Christi Corpus: sed ita ridiculè, ut dissentire nos cogat ratio & veritas.   

When they object the place of Malachi to be understood so (of the Sacrifice of the mass) by Ireneus: 
Cal. lib. de vera eccl. reform.  and the offering of Melchisedech, to be handled in like manner by Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustin, and Arnobius, it is briefly answered, that these same writers do in other places, also interpret bread the body of Christ: but so ridiculously, that reason and truth constraineth us to descent from them.   
Here we see the Sacrifice of the Mass, and real presence of Christ in the blessed Sacrament, to have been believed and taught by the Fathers, both of the east and west church, above twelve, and thirteen hundredth years ago even by Caluins own confession. The Centurists say also of S. Irenaeus.  

De oblatione porrò Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. satis videtur loqui incommodè, cum ait novi testamenti novam docuit (Christus) oblationem, quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo.   

That he speaketh not well of the oblation, 
Cent. 2. coll. 63.  when he saith that Christ taught a new offering of the new testament, which the church receiving from the Apostles doth offer to God through the whole world.   
And of S. Cyprian, who lived within the third hundredth year of Christ, the same authors testify that he saith.  


Cent. 3. col. 83.  Sacerdotem inquit (Cyprianus) vice Christi fungi, & Deo patri Sacrificium offer.   

That the priest performeth the office of Christ, and offereth sacrifice to God the Father.   
For which speech they reprove him of superstition, in their alphabetical table of that century under the letter 5. 9  
Now though I might justly suppose these most pregnant testimonies of corrupted antiquity, grounded upon the express words of holy scripture, abundantly sufficient to prove the truth of the Catholic faith in this point of a sacrificing priesthood in the law of Christ: yet because this verity doth not only serve to convince the protestants of want of true Bishops and pastors (for which purpose it is here disputed) and consequently of he like want of a true church; but also is a point principally impugned and controversed, by them, I will for the more abundant and evident cleared thereof here add the testimonies of the ancient pastors, and Doctors of God's church, of the first 500 years after Christ, not of any one country or nation, but of all the three parts of the Christian world, Asia, Africa, and Europe, that thereby the partialest reader may see, this doctrine to have had no other authors or beginners then them, of whom the holy ghost saith. 
Psal. 15.5.  Their sound hath gone forth through all the earth, and their words have reached to the ends of the round world,  

Theodoret. Dialogi. 1.  To begin therefore with S. Ignatius that most glorious martyr, made Bishop of Antioch in Syria by S. Peter himself, and is cited by Theodoret Bishop of Cyre 1200. years agone. This great parsonage speaking of certain heretics saith. 
Theodoret. Dialogo. 3.   

Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri JESV CHRISTI, quae pro peccatis nostris passa est.   

They receive not the oblations and Eucharists, because they believe not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour JESUS Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins.   
S. justinus a jew borne in Palestina, 
Dial cum Tripho. printed at Basill.  who suffered martyrdom 1400. and 50. years ago saith.  

De Sacrificio quod offertur à nobis gentibus in omni loco, id est Eucharistiae tum pane, tum poculo, praedicit (Malachias) dicens nos clarificare nomen eius.   

Of the Sacrifice which is offered by us in every place, to wit of bread and wine of the Eucharist, Malachi foretold saying, that thereby we glorify his name.   
Of S. Irenaeus Archbishop of Lions in France and martyr, who lived more than 1400. and 40. years ago see a most pregnant testimony before in this same chapter.  
Tertullian borne and brought up in Africa in his book of prayer written, whilst he was yet Catholic, 
De oratione cap. 14.  above 1400. years ago.  

Nonne solemnior erit statio tua, si & ad aram Dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini & reseruato, utrumque saluum est, & participatio Sacrificij & executio officij.   

Will not thy station (or fast) be more solemn if thou assist at Gods altar? having received and reserved the body of our lord? both th'one and tother is safe, as well the participation of the sacrifice, as the execution of the office or duty.   
And again declaring the custom of the Christians in his time. 
De corona militis cap. 3.   

Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitijs, annua die facimus.   

We offer for the dead: and for the birth days (so were then and are still called the feast days of martyrs) upon the years day or anniversary.   
S. Cyprian another African Doctor, Bishop of Carthage, 
Cyprianus epist. 63. ad Cec llium.  and martyr above 1300. and 50. years ago, besides that unevitable testimony before related hath this doctrine in the same epistle.  

Apparet Sanguinem Chrsti non offerri si desit winum Calici: nec Sacrificium Dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebrari, nisi oblatio & Sacrificium nostrum respondeat passsioni.   

It appeareth that the blood of Christ is not offered, if wine be wanting to the chalice: nor yet that our lords Sacrifice is lawfully celebrated, unless our oblation and Sacrifice answer to his passion.   
And yet again.  

Sacerdos sacrificium verum & plenum tunc offert in ecclesia Deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre, secundum quod ipsum Chriūum videat obtulisse.   

The priest doth then offer to God the Father a true and full Sacrifice in the church, if he do so offer as he seethe Christ to have offered.   
Yea the whole epistle is such, as no man that readeth it can deny, but that S. Cyprian did believe and teach a true, sensible, and external Sacrifice, and consequently a true and proper sacrificing priesthood, in the new la and church of Christ.  

Epist. 66.  And in his epistle to the clergy and people of Furnes he saith.  

Episcopi antecessores nostri religiosè considerantes, & salubriter providentes censuerunt, ne quis frater excedens, ad tutelam vel curam clericum nominaret: ac si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec Sacrisicium pro dormitione eius celebraretur. Neque enim ad altare Dei meretur nominari in sacerdotum prece, qui ab altare sacerdotes & ministros voluit avocare.   

The Bishops our predecessors religiously considering and wholesomely providing, have ordained that if any brother departing this life, should make any clerk overseer or executor of his will, the offering should not be made for him, nor the Sacrifice celebrated for his departure. For he doth not deserve to be named at Gods altar in the prayers of the priests, that would withdraw the priests and ministers from the alter.   
And the first council of Nice celebrated almost 1300. years ago, the authority whereof was never rejected or denied by any but the damned Arians, saith.  

Neque Canon neque consuetudo tradidit, ut qui offerendi potestatem non habent, is qui offerunt dent Corpus Christi   

Neither Canon nor custom hath taught that those, 
Concil. Ni cen. can. 18,  who have not the power to offer (speaking of deacons) should give the body of Christ to those that offer (to wit to priests.)   
Eusebius, who lived at the same time, setting down the history of the council holden at Jerusalem under Constantine the great, saith.  

Alij incruentis Sacrificijs & misticis consecrationibus divinum numen placabant.   

That some Bishops did adorn the solemnity with prayers and sermons etc. other did appease or (propitiate) God with unbloody sacrifices & mystical consecrations. 
Euseb. de utta Constant. li. 4. cap. 45. printed add Geneva.    
S. cyril Patriarch of Jerusalem 340, years after Christ, that is 127. years ago in his catechistical sermons.  

Deum benignissimum oramus ut super illa proposita Sanctum Spiritum emittat, ut panem quid●m faciat Corpus Christi, vinum verò Sanguinem Christi. Omninò enim quod attigerit Spiritus Sanctus, hoc Sanctificatur & transmutatur. Deinde vero postquam confectum est spirituale Sacrificium, ille cultus incruentus: Super ipsa propitiationis hostia obsecramus Deum pro communi ecclesiarum pace.  
Rogamus & inquam nos omnes, & hoc sacrificium tibi offerimus, ut meminerimus etiam eorum qui ante nosobdormierunt: primum Patriarcharum, Prophetarum, Apostolorun, Martyrum, ut Deus orationibus illorum deprecationibus suscipiat preces nostras. Deinde pro defunctis Sanctis patribus & episcopis; denique pro omnibus oramus, qui inter nos vita functi sunt, maximum esse credentes animarum iwamen pro quibus offertur precatio Sancti illius & tremendi quod in altari positum est, Sacrificij.   

We pray the most merciful God, 
Cyrill. Hiero solimit. catech. misti. 5.  to sand the holy ghost upon the gifts proposed, that he may make the bread the body of Christ. and the wine the blood of Christ. For that which the holy ghost toucheth is altogether sanctified and changed. And after that the spiritual Sacrifice is prepared the unbloody worship, ) cult or service) over the propitiatory host, we pray God for the common peace of the church etc. And again. We beseech the and we offer unto thee this Sacrifice in memory of those that are deceased before us, patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that God by their prayers and intercessions may receive our prayers: then for the departed holy Bishops and Fathers, and to conclude for all our brethren departed, believing that the holy and dreadful Sacrifice that is placed upon the altar is a sovereign help of those souls for which it is offered.   
And yet again.  

Nos pro defunctis Christum pro nostris peccatis mactatum offerimus, ut & nobis & illis, eum qui est benignissimus, propitium reddamus.   

We offer for the dead Christ Sacrificed for our sins, that we may make him that is most merciful, appeased (or propitious) both to us and them.   
And so many most notable things hath this holy Father in the same place, as well for the declaration of this point, and divers others of Catholic doctrine, as also for the increase of true piety, that I could wish he were read & understood of all men. S. Epiphanius in his epistle to john Bishop of Hierurusalem successor to S. Cyrill, which is translated by S. Hierome above 1200. year ago, and is amongst his epistles the 60.  

Cum vidissem quia multitudine Sanctorum fratrum in monasterio consisteret, & Sancti presbyteri Hieronimus & Vincentius propter verecundian & humilitatem nollent debita nomini suo exercere sacrificia, & laborare in hac part ministerij, quae Christianorum praecipua est salus etc.   

When I saw a great number of holy brethren in the monastery, and that the holy priests Hierome and Vincent for modesty and humility would not exercise the sacrifices belonging to their title, and travel in that part of the ministry, which is the principal safety (mark this) the principal safety of Christians.   
S. Gregory of Nlsse brother to the great S. Basil, whom S. Gregory Nazianzen calleth child of light, and man of God, who lived 1200. and 30. years ago delivereth the Catholic doctrine, of the Sacrifice of the new testament in these memorable words.  

Memento Dominici dicti, nullus tollit animam meam, sed ego pono eam à meipso. Hoc mihi stet firmum, & quaestio de triduo mortis fuerit explicata. Nam qui omnia pro potestate, atque authoritate administrat, non expectat ex proditione necessitatem vel judaeos grassantes, vel Pilati judicium iniquum, ut illorum hominum scelus ac malitia principium esset salutis nostrae: sed pro ineffabili arcanoque, & qui ab hominibus cerni nequit, sacrificij modo, sua dispositio ne praeoccupat impetum violentum, & sese oblationem offert pro nobis, simul sacerdos & agnus qui tollit peccata mundi. Sed dices mihi quando hoc accidit? Tum cum corpus suum ad manducandum, & sanguinem familiaribus praebuit ad bibendum: Homo enim vesci non potest, nisi mactatio processerit. Qui igitur dedit discipulis suis Corpus ad manducandum, apart demonstrat iam perfectam & absolutam esse agni immolationem. Non enim ad edendum Corpus animatum victimae esset idoneum. jan ergo latenter pro potestate sua invisibiliter, & ineffabiliter Corpus immolatum erat.   

He who governeth all things by his power, and authority, 
Gregor. Nissen erat de resurrectione.  doth not expect till he be betrayed, nor the raging jews, nor the unjust sentence of Pilate, that the wickedness and malice of those men might be the beginning of our salvation. But by an unspeakable and secret manner of sacrifice, which cannot be discerned of men, doth by his own ordinance prevent their violent force, and offereth himself a Sacrifice for us, being both the priest and the lamb, that taketh away the sins of the world. But thou wilt say to me: when happened this? Then, when he gave to his domestics his body to eat, and his blood to drink. For no man can eat the lamb unless it be killed before. Therefore he, that gave to his disciples his body to be eaten, doth evidently declare, that the Sacrifice of the lamb is already done and post: for the living body of the host is not fit to be eaten. Therefore even then was his body secretly, and invisibly through his power offered.   
And S. Gregory Nazianzen, for his singular knowledge in divinity surnamed the divine, S. hierom's master, of the same age with S. Gregory of Nisse, compagnon in studies with his brother the great S. Basil.  


Orat. 1. con. julian. apostate.  Manus suas profanat (nefario scilicet sacrificiorum sanguine) ut nimirum eas ab incruento Sacrificio, per quod nos Christo, ipsiusque passioni ex divinitati communicamus, elueret ac purgaret.  
Non iam aras à puritissimo & incruento Sacrificio nomen habentes, scelesto sanguine contaminabunt.   

He stained (saith he) his hands (with the blood of profane sacrifices) to that end that he might purge the from the unbloody Sacrifice, whereby we are made partakers of Christ, of his passion, & divinity. And again. They (the gentiles) will not now defile the altars, that take their names of the most pure and unbloody sacrifice with the detestable blood (of profane sacrifice.   
And in his apologetical oration having declared what perfection was required even in the priests of the old la, he concludeth with these memorable words.  

Haec igitur cum ego nossem, illudque insuper, neminem magno & deo, & sacrificio, & Pontifice, dignum esse nisi qui prius seipsum hostiam viventem, sanctam exhibuerit, ac rationabile obsequium, gratum, atque acceptum ostenderit, Deoque Sacrificium laudis, ac Spiritum contritum obtulerit) quod solum Sacrificium, is qui omnia dedit, à nobis exposcit) quo tandem modo externum illud Sacrisicium, illud magnorum mysteriorum auti typum, ipsi offerre auderem? aut quomodo Sacerdotis habitum & nomen subire?   

Having known these things, and besides, that no man is worthy of the great God, and Sacrifice and Bishops unless he have first given himself a lively and holy offering to the same God, and presented him with a reasonable, grateful, and acceptable service, and offered to God a Sacrifice of praise and a contrite heart (which only Sacrifice he that giveth all things doth require of us,) (to wit of that we have, or can give him of our own, for he doth not ask of us the sacrifice of our goods and cattle as he did of the jews.) How could I dare to offer unto him that external sacrifice (mark this word external) that exemplar of the great mysteries? or how could I put on the coat and name of a priest?   
S. Ambroise Bishop of Milan 1220. years ago besides the testimonies alleged out of him before saith thus.  

Ego mansi in munere, missa facere caepi. Dum offero, raptum cognovi à populo Castulum quendam, quem presbyterum dicerent Arriani; hunc autem in platea offenderant transeuntes. Amarissimè flore & orare in ipsa oblatione Deum caepi, ut subveniret ne cuius sanguis in causa ecclesiae fieret.   

I abode in mine office, 
Epist. 14. ad Marcellam sororem.  & begun to say mass (that is his very word) whilst I offer I knew that the people had laid hand upon one Castulus, which the Arrians said was priest, who was found by men passing through the street. I begun to weep bitterly, and to pray unto God in the very oblation, that in the cause of the church there might not be any blood shed.   
And again.  


Upon the psal. 38. and 9 verse.  Vidimus principem sacerdotum ad nos venientem, vidimus & audivimus offerentem pro nobis sanguinem suum: sequamur ut possumus sacerdotes, ut offeramus pro populo sacrificium & si infirmi merito, honorabiles tamen sacrificio. Quia & si nunc Christus non videtur offerre, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi Corpus offertur.   

We have seen the chief priest come to us, we have seen and heard him offer his blood for us: let us priests imitate him as we may, and offer sacrifice for the people, being honourable in sacriefice though small in merit. For though Christ be not now seen to offer, ye is he offered upon earth, when the body of Christ is offerred.   
And yet again he proveth the excellency of this mystery by these words of the canon of the holy mass.  


Lib. 4. de Sacramentis cap. 6.  Memores gloriosissimae eius passionis, ab inferis resurrectionis, & in caelum ascensionis, offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, rationabilem hostiam, incruentam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum & Calicem vitae aeternae; & petimus & precamur, ut hanc oblationem suscipias in sublimi altari tuo, per manus Angelorum tuorum sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel & sacrificium patriarchae nostri Abrahae, & quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos Melchisedech   

Remembering his most glorious passion, resurrection from hell, and ascension into heaven we offer unto thee this immaculate host, reasonable host, unbloody host, this holy bread, and chalice of life everlasting, and we beseech thee to receive this offering in the high altar by the hands of thy Angels, as thou vouchsafest to receive the gifts of thy just servant Abel, the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and which the high priest Melchisedech offered unto thee.   
S. Optatus Milevitanus an African author of the same antiquity with S. Ambrose writing against the Sacrilegious Donatists, who broke down Gods altars, amongst many other sharp and vehement reprehensions (which I wish thee diligent reader to see thyself, being too long to relate here, and which are by so much more proper for our Protestants, than they were for the Donatists, by how much more outrageous they have been in pulling down churches and altars then the Donatists ever were. 
Lib. 6. con. Parme ad initium. )  

Quid vobis fecerat Deus qui illic invocari consueverat? quid vos offenderat Christus cuius illic per certa momenta Corpus & Sanguis habitabat? Quid vos offendistis etiam vos ipsi, ut illa altaria frangeretis in quibus ante nos per x temporum spatia, sancte ut arbitramini obtulistis? Apud Dominum Elias Propheta querelam deponit. His autem locutus est verbis quibus & vos inter alios ab ipso accusari meruistis Domine (inquit) altaria tua confregerunt.   

What had God done unto you) that was wont to be prayed unto there (at the altars? wherein had Christ offended you, whose body and blood for certain times did devil there? what had you done to yourselves, that you should break in pieces those altars, upon which you yourselves long time before us did holily as you thought offer? And a little after. Elias the Prophet complaineth to God in these words, wherewith you deserve to be accused lord, (saith he) they have broken down thine altars. 
Commentar. in epist. ad Tit. cap. 1. 1. Cor. 7.5.    
S. Hierome who wrote above 1200. years agone saith thus.  

Si laicis imperatur ut propter orationem abstineant se ab uxorum coitu: quid de episcopo sentiendum est, qui quotidie pro suis populique peccatis illibatas Deo oblaturus est victimas. invenimus sacerdotem Abimalech de panibus propositionis noluisse prius dare David & pueris suis, nisi eos audisset ab heri & medius tertiùs vacasse ab opere coniugali, & mundos esse à coniugibus suis. Tantum interest inter propositionis panes & corpus Christi, quantum inter umbram & corpora, inter imaginem & veritatem etc.   

If lay men be commanded to abstain from the company of their own wives to give themselves to prayer, what shall we think of Bishops that aught every day to offer to God immaculate hosts for his own and the people's sins? We found that the priest Abimelech would not a given to David and his company of the loaves of proposition, 
1. Reg. 21.  had he not first understood that they had abstained from their own wives from yesterday and the day before. There is as much difference betwixt the loaves of proposition and the body of Christ, as there is betwixt the shadow & the body, betwixt the image & the truth, betwixt the figure & the thing figured.   
S. john Chrisostome who lived about 1200. years ago besides divers other sentences to the same purpose hath these express words.  


Commentar. in. 10. cap. 1. epist. ad Corinth.  Hic in eo quod est horribilius & magnificentius, sacram constituit operationem, ut qui & ipsum mutarit Sacrificium, & pro caede brutorum seipsum jussit offerri. Non frustra sunt haec ab Apostolis legibus constituta, 
Homil. 3. in epist. ad Philippenses par. morali.  ut in venerandis inquam atque horrificis mysterijs memoria eorunfiat qui decesserunt. Noverunt hinc multum ad illos lucri accedere, multum utilitatis. Eo enim tempore cum universus populus stat manibus expansis, ac caetus sacerdotalis, & illud horrorem venerationis plenum incutiens Sacrificium, quomodo Deum non placabimus pro istis orantem.   

He hath here (to wit in the new testament) instituted the sacred action in that which is far more dreadful and magnificent, as he that hath changed the sacrifice, and for the immolation of beasts hath commanded himself to be offered. And again. Not without cause have the Apostles by laws ordained that in the venerable and dreadful mysteries the dead should be remembered. They knew that thence they received much gain and profit. For when all the people hold up their hands, and the whole company of priests, & that dreadful sacrifice placed there, how shall we not appease God praying for them.   
And S. Augustin that great light of the latin church of the same antiquity with S. Chrisostome Bishop of Hippoe in Africa saith.  


Lib. 1. de anima & eius origine ca 9  salva fide Catholica & eeclesiastica regula nulla ratione conceditur ut pro non baptizatis cuiuslibet aetatis hominibus offeratur sacrificium corporis & sanguinis Christi.  
Cum offerretur pro ea sacrificium pretij nostri, iam juxta sepulchrum posito cadavere, priusquam deponeretur, sicut fieri solet.  
Orationibus vero Sanctae ecclesiae, Sacrificio salutari, & elcemosinis quae pro eorum spiritibus erogantur non est dubitandum mortuos adiwari, ut cum eis misericordiùs agaturà Domino, quam eorum peccata meruerunt.  
Hoc enim à patribus traditum universa? observat ecclesia, ut pro eis qui in corporis & sanguinis Christi communione defuncti sunt, cum ad ipsum Sacrificium loco suo commemorantur, oretur, ac pro illis quoque id offerri commemoretur.   

Neither the Catholic faith nor the rule of the church doth permit that the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ should be offered for those, that are not baptised of what years soever they are. And again. 
Lib. 9 confesfessionum. cap. 12.  Whilst the sacrifice of our redemption was offered for her (his mother) her body being placed near the grave before it was laid down as the custom is. And again he saith. It is not to be doubted that the dead are helped by the prayers of the holy church, and the healthful sacrifice and alms bestowed for their souls, that God may deal more mercifully with than than their sins have deserved. For this the whole church observeth, as delivered by tradition from the Fathers, to wit, that for those that are dead in the communion of the body & blood of Christ when they are remembered in that sacrifice in their place they should be prayed for, and that it should he declared that it is offered for them.   
If thou desire good reader to see more testimonies of this great Doctor to this purpose, see him in his book of heresies in the heresies of Aerius. his 20. book against Faustus cap. 21. his 10. book de civit. Dei cap. 20. the 17. book cap. 20. the 18. book cap. 35. and the 22. book and 8. cap. for my purpose will not permit me to stay longer in him.  
S. cyril Patriarch of Alexandria who died the year 444. in the explication of his 11. anathema or curse examined in the third general council where he was not only present but precedent by Celestinus then Pope of Rome his appointment saith.  

Sanctum, vivificum, incruentumque in ecclesiis sacrificium offerimus, corpus & pretiosum sanguinem, quae proponuntur, non communis nobisque similis hominis esse credentes, sed magis tanquam vivificantis verbi proprium Corpus & sanguinem accipimus.   

We offer the holy, life-giving, and unbloody sacrifice in the churches, believing that the body and precious blood which are proposed are not of an ordinary man, or of one like us, but we receive them as the proper body and blood of the word (that is of the son of God) that giveth life to all things.   
S. Leo the great created Pope the 440. year after our saviours nativity.  


Epist. 81. ad Dioscorum Patriarcham Alexander.  Volumus ut cum solemnior festivitas conventum populi numerosioris indixerit & ad eam tamen fidelium multitudo convenerit, quam recipere Basilica una non possit, sacrificij oblatio indubitanter iteretur, cum plenum pietatis atque rationis sit, ut quoties Basilicam in qua agitur praesentia novae plebis impleverit, toties sacrificium subsequens offeratur, Necesse est autem ut quaedam pars populi sua devotione privetur si unius tantum missae more seruato, sacrificium offerre non possint, nisi qui prima diei part convenerunt.   

We will (saith he) that when the solemnity of the feast hath drawn together so many faithful people that the church cannot receive them at once, that the oblation of the sacrifice be without doubt reiterated or done again: seeing all piety and rason will, that so often as the church is filled with new people, so often a new sacrifice be offered. For it must needs be that some part of the people be deprived of their devotion, the custom of one only mass observed, if they only that come first may offer the sacrifice.   
S. Fulgentius an African, made Bishop the year 504. and died 529. saith.  

Dicis à nonnullis te interrogatum de sacrificio corporis & sanguinis Christi, quod plerique soli patri existimant immolari. Hanc etiam asseris haereticorum esse quasi palmariam interrogationem.   

Thou sayst thou hast been demanded of by divers concerning the sacrifice of the body & blood of Christ, 
Lib 1. ad Monimum.  which many do think to be offered to the Father only; and sayst that this is the principal question of the heretics.   
And a little after.  

Cum ad patrem litantis destinatur intentio, sacrificij munus omni Trinitati uno eodemque offertur litantis officio.   

When the intention of the sacrificer is directed to the Father the gift of the sacrifice by one & the same act of the sacrificer is offered to the whole Trinity. 
Et Infra.    
In the latter end of this age to wit the year 590. was S, Gregory the great chosen to sit in the seat of S. Peter, of whose doctrine concerning the sacrifice of the mass, and consequently of a true sacrificing priesthood in the church of Christ, there can be no more question made, then whether there was ever such a man in the world as S. Gregory. And from his time downward to our own days is there less question of that matter. For he sent S. Augustin into England who with Christian religion brought in the holy sacrifice of the mass which from that time till Edward the sixth his reign, hath ever continued there as is evident by all Kind of records. So that it remaineth clear, that in Europe, Asia, and Africa, (that is) in all parts of the Christian world ever since the Apostles times. This doctrine hath been common and never impugned or gainsaied by any one of those vigilant watchmen, and sentinels, 
Esaie. 62.9. See the answerable protestants apology for the Catholic faith, in the conclusion to the judges sect. 5.  whom God from time to time according to his promise, hath set to watch over his church, and who have not overseen, or let pass the lest error in faith, that since Christ his ascension into heaven hath sprung up, but have, assoon as it hath appeared or been uttered, espied it, impugned it, and never desisted till they had driven it down to hell again from whence it came, witness all the heresies that have been raised in all parts of the Christian world since Simon Magus over whom S. Peter himself triumphed. This doctrine I say having been thus universal both in respect of time and place, hath not been impugned by any one before Martin Luther, who (as he confesseth himself, to his own and all his followers eternal confusion received his instructions from the devil for the purpose.  
If the Sacrifice of the church had either been practised in secret corners or that it had been a matter either indifferent or of smallest moment, such as are not so well either instructed, or persuaded of God's continual care and watch over his church as they aught to be, might peradventure think it a thing possible that it might creep in and continued for some time. But being as it is, not only the public service of all Christians, but that at the celebration whereof, all things that are to be published, are for the more solemn publication denounced, and besides is of that moment, as no act of Christian cult, worship, and religion is comparable to it, being a most express and direct act of idolatry (if it were not the true worship ordained by God) for the which God, jealous of his honour, hath from time to time so severely punished all nations as well Jews as Gentiles, this I say being, I do and dare boldly avouch, that it cannot be esteemed possible by any man, that hath the lest dram of true judgement, or knowledge of the foundation of Christian faith and religion, that it should have been practised so publicly, so universally, and for so long time, (as already appeareth by irreproovable testimonies that it hath (without controlment and contradiction.  
Now having sufficiently proved, as I think, a sacrificing priesthood to be in Christ's church, it remaineth that we satisfy such objection, as our adversaries make against the same. For as all other articles of Christian faith have had, have, or may have arguments made against them, even out of the scripture it self, so likewise hath this.  
The Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, not truly understood, is depraved by the Protestants in prejudice of this truth, and to their own perdition as S. Peter saith, 
2. Petri. 3.16.  the rest of the scriptures, and namely those of S. Paul are by the unstable: that is such as will have no other interpretation of them but their own. Out of this epistle are drawn divers arguments, against the holy sacrifice of the Mass, whihh may all be reduced to this form.  
19 The Apostle to the Hebrews teacheth first, that the priest of the new testament is one only. secondly, that the host or sacrifice of the new testament is but one only. thirdly that the offering, or sacrificing of that one host in likewise but once performed, and not often iterated or repeated: All which seemeth directly against the sacrifice of the Mass, which hath many priests, many hosts, or at jest the same host often offered. Further he teacheth, that the priest of the new law, is not only one, but such a one as hath no need to offer for himself? That the host or sacrifice is so precious, that it taketh away all sin; And that the offering thereof is so effectual, that God's people hath no more guilt of sin. Which singular degree of perfection in the priest, sacrifice, and offering of the same doth make, that there can be but one in each kind, as is said before; so that this latter argument is rather a reason and cause of the former, than any new and distinct argument. All this is proved by the express testimonies of the Apostle. In setting down whereof I will observe the order of the chapters, and not the order of the points here touched, whereunto they may be easily applied.  
The other indeed were made priests being many, 
Hebr. ca 7.23.24.25.  because by death they were prohibited to continued. But this for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood, whereby he is able to save also for ever, going by himself to God, always living to make intercession for us: who hath not necessity daily (as the priests) first for his own sins to offer hosts, then for the people's. For this he did once in offering himself.  
By his own blood entered once into the holies, 
Cap. 9.12.13.14.  eternal redemption being found. For if the blood of goats etc. how much more hath the blood of Christ cleansed our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God.  
Nor that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies, every year in the blood of others: otherwise he aught to have suffered often from the beginning of the world: but now once in the consummation of the worlds, to the destruction of sin, he hath appeared by his own host. 
Cap. 10.1.2.  So also Christ was offered once to exhausted the sins of many. For the law having a shdow of goad things to come, not the very image of the things: every year with the self same hosts which they offer inceassantly, can never make the comers thereunto perfect. Otherwise they should have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer.  

Cap. 10.10.11.12.  In the which will, we are sanctified, by the oblation of the body of JESUS CHRIST once. And every priest indeed is ready daily ministering and often offering the same hosts, which can never take away sins. But this man offering one host for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God. For by one oblation hath he consummated for ever them, that are sanctified. But where there is remission of these, now there is not an oblation for sins.  
These are the passages, which our adversaries ordinarily use, for the impugning of the sacrifice of the Mass.  
For the better understanding of the Apostles doctrine in this epistle, touching the sacrifice of the new testament, it is first to be observed: that he speaketh not any one word directly, and expressly of the sacrifice of the Mass, or holy Eucharist, as especially our adversaries must grant; seeing they teach and believe, that there is no such sacrifice at all. If therefore they will prove any thing against it out of this epistle, they must do it by consequence and deduction only: which kind of arguing that it may be good and lawful, the Apostles principal drift, and intent must attentively be considered. For it is no lawful arguing to infer that upon any man's words, without which his meaning is otherways full and perfect: As for example helvidius did falsely, 
Math. 1.25.  and heretically upon these words: And he knew her not till she brought forth her first borne son: deduce, that the blessed virgin did not continued perpetually virgin, inferring more upon the Evangelists words, than his meaning was to express, as the Protestants do also by S. Paul's doctrine, in this point of the sacrifice of the Mass.  
It is secondly to be observed, that the chief intent of the Apostle in this epistle is, to prove the dignity, and pre-eminence of our Saviour Christ's priesthood, and the necessity and efficacy of his sacrifice, and oblation upon the cross, against such misbelieving jews, as held and esteemed the priesthood, and sacrifices of Moses law, to be everlasting, unchangeable, and sufficient of themselves for the remission of sins, without respect or dependence of any other priesthood, or sacrifice to be instituted, from whence they might have their valour and force.  
The Apostles chief intent therefore in this epistle being this, it no way pertained to his purpose, to treat of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. For this depending of the sacrifice upon the cross, which the jews, for whose instruction S. Paul wrote this epistle, did not yet believe, they could not profitably be instructed therein, nor S. Paul but very preposterously, could treat directly thereof. This being well kept in mind, it will easily appear, that the Apostles intent is not to speak any thing in this whole epistle against the sacrifice of the altar, and consequently that whatsoever our adversaries would infer thereof to that purpose, they do it besides the meaning of the Apostle, and therefore can be of no force.  
20. M. Fulke objecteth, against this that the Hebrews, 
Ad Hebraeos 7. sect. 5. & cap. 10. sect. 4.  to whom the Apostle writeth, were Christians, and therefore could have no such opinion of the sacrifices of the law, which no faithful jew had before the coming of Christ. Whereby he would insinuate, that the Apostles intent could not be to prove, the necessity of the sacrifice of the cross.  
But M. Fulke is either deceived, or would deceive. For S. Hierome delivering not only his own opinion, but the doctrine of his ancestors, which he also embraceth, saith; that the Apostle wrote to the jews, that were not yet Christians, nor true believers. And that those, 
Epist. 126. ad evagr. Hebraeis enim, idest, judaeis persuadebat, non iam fidelibus, quibus passim proderet sacramentum. Hebr. cap. 7.11. Cap. 10.4.  to whom or against whom the Apostle wrote, were of that opinion, that their sacrifices were of themselves sufficient, without any respect or relation to any other sacrifice, it is more manifest by S. Paul's own words, even in this place handled by M. Fulke, then can stand with his ignorance therein; and therefore doth he wittingly, and wilfully deprave the Apostles doctrine, and go about to deceive his reader. The Apostles words are these. If then consummation was by the levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law) what necessity was there yet another priest to rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron? And agine in the 10. chapter. It is unpossible, that with the blood of oxen and goats, sins should be taken away. Is it not manifest hereby, that the Apostle disputeth against such, as taught the sacrifices of the law to be sufficient, for the consummation of our redemption, and remission of our sins? Certes it is over evident to be denied by any man, not deprived of common sense. The Apostle therefore in this dispute, doth not so much instruct the Catholic believing Jews in their faith, as confute the errors, and falsities in their misbelieving countrymen, as all other Catholic Doctors, and pastors of God's church do, whilst they writ in confutation of the newly rising heresies.  

Fulke.  But he urgeth farther, and demandeth, how the Apostle could omit to speak of the sacrifice of the Mass, seeing as we say, his drift was to avouch the eternal fruit, and necessity of Christ his passion, whereof the sacrifice of the Mass dependeth? An impertinent question: For as well might he ask, how the Apostle could omit to speak of the Eucharist, as it is a sacrament, and of all other mysteries of our religion, which he confesseth (and necessarily) to depend upon the passion of Christ. And which (I pray you) of all the holy writers doth explicate all the mysteries of our faith at once, or in one place, though they have dependence th'one upon tother? If M. Fulke had been but half as quick sighted in the search of the truth, as he was to impugn it, he would easily have found the reason, why the Apostle made no mention of the sacrifice of the Mass in this epistle. For the jews, to whom he wrote, believing not the necessity of Christ's passion (as is noted before) it could not be convenient, that the Apostle should instruct them in that other high mystery, which necessarily required the belief of our saviours passion before. Which reason the Apostle himself doth clearly insinuate, saying; Of whom (Melchisedech) we have great speech, 
Hebr. cap. 5 11. Hieron. ubi supra.  and inexplicable to utter: because you are become weak to hear. Not because the Apostle could not (saith S. Hierome) explicate that he would say, but because it pertained not to that time. For he spoke to the Jews not yet faithful believers, to whom he would eftsoons have opened the mystery.  
Yet M. Fulke is not satisfied, but replieth, that this reason is vain, unless we will confess that there was no Mass said among them, since they were converted; still running counter, taking the misbelieving jews for true Christians, and supposing their conversion, before they were converted.  
Yea but (saith he) such as were converted, and had the sacrifice of the Mass amongst them, were necessarily to be instructed in the ground of it out of the law and Prophets, as well as of the sacrifice of Christ's passion which if order required to be first handled, yet reason would not, that the Mass should have altogether been omitted: yea tother being so handled as they could not see, what need they had of Mass, but rather should be brought into detestation of it, if ever before they had used it.  
The converted and believing jews were so well instructed, in the ground of the sacrifice of the Mass, out of the 
a Genes. 14.  law, which recordeth Melchisedeches oblation in bread and wine, and out of the 
b Psal. 109.  Prophets, which testify our Saviour Christ to be a priest of that order: 
c Malachy ●. Dan 11.31.12.11.  and that the time would come, when that their carnal sacrifices should cease, and a clean oblation should be offered to God in all places, And that there should be a daily sacrifice, as they were so far from being brought into detestation of it, (as M. Fulke seemeth to be by his more than judaical incredulity) that they saw it most conformable to holy scriptures, and perfectly agreeing with the all consummating oblation of the cross; as all other truly believing Christians have also done ever since that time. And therefore is it more than false, 
In the same place.  that the Apostle doth not only omit to speak of the sacrifice of the Mass, but doth speak much against it, as M. Fulke impudently affirmeth. For he is not able to produce any one approved author for 1500. years after Christ, that ever found any such thing in this epistle. Is not he therefore more than impudent, that dare so peremptorily father that upon the holy Apostle, that none of those watchful sentinels, whom God hath from time to time set to watch incessantly over his church, could ever espy? 
Esay 62.6.  but to leave this forger of new fails to himself.  
21. It is thirdly to be observed, that the ancient father's writing upon this epistle, and explaining the Apostles doctrine therein, saw the same objections, that the heretics of these times now make out of it against the sacrifice of the Mass, and answered them above 1200. years agone, So far are they from thinking, that the Apostle speaketh any thing therein, against this holy sacrifice. Is not this only consideration sufficient, to persuade any reasonable understanding, of the truth of the Catholic belief in this point? These fathers were as learned, and as Zealous of God's truth, as the Protestants are (to say no more) and besides this advantage they had above them, that they were devoid of all passion, and partiality against any party, having lived many hundredth years before this question was moved, and therefore much more like to give true judgement thereof. But let us hear what they say.  
S. Chrisostom and S. Ambrose, (for both these holy and ancient fathers have the same saying, and almost the same terms in their commentaries upon these words of S. Paul. 
Hebr. cap. 10.1.2.  The law having a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things: every year with the self same hosts, which they offer incessantly, can never make the comers thereunto perfect. Otherwise they should have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer.  
Upon these vords I say thus writ these holy fathers. What, do we not daily offer? we offer truly, but we renew the memory of his death. For we offer always the same, not now another, but always the same, 
Mark that it is Christ that is daily offered.  and therefore is it for this reason one sacrifice. Because it is offered in many places, are there therefore many Christ's? Not so, but one Christ, who is wholly there, and wholly here one body. Like as therefore he is offered in many places being one body, and not many bodies, so is he but one sacrifice.  

Why the Mass though often repeated is but one sacrifice and how the same thing is offered therein that our Saviour offered. Ad Hebraeos cap. 10. sect. 9  It is our high priest, that offered that sacrifice which cleanseth us: and we now offer that, that then was offered, which cannot be consumed. This is done in remembrance of that which then was done. For he saith, do ye this in commemoration of me. We do not offer another host, as the high priest (of the old law) did, but always the same, or rather we make a commemoration of that host and sacrifice (of the cross.) The like sayings have other fathers of latter times as Theophilast, Oecumenius of the Greeks, and of the Latins Haymo, Remigius, and Paschatius.  
And Primatius who was S. Augustins' scholar, answereth the same objection in these words, as he is related by M. Fulke himself.  
What then shall we say? do not our priests the same thing daily, while they offer sacrifice continually? they offer indeed, but for the remembrance of his death. And because we sin daily and need daily to be cleansed, because he cannot now die, he hath given us this sacrament of his body and blood, that as his passion was the redemption, and absolution of the world: (mark) so also this oblation may be redemption and cleansing, to all that offer it in true faith, and have a good intention.  
So that it is clear that the objections, whereby the adversaries of the Catholic truth think to overthrow, the holy sacrifice of God's church, were foreseen and answered above a thousand years, before our new masters of reformation were heard of in the world.  
22. And that the indifferent reader be not deceived, by the ●ergiuersations of our adversaries in this particular, it is necessary to beware of their cavilling shifts, which they use to avoid these clear testimonies of antiquity. For because these fathers say, that the daily sacrifice of the church is a commemoration, or remembrance of the sacrifice of the cross, they would against their express words and meaning infer that it is no true sacrifice. But by the same argument they may also conclude, that all the sacrifices of the law of Moses were not truly, and properly sacrifices. For they all had the like respect to the same sacrifice of the cross, that the sacrifice of the Mass hath, without any other difference at all, but that those, because they went before, did prefigurate or forshew it as being yet to come, and this of the Mass is a remembrance or commemoration of the same, as being now past: which difference can no way prejudice, or impair the perfection, and true propriety of a sacrifice in this latter, as is too too manifest. If therefore the respect of prefiguration in the sacrifices of Moses law, did not let or hinder them to be properly sacrifices; the respect of commemoration, in the sacrifice of the Mass, cannot make it to be improperly a sacrifice. But to come nearer the difficulty, and to declare the true meaning, and sense of the Apostle, in the speeches before related.  
23. It is fourthly to be observed, that he disputing against the error of those jews, that taught the priesthood, and sacrifice of Aaron to be so perfect and absolute of itself, that it sufficed (without respect to any other) to cleanse the professors of the law from all guilt of sin, and to open unto them the kingdom of heaven, as is before declared. He proveth first the insufficiency of the priesthood, and sacrifice of the levitical law, to take away any sin at all of itself, and much more to discharge and redeem all mankind from all sins, or to open unto them the kingdom of heaven. This he divinely demonstrateth ᵃ first on the behalf of the priests, who being sinners, themselves had need of a mediator, 
a Cap. 7.27.28. cap. 9.7.  and redeemer, as well as the people for whom they offered. secondly on the behalf of the 
b Cap. 9.9. cap. 10.4.  sacrifice, which being but only the flesh and blood of goats and calves, could not possible cleanse the souls of men from sin, nor pacify God's wrath against them. thirdly on the behalf of the 
c Cap. 7.19. cap. 10.1.2.11.  action of offering, which being so often repeated, was manifestly proved of small or no force, for if it had been effectual, it should have ceased, for the worshippers once cleansed have no more conscience of sin.  
Having thus proved the insufficiency of the levitical priesthood, and sacrifices to the effects before mentioned; he 
d Cap. 7. from the 11. verse.  inferreth the necessity of another priesthood, and sacrifice, which should work the consummation, that is, the universal redemption of all mankind from all sin, and the opening the gates of the heavenly kingdom: And showeth this priest to be our Saviour Christ, and his passion to be the consummating sacrifice, declaring that in all the respects before mentioned, wherein the levitical priesthood was defective, this is most perfect. 
e Cap. 7.26.  His person being most innocent, impolluted, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. 
f Cap. 9.12. cap. 10.10.  His sacrifice not the flesh and blood of beasts: but his own body and blood▪ and the 
g Cap. 9.25.28 cap. 10.10.12,  action of sacrificing, or offering but once performed or done, being so effectual that it needed not to be repeated any oftener.  
This being the principal intent, and purpose of S. Paul in this dispute of our saviours priesthood, and sacrifice (as will evidently appear to all that read him with indifferency and attention) neither his words, nor meaning can with truth, and reason be urged against the sacrifice of the Mass, or any other sacrifice not supposed, or pretended to be sufficient of itself for the cleansing of sin, and redeeming of man from the same, whereas against such a sacrifice his reasons are invincible, and would conclude as effectually against the sacrifice of the Mass, if it were maintained to be a propitiation of men's sins absolutely of itself (without respect or dependence of the sacrifice of the cross) as they do against the levitical sacrifices, falsely maintained by the jews to have been such. But because no Catholic Christian ever dreamt, that the sacrifice of the Mass should be such a consummating, redeeming, and independent sacrifice, as the Apostre here speaketh of, and as the misbelieving jews esteemed theirs to be, the Apostles discourse maketh no more against it, than it doth against the sacrifices of Moses law, even in those very times, when they were appointed by God himself to be used, as shall by and by be clearly deduced.  
In the mean while it is to be noted, that there are two sorts of sacrifice (I speak only in respect of their efficacy, for in other respects there are divers sorts:) th'one absolute and independent, having effect and efficacy of itself, without respect or dependence of any other, and may be called consummative or redemptive: tother respective and dependant, which hath not efficacy of itself to remit sins, or of it proper institution, but from another and may be called applicative, because it applieth the efficacy, and valour of another to such effects, as it is ordained unto. Amongst all the sacrifices that ever were, either in the law of nature, of Moses, or of jesus Christ, that only of the cross is of the first kind; all the rest (yea that of the Mass) are of the second sort. For all true Christians did, and do believe and confess, that the holy sacrifice of the Mass hath the whole efficacy, and virtue, which it hath, as it is propitiatory, from the sacrifice of the cross. And in this respect dependeth no less thereupon, than the jews sacrifices did: though in respect of the perfection as well of the chief priest, as of the host or thing offered (both being our Saviour Christ himself) and consequently of the greater virtue it hath, to apply unto us the merits of Christ his passion, this doth incomparably exceed thothers, as S. Chrisostom before cited doth evidently teach. 
Supra n. 17.   
This distinction of an absolute, independent, redeeming, or consummating sacrifice, and of a respective, dependant, and applying sacrifice, our adversaries must necessarily confess, and acknowledge to be good and allowable, malgree all their malice against the sacrifice of the Mass: unless they will either wholly exclude all the sacrifices of the old law, from the number and nature of true sacrifices, or say they were redeeming and independent sacrifices, neither of which extremes they will dare to avouch.  
14. This doctrine therefore of these two divers sorts of sacrifice being necessarily allowed it will easily be showed, that the same arguments, that our adversaries make out of the Epistle of S. Paul, against the sacrifice of the Mass, have the same force against the levitical sacrifices, and if they conclude that to be superstitious, and idolatrical, they will conclude the same of these, even for the time they were approved by God, and therefore aught not only now to cease, but never to have been instituted, or practised. And farther, that all the reasons, that prove the sacrifices of the levitical law to have been good and holy, notwithstanding the necessity and efficacy of the sacrifice of the cross, do prove the very same of that of the Mass. This difference only being, that they prefigurating Christ's passion as going before it, are now necessarily ceased: This commemorating or renewing the memory of the same as coming after it, being to continued so long as the new testament, (which is established and dedicated in it, our Saviour saying. 
Math 26.28  This is my blood of the new testament,) shall last; which shallbe to the world's end.  

Hebr. cap. 10.14.18.  The doctrine of S. Paul in this epistle cannot otherwise be urged against the sacrifice of the Mass: then, for that by one only oblation once offered, the high priest of the new testament Christ jesus having consummated for ever the sanctified: there can remain no more sacrifice for sin, because the worshippers once cleansed, they have no conscience of sin any more.  

Cap. 10.2.  But all this may in the same manner be urged, against the sacrifices of the old law, as it is against the Mass, and proveth as much against th'one, as against tother. For this self same one only sacrifice once offered upon the cross, by Christ jesus the high priest of the new testament, was offered as well for the sins committed under the levitical law, as for those that were committed since the abolishing of the same, 
Hebr. 9 15.  S. Paul expressly saying, that our Saviour died for the prevarications, which were under the former law. And our adversaries dare not deny, but that all the sins remitted since the beginning of the world, have been remitted by virtue of this one only sacrifice upon the cross; and not only that, but that this one sacrifice is the consummation of all sanctity given to men, and all worship given to God by all the former sacrifices. If therefore the argument before alleged, prove the sacrifice of the Mass to be superstitious or none at all, it will also prove the same of all those sacrifices, that have been since the beginning of the world. And the self same reason that maketh the sacrifices of the law of nature, and Moses (being not only true sacrifices, but propitiatory in their degree, even for those sins that were to be taken away by the sacrifice of the cross) to be good and lawful (notwithstanding that the consummation of those worshippers was to be made, by that one only sacrifice of the cross) doth prove the same of the sacrifice of the Mass.  
If it be said that the sacrifice of the cross, whereby the consummation is wrought, being not yet offered, there might be divers just reasons for the institution and use of other sacrifices, such as were in the law of nature, and of Moses: But that sacrifice being now finished, all those reasons seem to cease, and consequently all sacrifices to be abolished: It is impertinent; For either those reasons, making for the institution of other sacrifices in the former laws, were repugnant to the virtue, and efficacy of the consummating sacrifice of the cross, or they were not. If they were, they could not justify the institution and use of any such sacrifices. If they were not (as manifestly they were not) the same may be said of the sacrifice of the Mass, which hath no more repugnance with the sacrifice of the cross, than those other sacrifices had. For that accidentary circumstance of time, by reason whereof the old sacrifices went before the all consummating sacrifice of the cross, and the sacrifice of the Mass cometh after it, maketh no such difference between them, that by reason thereof th'one may be good and lawful, and tother unlawful: because the virtue and efficacy of the sacrifice of the cross, did reach to all the time as well going before it, as following after it: It being that sacrifice, wherein was offered the lamb, which in God's pre-ordination was slain before the beginning of the world, and in respect and regard whereof all sacrifices were acceptable to God, as being founded in the valour and merit thereof.  
25. If it be demanded, why then are these sacrifices abolished and taken away, and another instituted, if there be no difference between them, by reason of that circumstance of time, they going before the consummating sacrifice, tother following after? I answer they are not abolished for any repugnance, that a true and propitiatory sacrifice (whether it go before or follow after) hath with the only redeeming sacrifice of the cross. For by that reason they should not only have ceased, but should never have been instituted, as is showed before. But they are abolished for two reasons amongst others. First they were figures, and shadows of that which was to come, as is confessed of all Christians, and therefore the truth whereof they were shadows appearing, it was necessary they should cease, and vanish away.  
secondly because of their grossness and imperfection, which fitted not the state of the new testament, for which God of his infinite goodness, and wisdom had provided better promises, and therefore instituted a sacrifice for this time, in substance the very same with that upon the cross, though in manner and external form different from it. Which albeit in perfection and excellency, it doth as far exceed the sacrifices of the former laws, as the body and blood of Christ our Saviour doth exceed that of calves and goats, yet hath it some resemblance with them in two other respects.  
Thone, that as those sacrifices had relation to the sacrifice of the cross, and depended thereupon in regard of their effect; so doth also the sacrifice of the Mass. For it is not an absolute and independent sacrifice, as that was upon the cross, neither doth it redeem us from sin, nor purchase unto us grace, otherways then by applying unto us the fruit, valour, and effect of the bloody sacrifice upon the cross; as also the other sacrifices of the former laws did in a certain degree, but not in such perfect and ample manner, nor ex opere operato, or of work itself as this doth.  
Tother, as they did prefigurate, or foreshow the sacrifice of the cross as going before it: so this doth renew the memory, of the same being now past, as S. Paul testifieth, saying. So often as you shall eat this bread, 
1. Corinth. 11  and drink this cup, you shall declare the death of our Lord.  
Farther it is to be observed, that if our adversaries will take away the sacrifice of the Mass, pretending that it doth derogate from the merit, dignity, and sufficiency of Christ's passion, of which the scripture saith, that it alone hath consummatet all the sanctified: they must also for the same reason take away the sacraments of the Eucharist, and of baptism, and which is more, even their justifying faith. For all these do no less derogate, from the perfect consummation of our redemption, wrought by the sacrifice of the cross (being necessary for the effectual applying of the merit, valour, and effect thereof unto us) then doth the sacrifice of the Mass. For if they will that every mean, whereby the merit of Christ's passion is applied unto us, though it have this very applicative power from the passion of Christ, doth derogate from the sufficiency thereof, then must they necessarily say, that the aforesaid sacraments, and also faith itself do derogate from it, not otherways profiting us then by applying unto us, those graces and blessings, which Christ by his passion merited for us. But of the contrary part, if they will admit some other mean, distinct from Christ's passion, to apply unto us the merits thereof without derogating from it (as all Christians do and must) then have they no reason at all, for that respect, to deny the sacrifice of the Mass.  
26. And that the careful reader may see, that by this doctrine of our adversaries against the sacrifice of the church, is erected that abomination of desolation, whereupon followeth the taking away of the daily sacrifice, foretold by the Prophet Daniel, 
Dan. 12.11.  he may observe with detestation, that nothing in Atheism itself can be more impious, then by the triumphant cross of Christ and his bitter passion, the firm and immovable rock of all true religious worship, to take away from the new law that only worship of sacrifice, which ever even by the light of nature, hath been with all true worshippers properly due, to the eternal power of God's majesty.  
Thus is not only proved a truly sacrificing priesthood, 
Conclusion.  to be in the church of Christ, but also are satisfied the chiefest objections against it, whereupon it clearly followeth, that the pretended Bishops that succeeded M. Parker, and the rest promoted with him until this day, (of whom the question is in this chapter) being no true priests, could be no true Bishops, as is before irreproovablie showed, and therefore have such an essential defect in their calling, more the the others had, that though their predecessors had been true Bishops, as they were not, yet these could be none.  
But now to conclude them all in one, and the same damnation: I say, that though every one of the arguments brought here against the Bishops of England, since Cranmers fall into heresy, should not demonstrate them not to be lawful Bishops and Pastors, yet all of them together cannot but make a clear demonstration thereof, which may be framed in this sort. 27. Those Bishops whose calling and consecration is justly, and with good reason doubted to be essentially defective, and they therefore to be no Bishops, but mere usurpers of that title, are evidently no lawful and canonical Bishops. But such are all the protestant Bishops in England, since Cranmers' revolt, and apostasy from the Catholic Roman faith and religion.  
Therefore are they evidently no lawful, and canonical Bishops.  
The first proposition of this argument is evidently proved divers ways.  
First by this example. Not civil Magistrate, be he judge, lieutenant, Ambassador, or other officer whatsoever, who is justly and upon good reason doubted to have no such authority, but is suspected upon good ground to be a counterfeit, usurper, and deceiver, is so evidently no lawful magistrate, that whosoever should obey him in his pretended office, should thereby commit an act of rebellion against his sovereign, who sendeth no magistrates to his subjects, but with clear and undoubted warrant. For to a lawful magistrate is not only required, that the have authority, but also that he have a clear and evident constat or proof that he hath authority. Therefore much more are they no lawful Bishops, or ecclesiastical magistrate, Who are in like manner doubted to have no such authority, and power: I say much more: because as the harm, and inconvenience which would follow of such abuses in the Ecclesiastical government, is far greater, and less remediable, then that which might arise by the same in the temporal state, so is the provision to avoid it greater, and more easy, by his providence who is sovereign govern our thereof.  
28. secondly, the magistrates in all common wealths, and kingdoms, are always so evidently, and clearly known to be such, that no reasonable doubt may be made of their power and commission. And it is necessary it should be so. For otherways whatsoever they should do in their office, should be doubtful and uncertain, and consequently would bring all things to strife and confusion, than which nothing can be more pernicious. Therefore those magistrates, that are justly and reasonably doubted to be none at all, cannot be any lawful magistrates. This reason holdeth à fortiori in Bishops, who are Ecclesiastical magistrates and governors. And so the first proposition of the former argument remaineth evidently proved: to wit, that those Bishops whose calling is justly doubted to be essentially defective, and they therefore to be no Bishops but mere usurpers, are evidently no lawful Bishops.  
The second proposition is evident by that, which hath hitherto been said, against the calling of our English Bishops, and may clearly be concluded in this manner. The calling of those Bishops is justly doubted to be essentially defective, which is manifestly doubtful both on the part of the callers, called, and calling; but such are the Bishops in England, as appeareth before. ergo.  
secondly their calling is justly doubted to be essentially defective; (that is, to be none at all) for the proof of the sufficiency whereof nothing can be said, that may not as truly be alleged for their calling, who are evidently and confessedly known to be no Bishops, as the Arians, novatians, Nestorians, Pelagians, and the rest of the old condemned heretics. But such is the calling of the Bishops in England. ergo.  
thirdly their calling in justly doubted to be essentially defective, which hath no instance or example of the like, in the whole Christian church, for above 1500. years after Christ.  
But such is the calling of the Bishops in England. ergo. And so remaineth proved the second proposition of the former argument, and consequently the conclusion must necessarily be true; to wit that the Bishops of England descended from Cranmer since his revolt from the Catholic church, are evidently no lawful Bishops.  
29. Whereupon I farther infer, that the pretended church of England is no true church, and consequently the faith and religion thereof to be no true faith and religion.  
For where there are no true Pastors and Bishops, there can be no true church, as all our adversaries confess, and it is of itself evident, the church (as S. Cyprian saith) being in the Bishop, 
Epist. ad Flore.  and the Bishop in the church, or otherwise the church is the flock united with the Pastor, and Pastor with the flock: and where there is no true church, there can be no true faith and religion; the true church being the house of God, 
Ad Timoth.  the pillar and ground of truth, (as S. Paul testifieth) and our adversaries deny not. Now where there is no true faith, how can there be any means of salvation? seeing that without faith it is impossible to please God, as teacheth expressly S. Paul. 
Ad Hebr. 11.6.   
Mark well (I beseech thee judicious reader) this clear deduction, and if thou be a Protestant, and professor of the English religion, see which may thou canst avoid it with the contentment, and satisfaction of thine own conscience.  
And if thou found the mean to do it, set down thy conceptions clearly, and without wilful wrangling, and thou shalt (God willing) have a satisfying reply. If thou canst not, (as if thou lay aside wilful obstinacy, which hindereth the sight of all truth, I think thou canst not) return quickly to the unity of God's Catholic church, and be not so grossly and inexecusablie deceived, as to think to found thy salvation in that congregation, which hath no true Pastors, and consequently neither true church, true faith, nor true religion.   

The eightteenth Chapter. That neither the present superintendets in England have, nor their Protestant predecessors ever had any lawful Episcopal jurisdiction.  
1. HAVING thus far showed the pretended Bishops in England, promoted to bishoprics since Cranmers revolt from the unity of the Catholic Roman church, and lapse into heresy in Edward the 6. his reign, to have wanted the true power of order, it now remaineth to show, that they want also the lawful power of jurisdiction; whence it will follow, that they have nothing belonging no true Bishops, saving the possession of the temporal livings, and the bore name of Bishops. For the whole ecclesiastical power being divided into the power of order, and jurisdiction, as M. Field, 
Field of the church. l. 3. c. 29. Carleton of jurisdiction pag. 7.  and M. Carleton with all Catholics truly confess, if they be found to want both, they can have nothing pertaining to true Bishops.  
That the power of jurisdiction is necessarily required, to the lawful calling of ecclesiastical ministers, and pastors of God's church, is without all controversy granted, and confessed of all parties, aswell protestants as Catholics: and the question here is only, whether our English Intendents have any such lawful jurisdiction or no. Which question that we may dispute more clearly, and fitly for the capacity of every one, it willbe necessary briefly to declare, both what jurisdiction is in general, what parts it hath, and of what kind of jurisdiction we are here to treat.  
It is first therefore to be understood, 
What jurisdiction is.  that though this word (jurisdiction) soundeth only delivery of the law, or denouncing of judgement, or sentence in matters of justice, yet is it both here, and ordinarily every where taken for the power itself that one man hath over others, not only in matter of law and justice, but in all other manner of rule, government, or dominion: so that in this large signification parents may be said to have jurisdiction over their children, masters over their servants, Kings and sovereign Lords over their subjects and vassals, and Bishops or pastors over their flock and charge.  
Secondly it is to be understood, that jurisdiction in the first and proper signification is two fold, Spiritual, which is also called ecclesiastical, to which belongeth the government, charge, disposition, and administration of all those Spiritual helps and means, which our Saviour Christ hath left in his church, for the farthering of man to his eternal salvation, as are Gods holy word, and his Sacraments, and those actions and things that belong thereunto, whereof S. Paul speaketh when he saith. Let a man so esteem us as ministers of Christ, 
1. Corinth. 4.1.  and dispensers of the mysteries of God: and temporal or secular, which governeth and commandeth in matters pertaining to men's temporal weal, and prosperity; as to minister justice in causes civil and criminal, and to command that which is just and honest in all occasions, and occurrences of the common wealths, and to forbidden the contrary. Either of these kinds of jurisdiction may be yet farther divided, into directive, and coactive, or coercitive. The directive maketh laws, and giveth precepts guiding men to that end, for the attaining whereof the jurisdiction is ordained, which, if it be spiritual, is life everlasting: if temporal, is the peace and prosperity of the common wealth, and of every particular person as member of the same. The coercitive compelleth men by penalties, and punishments, to the observance aswell of the same laws and constitutions, as also of those prescribed by God and nature, and therefore is well termed coercitive.  
thirdly it is to be understood, (that leaving apart the temporal, or secular jurisdiction, as not pertaining to our purpose) we speak here only of spiritual, or Ecclesiastical, which either administrateth matters immediately pertaining to the soul, and conscience, without respect to the external or contentious court, as to preach and minister sacraments, and therefore is called of some internal; or examineth, heareth, and determineth, in the external and contentious court, such cases and causes, as arise amongst men, by the transgressions of the prescripts, and prohibitions of the Ecclesiastical superior, and what other causes else are known to belong to the Ecclesiastical tribunal, and this is called also by some external.  
That the spiritual jurisdiction hath all these parts or members, not only in the Catholic, but also in the protestants doctrine, it is evident by their own practices. For besides their preaching and ministering sacraments, which appertaineth to the internal jurisdiction, they have their external and contentious courts, where by Ecclesiastical power they judge, try, and determine, without recourse to the temporal court, very many causes, and especially such as arise by the undue ministering of the sacraments, or other holy actions: in which cases they exercise both direrective, and coercitive jurisdiction. I have seen a printed book entitled thus.  
Articles to be inquired of within the diocese of Chichester. In the second general visitation of the Rᵈ. father in God, Lancelot Bishop of Chichester, holden in the year 1609. containing 79. Articles, with the form of an oath to be ministered to the church wardens, and sworn men; which (if it were not clear otherwise) doth show, that they pretend to have all these kinds of spiritual jurisdiction here mentioned.  
This therefore being clear, the question is, 
The question.  whether our pretended Bishops in England have indeed any such jurisdiction, as by their practice they pretend to have, or no. And they are proved not to have any such in this sort.  
Of themselves, and as they are men, they have no such jurisdiction, for all men, as they are men, are equal, and neither subject nor superior one to another, as is evident, neither have they it from any other (as shallbe proved) therefore have they it not at all.  
2. That I may prove that they have no jurisdiction from any other, and with the same labour refute M. Masons shifts in this point, thou art (judicious reader) to understand, that he, being driven thereunto by miserable necessity, patcheth up for their Bishops a jurisdiction of two parts: one whereof he saith they have from Christ himself, 
Mason fol. 143.  tother from the Prince.  
But what part it is, that they receive from the Prince, neither doth M. Mason tell us, nor is it easy to gather either out of his own or his fellows doctrine. For from the Prince they cannot receive that jurisdiction, which the Prince hath not to give, as is evident: but the Prince hath neither that part of jurisdiction, which is called internal, consisting in the administration of God's holy word and sacraments, as the articles of their religion do expressly declare.  
Neither hath he the external coercitive jurisdiction, 
Article 37.  consisting principally in inflicting the censure of excommunication, suspension, and the like. For M. Mason showeth out of Tortura Torti, that the Prince hath not this jurisdiction: 
Tort. tort. pag. 151. Carleton of iurisdict. pag. 9 10.  Nos Principi censurae potestatem non facimus: saith he, that is, we give not the Prince power of inflicting censures. And M. Carleton saith the same in most express words hereafter cited.  
Neither hath he the directive jurisdiction, consisting in the power to make canons and constitutions, for the giuding and directing of ecclesiastical ministers, in the due ministery of the Sacraments, and of the people to receive the same, and other actions pertaining to the charge of pastors. For this is merely a Spiritual power (as the Sacraments, to the due administration and use whereof, this power appertaineth, are also Spiritual) and therefore cannot belong to the Prince, in the Protestants doctrine. We give (saith M. Carleton) all Spiritual power to the church: 
Pag. 4. Pag. 5. 6.  And again. The Spiritual government of the church is committed to Spiritual governors: as first from Christ to his twelve Apostles: from them to Bishops, 
Pag. 9  and Pastors, their successors. And yet again. As for Spiritual jurisdiction of the church, standing in examinations of controversies of faith, judging of heresies, deposing of heretics, excommunication of notorious and stubborn offenders, ordination of priests and deacons, institution and oblation of benefices, and Spiritual cures etc. this we reserve entire to the church, which Princes cannot give, or take from the church.  
And to strengthen M. carleton's authority with an evident reason. If the Prince had this Spiritual directive jurisdiction, he should also consequently have, the compulsive, or coercitive of inflicting censures, which proceedeth from directive as necesrily requisite, 
Tortura Torti. pa. 151.  that it may take effect. But this kind of power the prince hath not, as is already showed out of their own doctrine: Neither therefore hath he tother. What part therefore or kind of jurisdiction, the Bishops and Pastors of God's church, can receive from the temporal Prince, even in the Protestants doctrine I see not: Neither can M. Mason, or any other for him show it. And therefore his doctrine of a Spiritual jurisdiction (for of Spiritual jurisdiction he speaketh) partly received from the Prince, is evidently false.  
For though the prince have power to make laws, whereby the contumacious, and obstinate contemners of ecclesiastical canons and censures, may be by corporal penalties compelled, to the due observance of the just, and profitable constitutions of their lawful pastors (which power both M. Mason, and M. Carleton call external coercitive jurisdiction) yet is this power so far from being sovereignly above that of the church, or that the church's judgements depend thereupon, that it is evidently subordinate thereunto, and therefore doth not intermeddle with any such delinquent, till the Spiritual judge hath declared him incorrigible by ecclesiastical means, and therefore leaveth him in the hands of the temporal magistrate, to proceed with him according to the temporal laws, enacted for such offenders.  
And for the avoiding of all cavils, and intermeddling with questions not pertaining to the present purpose, I would have it noted, that I speak here of cases merely Spiritual or ecclesiastical, such as M. Carleton in his words last cited saith, are so entirely reserved to the church, that the Prince can neither give, nor take from it the judgement thereof.  
Again, whatsoever this external coercitive power is, which the Prince hath in either of these, or other causes pertaining to the ecclesiastical, yet is it not any such as he giveth, or communicateth to the Bishops, and Pastors of the church (who neither have nor pretend to have any such power) but to his civil and temporal magistrates. And therefore whatsoever this power is, it is wholly impertinent to M. Masons purpose, which is to show that Bishops have some part of their jurisdiction, necessary for the exercise of their episcopal power, from the Prince. 
This saith M. Mason pag. 113.   
He may peradventure say, that the Prince giveth them licence, to exercise their functions freely within his territories, and therefore may in some sense be said, to give then jurisdiction in the same. But this is too too idle to be imagined. For neither is it in the Prince's lawful power to deny, or take away thy leave, or liberty from the preachers, and Pastors of God's church, as is evident in all doctrine: Neither is this leave necessary for the lawful exercise and execution of episcopal power, as appeareth by the first planting of Christianity in the world, which was effected without it, yea contrary to the decrees, and ordinances of the temporal Princes, And our new reformers, who pretend to preach God's word, and minister his Sacraments, do not expect the leave of the temporal Prince, but think they may lawfully do it without their leave, in case they will not give it, as we see by daily experience. No part therefore or parcel of Spiritual jurisdiction, have the Bishops and Pastors of God's church from the Prince, even in our adversaries own doctrine.  
And here before I come to show, that our English Intendents have as little jurisdiction from Christ, as they have from the Prince, and consequently that they have none at all: I will put the reader in mind of a most unchristian, and sacrilegious kind of dealing in our English Prelates, both with God and their Prince.  

First year of Elizabeth.  3. First, they gave their consents, if not their counsels, for the establishing of an oath, whereby the queen was sworn, to be supreme governor of her dominations in all things, or causes, aswell spiritual or Ecclesiastical, as temporal; the first refusal whereof is praemunire, the second high treason; And also for the enacting of a statute, whereby all such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and pre-eminences spiritual, as by any spiritual power hath hitherto been, or lawfully may be used, for the visitation of the Ecclesiastical state and persons, and for reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enmities are for ever united to the crown of England. By which statute the latitude, or extent of the power ascribed to the queen in the oath of supremacy, is in part declared, which oath is declared by the queen's injunctions, to give unto the same authority, that king Henry the 8. challenged in the 26. year of his reign, in a statute of this tenor, 
Anno 26. Fl. 8. c. 1.  as it is abridged by M. Poulton. The King shallbe taken, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the church of England, and shall have power to redress all errors, heresies, and abuses in the same.  
secondly, they have all of them taken the aforesaid oath, and therefore have by their proper fact approved it as good and lawful, whereby not only the Prince hath been moved to exact the same of all her subjects, as both lawful of itself, and of right due unto her sovereignty, but many have been for the same reason moved, to take the same oath as lawful.  
All this notwithstanding, do they in printed books teach, that Princes have no such spiritual authority, power, or jurisdiction, as by the aforesaid oath, and statute is ascribed unto them. And therefore have they either by their sacrilegious perjury, not only themselves highly offended God, but also induced their sovereign, and many of her subjects into the same offence, or else by their false doctrine do they manifestly detract, from the lawful power of their Prince and sovereign. Whether of these two extremes they will make choice to confess, I know not, but that they must necessarily be guilty of the one, I shall easily prove, and every indifferent man will easily see, their fault to be sacrilegious perjury, joined with pernicious, flattery of the Prince. But let us see their doctrine, that thereby we may know how well it agreeth with their oath.  
The whole clergy of both provinces (in their article agreed upon, in the convacatien holden at London the year 1561. and are of principal authority in their new church) say thus. We give not to our Princes, the ministering either of God's word, or sacraments.  
But I would know, why they give not to the Princes this ministery: Is it because they have not power and authority requisite for it? If it be so, why do they then swear, that they are supreme heads, and governors in all spiritual things or causes? For supreme governors have power to do by themselves all actions, under or within their government, and which they can give power to others to do: As our Saviour Christ being supreme head, and governor of his church, had power to do by himself all those things, which he gave power to others to do. So likewise sovereign Princes have the like power in all temporal causes within their dominions. Or is it because this function is not worthy of their royal dignity? Indeed M. Mason seemeth to insinuate such an answer. 
Pag. 143.  For giving a reason, why our Princes did never practise the inflicting of Ecclesiastical censure, he saith, that it is because regal jurisdiction consisteth not in a ministerial power, but in a supreme commanding authority. But all Christian ears will abhor to hear such a reason, seeing our Saviour Christ the king of kings did exercise this ministery, of the word of God and his sacraments, as pertaining directly to his office and function. The doctrine therefore of this article can no more stand with the oath of supremacy, then can these two propositions accord together. The Prince is supreme head and governor of all things, and causes spiritual: And, The Prince is not supreme head, and governor of all things or causes spiritual. The former is the same with the oath; the latter is the same, or equivalent with the article: and are directly contradictory the one to tother, and therefore one of them necessarily false. The same contrariety between the said oath, and their doctrine, is showed out of Tortura Torti expressly saying. We give not to the Prince power to inflict censures. 
Pag. 151.  Therefore (do I infer) do you not give to the Prince, supreme power in all Spiritual things and causes, as you swear. This saying of this author M. Mason 
Mason pag. 143.  citeth and approveth.  
But yet this is more plain out of M. Carleton, who hath written a whole book of this subject, wherein he hath these express sayings. 
In his admonition to the reader.  The Fathers writ for the Spiritual jurisdiction of the church above Princes, which we never denied. Why do you swear them, that the Prince is supreme head, and governor of the church in all things, and causes Spiritual? how can the church have Spiritual jurisdiction above the Prince, and yet the Prince be supreme head of the church, or governor of all Spiritual things? If these be not contradictions there are none at all to be found. Again he saith. We give all Spiritual power to the church. And yet again. 
Pag 4. Pag. 5. 6.  The Spiritual government of the church is committed to Spiritual governors, as first from Chrsst to his twelve Apostles: from them to Bishops and Pastors their successors. How then can you without perjury swear, that the Prince being neither Bishop, nor Postor, is supreme governor in all things Spiritual? And yet more directly against the oath, and the statute, declaring the latitude of the power, given to the Prince in the oath before mentioned, he saith thus. As for Spiritual jurisdiction of the church, standing in examinations of controversies of faith, judging of heresies, deposing of heretics: excommunication of notorious and stubborn offenders, ordination of priests and deacons, institution and collation of benefices, and Spiritual cures etc. This we reserve entire to the church, which Princes cannot give, nor take from the chucrh. The Prince doth not meddle with the keys which God hath given to the church: 
Saith M. Mason pag. 113.  How this doctrine (which is true, though it be not the whole truth) can accord with the oath and statute mentioned, which giveth all this power to the Prince, passeth my capacity to conceive. Infinite other proofs of the contrariety of their doctrine, with the oath which they have sworn, might be brought: but till I see how they will reconcile, and satisfy these, I will spare farther labour.  
5. Both M. Carleton and M. Mason mention more than once, 
Vhi supra and M. Mason pa. 143.  an external coercitive ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which supremely (as they say) belongeth to the prince; whereby if they intent to satisfy the afore mentioned difficulty, and to reconcile their doctrine with their oath, they are far short of their purpose. For first this jurisdiction is so far from being any supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction that it is no way ecclesiastical, or Spiritual, not reaching to any Spiritual thing at all, but resting in the mere temporal, to wit the goods of nature, or fortune: as are life, liberty, lands, or goods, whereof the prince hath power to deprive, the declared obstinate contemners of the ecclesiastical ordinances, and censures, but not to judge of their cause or offence, as appeareth by their former doctrine. Now they know (if they know any thing in true Philosophy) that the nature, or quality of every power is measured by the object or thing, whereabout it is conversant, or whereunto it reacheth; so that this external coercitive power of the prince, reaching only to things temporal (for it toucheth no kind of Spiritual, or ecclesiastical thing, function, or action, as by M. carleton's doctrine before related is manifest) cannot by any means be Spiritual, or ecclesiastical, and much less can it be supreme in that kin●: Especially seeing it can neither reverse, nor control the Ecclesiastical judgement but only help to accomplish the same, by inflicting of temporal penalties where the ecclesiastical censures are contemned: Neither can it evoque unto it, the causes directly pertaining to the Spiritual court, or tribunal, but doth only receive the delinquents already judged thereby, to proceed with them according to the rigour of the thtemporal law.  
Secondly, though this jurisdiction were an ecclesiastical power (which is evidently false) yet would it not serve to excuse them from sacrilegious perjury, when they swear, that the prince is supreme governor in all things, and causes Spiritual and that he hath all jurisdiction and superiority Spiritual that by any Spiritual power hath hitherto or may lawfully be used, as the statut before mentioned expressly declareth.  
For there is as great falsity in this oath and statute (though the coercitive jurisdiction were granted to be Spiritual) as there would be in that, whereby any one should swear, that King james is sovereign lord over all the whole world. For as this oath is evidently false, notwithstanding that his majesty be truly sovereign lord of some part of the world, because he is not sovereign over the whole, so is also that whereby it is sworn, that the prince is supreme governor of all things, and causes Spiritual, though it were true, that he had the coercitive Spiritual, jurisdiction. And this is true not only in itself, but even in the doctrine of our English Protestants, who) as we have seen) teach, that there are many things, wherein the prince hath no power, or jurisdiction nor can have any.  
Hence it is evident, first how unlawful, even in the doctrine of the Protestants, themselves, the oath of supremacy is, being a manifest breach, of the second commandment of the first table, as not only taking the name of God in vain, as it happeneth in idle, and not necessary oaths though true, but also calling God to witness, and to testify a thing which they see and say to be evidently falls than which, can hardly be any greater offence committed by man.  
Secondly it is evident how unjustly the Bishops, Heath, Bonner, White, and the rest of their brethren, were deprived of their Bishoprics in Q. Elizabeth's time, for refusal of the same unlawful oath: and consequently, how manifest intruders they were, that were thrust into their places upon the same refusal, whereof we have spoken at large before.  
thirdly, how uncertain, and dangerous guides of souls these new prelate's are, that by their public suffrage in parliament first, and then by their own personal fact in swearing, have approved an oath, which by their averred and avowed doctrine is evidently false.  
6. The reason also of this so shameless, and wicked doubling, in a matter of so great moment, is worthy to be observed. For which purpose it is to be understood, that the new intendents of the new church and gospel, seeing that the oath, and statute of supremacy did discharge them of all subjection, and obedience to the church, and Bishop of Rome their true and lawful pastor, and thereby gave them liberty to bring into the Realm, their new doctrine and heresy, which without their separation from the unity of God's church, and casting of the yoke of obedience to their supreme pastor, they saw well they could never effect, they were willing, and ready not only to give way unto it, and to set it forward with their suffrages, but also to their own perpetual disgrace, and dishonour to swear thereunto themselves; I say to their own disgrace: For the temporal lords being by express act of parliament privileged, and exempted from taking the oath, they (the pretended Bishops I mean) did basely subject themselves thereunto, whereas the freedom, and privileges of the lords Spiritual were always equal, if not greater than those of the temporal lords. But they that had already broken league with God, and his church, for the setting forward of their own libertine fancies, not marvel though they made no difficulty, to mortgage their honour and reputation, for the gaining of their bishoprics. Having done this, and yet finding both by the little light of natural reason, that dark heresy had left unextinguished in them, and also by the unanswerable arguments, of their Catholic adversaries at home, together with the disavow of their most renowned reformed brethren abroad, as Caluin, Centurists, Chemnitius, and others, that their fact was no way to be justified, not nor coloured; they to make their double disloyalty to God and his church, their prince and country, known to all the world, publish in their printed books, that they mean nothing less, then to give to the prince supreme power, and jurisdiction in all things and causes Spiritual, which notwithstanding they swear unto in most express terms. For when they come to explicate, what supreme Spiritual; or ecclesiastical power the prince hath, they comprehend it all in an external coercitive power, by inflicting temporal penalties, which power is as much Spiritual, as oxen, horses, houses, lands, and man's life or liberty (to which things only this power doth reach, as is already noted) may be called Spiritual, so that they swear one thing, and teach the contrary. Now having noted this by the way, I will return to my former purpose, and prove, that our Protestant prelate's have as little jurisdiction from Christ, as they have from the prince, and consequently that they have none at all.  
6. The jurisdiction, which they pretend to receive immediately from Christ, they say they receive by the means of their episcopal consecration, 
Mason pag. 145.  as M. Mason expressly teacheth, and they must all say the same, having no other means whereby they may receive any jurisdiction. But our Protestant prelate's have no true episcopal consecration, as is already largely proved. Therefore have they not, 
Cap. 12.  nor can they have any jurisdiction from Christ. This argument (supposing the proofs of the nullity of their consecration to be effectual, as till they be effectually answered, which never willbe, they are to be esteemed) is unanswerable as well in itself, as in their own doctrine, which testifieth, that they have no other jurisdiction from Christ, but that which they receive by their episcopal consecration.  
But I will (for the more clear evicting of my purpose against them) suppose, contrary to the proved truth, that their consecration is good and canonical, and yet will I show, that they cannot have any jurisdiction from Christ. For the more easy and clear proof whereof, one or two grounds are to be laid before.  
First that the power of order, which is given by consecration is so distinct from the power of jurisdiction, that th'one may be without tother. This is manifest by the use of excommunication, suspension, deposition, and other censures (common as well with the Protestants as Catholics) which though they take away the jurisdiction from the parties, upon whom they are inflicted, and thereby make all the exercise of the power of order in them to be unlawful, yet do they leave entire the power of order, as M Mason often showeth, and they must all confess that allow the power of excommunication. Hence it is evident, that the power of jurisdiction cannot rightly be inferred, from the proof of the power of order, because this may be without that.  
secondly no crime doth either more justly, or evidently draw with it the censure of excommunication, and consequently the loss and deprivation of jurisdiction, than heresy or apostasy. For heretics are excommunicate by our saviours and the Apostles own mouths, 
Math. 18.17 Tit. 3.10.  who say he that will not hear the church let him be as a publican and heathen: and. Fly a man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition. Which is also so evident by the perpetual practice, of the most ancient church, that it would be imprudency to prove it.  
thirdly it is a received principle, and denied of none of common sense, that no man can give to another that, which he hath not himself; as for example, he that hath not a groat cannot give a groat to another. Evident therefore it is, that he that hath not jurisdiction himself, cannot possibly give it to another.  
Out of these evident and received grounds, I conclude by as evident deduction, that our new Intendents in England have no episcopal jurisdiction: though (as I said) it should be granted against the truth, that they were truly consecrated. Some may peradventure think, that I will make ruin argument in this sort.  
The pretended Bishops in England are condemned heretics.  
But all condemned heretics are excommunicated and thereby deprived of all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Therefore our pretended Bishops in England are excommunicated, and deprived of all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This argument indeed is clear, and every proposition thereof most true, yet because my adversaries will wrangle upon the first proposition, and deny themselves to be heretics, and here I intent not to enter any tedious dispute with them, 
Cap. 11. n. 7.  especially having convinced the same against them already, by four several arguments, which they can neither solve nor retort, I will here use an argument more free from all cavil, and no less effectual against them in this sort.  
If either the Protestant Prelates, or the Bishops of the Roman church; from whom they receive their consecration, be heretics, the Protestants can have no episcopal jurisdiction.  
But either the Protestant Prelates, or the Bishops of the Roman church are heretics? Therefore can the Protestant Prelates have no episcopal jurisdiction.  
The first proposition is clear by the grounds before mentioned, and is evidently deduced in this sort. If the Bishops of the Roman church, from whom our new intendents pretend to receive their consecration (as we have seen in this whole treatise) and consequently their episcopal jurisdiction, which they say they receive with their consecration, were heretics, they were excommunicate, and thereby did they lose their jurisdiction, which having lost, they could not give it to their Protestant successors, and if the Protestant intendents were heretics, they could receive no jurisdiction for the same reason: So that the first proposition is clear: the second is without all debatable controversy; The conclusion followeth naturally, and necessarily of the premises: Therefore the whole argument, where by it is concluded, that the Protestant intendents have no Episcopal jurisdiction, is evidently clear.  
7. And now will I wind up, our whole dispute with our English Protestant Prelates, in this short and perspicuous argument.  
The whole ecclesiastical power of Bishops and pastors consisteth of the power of order, and the power of jurisdiction. But the English Protestant Prelates have neither power of order, nor jurisdiction. Therefore have they no part of ecclesiastical power. The first proposition is clear, and denied of no English Protestant, the second hath been proved by sundry arguments, which never will have any true, or effectual answer or solution, the conclusion is necessary, supposing the truth of the premises. And therefore do our English pretended Bishops remain, proved no Bishops, not nor ecclesiastical persons, but mere lay men.  
The consequences that necessarily follow hereupon are briefly deduced in the later end of the precedent chap. n. 29. turn back thither and see them.  
8. And now for a farewell to M. Mason, I would know of him, how he can justify the descent, and succession of their Bishops, from those of the Roman church, who had their jurisdiction from the see of Rome, 
●. Eliza. 1.  without incurring the praemunire; this being a manifest defending, and acknowledging of the lawful power of the Bishop, and see of Rome in England, at lest for the time past. Whence it farther followeth, that if it was ever lawful, it is, or at lest aught to be lawful now, and ever hereafter. For if the Bishop of Rome ever had any lawful power in England (as doubtless he had, and M. Mason must needs grant it, unless he will frustrate his whole proof of their lawful succession, from the Bishops of the Roman church) he had it by such power, as cannot by temporal laws be impaired, or taken away. M. Mason therefore is to advise with himself, whether he will quit, and renounce the proof of their consecration, and vocation, taken from their succession to the Catholic Bishops, (the only true proof, of the lawful calling of Ecclesiastical pastors) or standing thereunto, will incur the danger of praemunire; which, if he should found but equal judges, I think he would not easily avoid, as neither his directors, or abbertors in this work, whose penalty in these cases are known, to be like, with that of the principal offender. He and they may peradventure rely, upon the grace of the prince for their pardons: which truly I do not envy them, but think they have in some sort deserved favour, not having committed this transgression altogether voluntarily, but upon a certain necessity, not finding any other means, to maintain the calling of their new ministery. Yet I thought good to let them know, that the world taketh notice of such a repugnancy in their ministery, even with their own parliament laws, that it cannot be maintained without the transgression of them: which manifestly argueth, that either their laws are unjust, or their ministery unlawful I say either, not because both may not be, or de facto are not, but because th'one is infallibly inferred, upon the repugnance found betwixt them.  
9 Some may peradventure think, that to the full accomplishment of this treatise, should be added some proof, of the true calling of the Catholic pastors, because it is not a sufficient establishment of the truth in this point, as likewise in none other, to have rejected, and refuted that which is false, unless the truth be also made manifest. But we are quit of this travail by our adversaries themselves, who pleading, that their best right, and title to episcopal calling, is received from our Bishops of the Roman church, must necessarily confess, that they have at lest sufficient calling, (for it is otherways altogether unpossible, they should derive it unto them) with which acknowledgement we are content for this time, especially having already justified the same calling in that point of a sacrificing power, and priesthood, which is the chief, or only thing they carp at in the same. And though this justification of the calling of the Catholic Bishops, and pastors, might be sufficient, yet will I add farther and above, this brief argument.  
10. The Bishops of the Catholic Roman church have the same calling, which the Apostles delivered unto their immediate successors. But they delivered to their successors the true, and lawful calling. Therefore the Bishops of the Catholic Roman church have the true, and lawful calling.  
The first proposition (which being made good the whole argument is evident) is thus proved. The Bishops of the Catholic Roman church receive their calling, by not interrupted succession from the Apostles: which our adversaries can with no more reason deny, than they can deny, that the same sun, which God created in the beginning of the world, doth now shine unto us, but that it is some other made since; unless they can show when, where, and by whom this other calling, which they pretend to be now in the Roman church was brought in, which they can no more do, than they can show the change of the sun. Therefore doth it remain clear, that the calling of the Catholic Bishops is the same, which the Apostles delivered to their immediate successors, and consequently the true and lawful calling. When this argument shallbe solved by any other answer, then may in the same manner be applied, to the instance made of the change of the sun, I will confess it to be satisfied; till then, I shall esteem it unanswerable, and consequently, the calling of the Catholic Bishops thereby invincibly proved.    

THE CONCLUSION TO THE CAREFUL READER.  
HAVING thus showed (careful Reader) that no sect or sort of Protestants, or those that falsely pretend the reformation of the Catholic Roman religion in these our days, have any true Pastors or teachers, and namely that those who now bear the names of Bishops in England are no true or lawful Bishops, but mere usurpers of that title, and consequently that all the inferior Pastors, Preachers, or Ministers ordered or sent by them, have no manner of lawful calling or commission to preach or Minister God's word, or Sacraments to his people, but are such as the holy scriptures call false Prophets, thieves, robbers, and wolves, if thou hast but the lest sense, care, or feeling of thine own eternal salvation (which if thou shouldest lose, it were better for thee a thousand times that thou hadst never been borne) thou wilt quickly and carefully provide, that thou do not live and die a member or professor of any one of those sects. For seeing it is a truth, both most evident in itself, and confessed by all Protestants of what pretended reformation soever, that where there are no true or lawful Pastors, there can be no true church (the church being no other thing then the sheep united with the Pastor, or the people with their Bishop) and further that where there is no true church there can be no true faith (the church being the house of God, the pillar and ground of truth,) as witnesseth S. Paul. 
1. ad Timoth● 3 14.  And yet further that where there is no true faith, there can be no true mean of Salvation (S. Paul also teaching that, 
Ad Hebr. 11.6.  without true faith it is impossible to please God:) These things I say, being both evident in themselves, and confessed by all Protestants, thou canst not be so blind as to think that thou mayst found thy salvation amongst any sect of Protestants, who are so evidently proved to have no Pastors. And so desiring in thee no other disposition to come to the true knowledge of the mean to save thy soul, then only an effectual desire to save it, with a competent consideration of the points here briefly deduced, I leave thee to Gods most holy grace, who hath not only made thee to his own Image, but hath redeemed thee with the most precious blood of his only Son, and this neither for any profit of his, or merit of thine, but for his own goodness, and that thou mayst be a saved soul in his eternal kingdom, where I beseech God we may once meet.  
FINIS.   

COurteous Reader, the aùthors' absence from the press having caused divers escapes in the print, be pleased to use the observations following, for the correction of the most and chiefest of them.  
Page 14. the three first lines are to be read as a marginal note, and not as pertaining to the text.  
pag. 217. is the deposition of Abiathar by Solomon spoken of, which by error is repeated again pag. 238.  
For the rest note, that the fault is not expressed in this table, but the correction only, the letter r. signifying, Read, the letter. e. the number of lines, not from the beginning, but from the end of the page.  
The Ciphers of the pages from 89. unto 100 are false, and 196. and 266. and 315.  

Faults in the text.  
PAge 5. lin. from. the end 7. r. we will wittingly. p. 6. l. 1. put out, observeth. p. 7. l. 7. e. r. institution. p. 10. l. 3. r. prosecuted, pag. 13. l. 10. r. ministery. p. 16. l. 16 e. wanteth a full point. before (we) p 18. l. 1. n. answer. p. 25. l. 13. e. r. how severe. p. 32. l. 9 e. put out (no). p. 34. l. 23. r. Roman. p. 35. l. 8. e. r. easily. p. 38. l. 14. e. r. must needs do, that, p. 39 l. 13. e. r. these. p. 47. l. 5. r. always joined. p. 48. l. 6. r. condign. p. 50. l. 19 r. what. p. 50. l. 3. e. r. true. p. 53. l. 5. r. thrust. p. 53. l. 9 r. then thy. p. 55. l. 6. e. r. ordain. p. 56. l. 18. e. put out (as). p. 57 l. 5. e. r. now. p. 59 l. 13. r. nor take. p. 67. l. 3. e. r. Arius. p. 73. l. 7. r. hath heard. p. 74. l. 4. r. 1500. years. p. 77. l. 15. e. r. or government. p. 86. l. 17. e. r. seeing. p. 93. l. 6. e. r. I wis. l 3. r. doth quite. p. 94. l. 1. r. source. p. 97. l. 7. r. either. p. 97. l. 3. e. r. and. therefore. p. 107. l. 7. r. not interrupted. p. 111. l. 4. r. The reason. p. 115. l. 11. e. r. separated from. p. 116. l. 17. r. M. Mason, and so ever after. p. 116. l. 9 e. r. now are. p. 132. l. 4. r. or brand. p. 156. l. 15. r. the whole. p. 159. l. 5. r. do consist. p. 161. l. 20. r. was ever. p. 161. l. 3. e r. Richard Shilders. p. 162. l. 9 r. teacheth that. p. 165. l. 9 put out (in their doctrine) p. 169. l. 4. r. judge Dyar. p. 171. l. 10. r. insufficient. p. 172. l. 12. e. r. presumptuous law. p. 173. l. 9 r. further. p. 173. l. 13. e. r. and the manner. p. 174. l. 9 e. r. any quirk. p. 175. l. 14. e. r. th●nke it. p. 176. l. 13. r. against her. p. 177. l. 16. r not leave. l. 8 e. after (speak) want these words (more by and by, and namely when we come to speak) p. 183. l. 8. r. began to be. p. 187. l. 7. e. r. Poynet. p. 189. l. 1. r. purity of the gospel. p. 191. l. 2. e. r. one half proof. p. 196. l. 6. r. he had already. p. 203. l. 11. r. sees. l. 14. r. Cox. l. 2. e. r. bring one out. p. 207. l. 18. e. r. may not. p. 213. l. 3. e. r. condemned. p. 217. l. 4. e. r. I will remit the reader to the Chapter following and to the last Chapter. p. 223. l. 11. e, r, he can. p. 236. l. 7. e. r. hosts. p. 237. l. ●. being not able. l. 14. r. lawful use. p. 24● l. 11. r. how far the power of the keys. p. 253. l. 5. e. r. is also true. p. 26●. l. 21. r. antithesis. p. 262. l. 10. e. r. law written, but also to the Gentiles in the law of nature. p. 264. l. 17. e. r. and owes. p. 265. l. 4. e. r. doth evidently. p. 266, l, 15. r. at last. p. 267. l. 17. r. are like l. 15. e. r. there are. p. 270. l. 15. e. r. a torn coat. p. 271. l. 2. e. r. tother reproved. p. 272. l. 20. r. being thus understood. l. 15. e. put out (conformity with true reason) l. 2. e. r. his last supper. p. 280. l. 9 r. letter S. l. 11. r. incorrupt antiquity. p. 283. l. 6. r. ijs qui, l. 15. e. r. 1270. years. l. 1. e. r. rogamns te. p. 286. l. 6. r. past. l. 12. r. & divinitati. p. 290. l. 7. e. r. orantes. p. 292. l. 15. r. tanta fidelium. p. 310. l. 9 r. which way. p. 311. l. 13. e. r. in the strict, p. 314. l. 16. r. collation, p. 316. l. 9 r. her dominions, l. 19 e. r. to give unto her, p. 317. l. 11. r. articles agreed upon in the convocation. p. 323. l. 14. r. make mine.   

Faults in the margin.  
PAg. 71. r q. Armenor. ibidem for. g. 9 r. q. 9 p. 78. in the citation of Illiricus r. 730. 731. p. 116. r. Ezechiel. 13. 11. p. 142. r. 81. p. 143. r. act. 1. p. 213. r. orat. ad cives timore epist. 32. p. 234. r. is from god but what then? will it follow that human reason. p. 235. r.. 22. p. 248. r. 209. p. 273. wanteth the quotation of Ireneus. l. 4. C. 32. p. 283. r. orat. p. 291. add the quotation of S. Augustine ser. 32. in verb● apostoli ad Thessalonicenses. p. 293. r. unanswerable apology. p. 297. r. ad Hebr. 7, sect. 6.